Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘Iravin Nizhal’ movie review: R Parthiban’s breathtaking single-shot film is a remarkable technical achievement

Published

on

‘Iravin Nizhal’ movie review: R Parthiban’s breathtaking single-shot film is a remarkable technical achievement

What Parthiban, Arthur Wilson and their group have achieved — even when it went for 23 takes — is nothing wanting phenomenal. They’re certain to wow the Nationwide Awards committee

What Parthiban, Arthur Wilson and their group have achieved — even when it went for 23 takes — is nothing wanting phenomenal. They’re certain to wow the Nationwide Awards committee

A single-shot movie creates an phantasm of continuity of time and area, like in actual life. This ‘phantasm’ or reasonably the method employed to make the movie look seamless is commonly dismissed as gimmickry — whether or not it’s Hitchcock’s Rope or Sam Mendes’ 1917. Most often, single-shot is a fable that filmmakers create as a way to distract the viewers from noticing the cuts, not like, say, Don Palathara’s Santhoshathinte Onnam Rahayasam which was really shot like a steady movie. In some circumstances, you can’t even guess these invisible cuts. For a single-shot movie to work, the filmmaker has to maintain this phantasm of continuity.

And it isn’t a coincidence that Parthiban’s Iravin Nizhal opens with a mirage: distorting photographs with lights and shadows tumble out, as Rahman’s haunting ‘Kaayam’ performs within the background. However, not like the famously shot one-take movies, there isn’t a modifying gimmickry concerned in Iravin Nizhal. Earlier than the movie begins, a 30-minute video is proven for example this level.

Single-shot movies are so advanced to execute that it begs us to ask this query: does this story warrant to be informed on this format — like a single, unbroken shot? However that’s the alternative of the filmmaker and now we have to solely assess what we see on display screen and whether or not it’s working or not. One of many earliest and traditional examples of a single-shot movie is Rope, which Hitchcock as soon as stated, “ was an experiment that didn’t work out”. Hitchcock was so enamoured by the play that he determined to make Rope as a single-shot movie, maybe, as a way to maintain the suspense amongst the viewers.

Advertisement

Rope is an efficient instance to know Iravin Nizhal. The latter too, unfolds like a lavish Broadway theatrical manufacturing. However the primary distinction is, in a play, issues unfold in actual time for an viewers. Nonetheless, within the movie format, the digicam’s gaze turns into the viewers’s. In that sense, Iravin Nizhal is a movie that downloads proper in entrance of our eyes identical to a play, and the viewers’s engagement stays important. However there’s a catch in that too. We miss an important a part of the digicam when it takes the viewers’s viewpoint: focus.

Solely a handful of filmmakers have dared to make a movie appear to be one steady shot, given the variety of logistical nightmares concerned. However even these movies have been centred round huge areas or at the least had the elbow room for the cameraperson. Each shot in Iravin Nizhal comes with a recent set of challenges — for the cinematographer, set operators, assistant administrators and actors. In regards to the composition of Birdman, its cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki was quoted in The Hollywood Reporter as saying. “We created the transitions by rehearsing; for the harder ones, we needed to have visible results.” 

A nonetheless from ‘Iravin Nizhal’
| Photograph Credit score: Particular Association

Iravin Nizhal doesn’t use visible results but it surely does comply with an identical method. Movies like Rope, Birdman and 1917 are shot like a steady movie with a sequence of lengthy pictures, stitched collectively on the modifying desk. These ‘invisible’ cuts aren’t noticeable to our bare eyes. However Parthiban employs a brand new method to this modifying transitions, whereby the digicam’s gaze pauses, fixedly at a picture for a number of seconds giving the actors and set operators a respiratory room, to prepare for the subsequent scene, subsequent set piece — all in a matter of some seconds. Sounds loopy? Ridiculous? There’s a catch in that too.

In the identical interview, Lubezki talks in regards to the lighting complication they confronted. “Lighting Michael at his make-up mirror will create a shadow a minute later if we transfer across the room. So we needed to time all the lighting adjustments, ensuring you don’t see shadows.” Iravin Nizhal’s set consists of 59 little blocks like a maze. Its frames are crowded with folks, props and set items that additional complicates Arthur Wilson’s job. For, he has to hold the Sony Venice digicam on his shoulder for 100 minutes, with so many landmines. Even when one actor goes out of focus or if the digicam topples, or in the event that they don’t get the lighting proper, it’s again to sq. one. Briefly, what Parthiban, Wilson and their group have achieved — even when it went for 23 takes — is nothing wanting phenomenal. They’re certain to wow the Nationwide Awards committee.

Advertisement

The concept for Iravin Nizhal is that this: a bruised man in his 50s rummages by previous reminiscences, whereas on his strategy to settle issues with an previous acquaintance. We get a way of his life by the reminiscences that unfold in a disorderly style. For a movie that has a excessive diploma of problem to drag off, it requires tons of persistence and perception. Not simply Parthiban however his actors too, want to take care of a optimistic state of mind, even when they have been to take the blame for shedding a take.

Parthiban can be human. He loses his cool when somebody screws up within the 90-something minute, after they don’t press a button correctly. Which suggests they’ve to begin once more — from the start. We see Parthiban bursting him. However as a result of the director is wise, he turns this goof up right into a pure second within the movie.

A scene from ‘Iravin Nizhal’

A scene from ‘Iravin Nizhal’
| Photograph Credit score: Particular Association

There are quintessential Parthiban issues that basically stand out. A personality is on the way in which to kill the ghost of the previous. He enters the graveyard by a gap he breaks open in a wall, whereas we hear a child’s wail within the background — as if a metaphor on him returning to mom’s womb. A person who has solely seen downers in life, forcing him to cease believing in God or hope, has a daughter named Arputham. She calls him ‘thappa’ as a substitute of ‘appa’, as if a reminder of who he’s: somebody who received on the improper facet.

Posing like Orson Welles with a hat in The Third Man, the protagonist of Iravin Nizhal is afraid of his personal reflection, personal shadow. There’s that trademark wordplay between amman (goddess) and ammanam (nude), mangalam undagattum (might you prosper) and undagirukken (I’m pregnant). Six o’ clock is pronounced intercourse o’clock to focus on somebody’s post-evening rituals. There’s a joke linking motherhood and marital rape that doesn’t land effectively. However that’s the factor, the ladies we meet are both handled as goddesses or vamps. There’s a shot of a child mendacity on his useless mom’s breast, wailing in starvation. He’s a product of an extramarital affair and he begins to surprise if he was breastfeed milk or poison [fortunately, Parthiban arranged a special screening. We saw the uncensored version].

Advertisement

Iravin Nizhal

Solid: R Parthiban, Priyanka Ruth, Brigida Saga, Anandha Krishnan, Varalaxmi Sarathkumar and Robo Shankar

Director: R Parthiban

Technical group: Arthur A Wilson (cinematography), R Parthiban (modifying), AR Rahman (music), Vijai Murugan (artwork path), Kunal Rajan and Craig Mann (sound design)

A movie’s benefit can’t, shouldn’t be restricted to it being the ‘first’ of many. When Hitchcock made Rope, the movie’s benefit was not simply it being shot as a steady movie. Likewise, the point of interest of Iravin Nizhal shouldn’t simply be the single-shot facet; what the filmmaker does throughout the format is essential too.

Advertisement

It’s like this: throughout the constraints of time and area, you’ll be able to both make an excellent single-shot movie or make a single-shot movie look excellent. Parthiban, sadly, takes the latter route. Don’t get me improper. Iravin Nizhal, with out an oz. of doubt, is a exceptional technical achievement whereby Parthiban flexes his directorial prowess. However past the stamp of ‘world’s first nonlinear single-shot movie’, does it go away you with a healthful feeling of getting witnessed one thing particular? Sure, for its ambition; no, for what’s edited out [Parthiban says this is a film edited during the writing stage]. 

The writing is just not slender — however the manufacturing is, so, every thing needs to be accommodated maintaining the set design in thoughts. Because of this onslaught, some moments — like a personality’s affair or when somebody dies by immolation, or when Parthiban makes use of voiceover as a tool to refill narrative gaps — wanted elaborate staging and higher emotional payoff. Typically quite a bit is packed within the body that you simply want there was somewhat extra pacing [Rahman’s gentle music does this for the most part] and coherence between the scenes. For a mean viewer, this may not be an issue. However for us movie writers, it comes throughout as too straightforward, too handy at instances. Nonetheless, Parthiban does dare to dream huge. He appears to take pleasure in taking dangers, outdoing himself. Maintain daring, Parthiban.

Iravin Nizhal releases in theatres this Friday

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

No Such Person: identity theft scams in Hong Kong mystery thriller

Published

on

No Such Person: identity theft scams in Hong Kong mystery thriller

3/5 stars

No Such Person is a rarity in Hong Kong cinema nowadays: a low-budget, purely commercial production with a no-name ensemble cast and minimal artistic flair whose producers nevertheless believe it can attract an audience with its attentive storytelling.

Revolving around the nefarious activities that take place in an illegally-run subdivided apartment, the mystery drama marks the latest stab at fashioning a twisty thriller by Christopher Sun Lap-key (Deception of the Novelist), who remains best known to many as the director of the 2011 travesty 3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy.

The film opens with a brief scene in which two people, purporting to be church officials, take over a vacant space in an old tenement building. It then jumps nine months ahead to follow young woman Amber (Kaylee Yu Hoi-ki) as she begins renting a furnished room in a property owned by Ray (Terry Zou Wenzheng), who claims to be a veterinary surgeon.

In the next scene, police are notifying the parents of a woman whose body has been found under a cliff along a hiking trail in a Hong Kong country park.

And then we’re back to learn more about those occupying the rooms next to Amber’s: Sisi (Winnie Chan Wing-nei), a live-streamer who produces sexually charged content for her audience; Ming (Himmy Wong Ting-him), a stock market speculator in deep financial trouble; and Ping (May Leong Cheok-mei), a creepy old lady who sells second-hand items on the streets.

Advertisement

From there, No Such Person gradually reveals the predicament of Amber, a former yoga teacher who appears to be in some emotional distress; the mystery surrounding Ray’s premises and the characters’ ulterior motives provide much of the intrigue.

Himmy Wong as Ming, a stock market speculator, in a still from No Such Person.

Despite the film being set in a subdivided flat – a mainstay of Hong Kong social realist dramas – and having as its subject matter the prevalent social phenomenon of identity theft scams, Sun and his screenwriter Chen Hang have no ambitions beyond serving up a modest slice of B-movie entertainment.

Their film drip-feeds just enough information to keep the viewer engaged, before an escalation in the final act reveals the ungodly nature of the whole enterprise.

Even then, the visual depictions of sex and gore remain tame – which is probably more a reflection of the production’s limited scale than of a penchant for restraint on the part of Sun.

Its story is not as clever as the filmmakers intend it to be, and the sleazy nature of its revelations betrays Sun’s roots as a director and producer of erotic movies. Yet No Such Person is diverting enough for those who watch it with an open mind.

Advertisement
Terry Zou (left) as Ray and Kaylee Yu as Amber in a still from No Such Person.

At the risk of damning it with faint praise, the film feels different from most Hong Kong productions we’re getting to see these days – and that does make No Such Person a welcome addition to the canon in spite of its many flaws.

Want more articles like this? Follow SCMP Film on Facebook
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Sight (2024) – Movie Review

Published

on

Sight (2024) – Movie Review

Sight, 2024.

Directed by Andrew Hyatt.
Starring Terry Chen, Greg Kinnear, Fionnula Flanagan, Wai Ching Ho, Raymond Ma, Ben Wang, Jayden Zhang, Donald Heng, Jennifer Juniper Angeli, Natalie Skye, Danni Wang, Natasha Mumba, Mia SwamiNathan, Esabella Anna Karena Strickland, Sky Kao, Ken Godmere, Corey Turner, Jeffrey Pai, Sara Ye, Kenneth Liu, Ryan Cowie, Tara Burnett, Aidan Wang, Peter Anderson, Peter Chan, Kelvin Luo, and Garland Chang.

SYNOPSIS:

When a blind orphan arrives in his waiting room seeking a miracle, a world-renowned eye surgeon must confront his past and draw on the resilience he gained growing up in China during the Cultural Revolution to try to restore her sight.

Advertisement

Well-intentioned but clunkily structured and edited (the film doesn’t necessarily have an ending but rather an abrupt fade and transition into one of the usual Angel studio pay-it-forward advertisements), Sight tells a story about how the past and present inform one another, yet is so sprawling in its attempt to do so that nearly every section comes across as streamlined, forced, corny, and overly cloying. 

There’s too much ground to cover in 100 minutes, so every plot point, whether it be a look at the Cultural Revolution in 1970s China and survivor’s guilt of not fulfilling a promise, a breakthrough in curing blindness, the personal life of renowned eye surgeon Dr. Ming Wang (an expressive, affecting performance from Terry Chen) who found success in America, out of place comedic anecdotes involving his family, a puzzling disinterest in characterizing young orphaned Indian girl Kajal (Mia SwamiNathan) inspirational to his life who was blinded at the hands of her mother pouring sulfuric acid to make life more sympathetic as a street beggar (that’s a whole movie right there begging to be made), or some weak third act love interest material with a bartender, director Andrew Hyatt (co-writing the screenplay alongside John Duigan and Buzz McLaughlin, based on the autobiography of that trailblazing doctor) ends up with stale, unimpressionable Wikipedia style filmmaking that would somehow put similar fare to shame.

The more is more approach to storytelling prevents the film from ever settling into a moment or rhythm, meaning the intended emotional punches never hit. Admittedly, there are serviceable performances and the heartwarming true story factor. However, even that is undercut during the ending credits, which makes the usual biopic choice to insert some pictures and footage showcasing bits and pieces of the events that unfolded; it’s moving and suggests that the stronger route might have been through making a documentary.

Stylistic choices, such as having Dr. Ming Wang hallucinating haunting visions of his past as if egging him on to not give up on the children and to keep at it making headway on scientific breakthroughs, feel awkward in a grounded film such as this. The real story doesn’t need that kind of hokey, dramatic elevation; it would be compelling if the filmmakers figured out what to focus on. One portion is a mildly interesting look at scientific trial and error with Dr. Ming Wang experimenting alongside his trusted associate Dr. Misha Bartnovsky (a reliable Greg Kinnear, supportive and amusing); another is a baffling sitcom complete with a bumbling brother failing at entrepreneurship, and then there is a small slice of showing how the good doctor met his eventual wife (lovely, but hardly necessary here), all while flashbacks are rapidly unfolding without a chance to settle into a place and time.

Meanwhile, one wonders how Sight would have turned out if it actually played up the connection between the blind patient and the metaphorically blind doctor, uncertain of how to move forward in his future rather than moving it as something to spell out during the last 10 minutes. It’s reductive that the filmmakers only see Kajal as a source of inspiration, not a fully fleshed-out person, a trope that has plagued disability-centric stories for ages. Likewise, the exploration of Communist China is also surface level and deserving of stronger treatment. Essentially, Sight lacks cohesive vision.

Advertisement

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association and the Critics Choice Association. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Check here for new reviews, follow my Twitter or Letterboxd, or email me at MetalGearSolid719@gmail.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Hit Man (2024) – Movie Review

Published

on

Hit Man (2024) – Movie Review

Hit Man, 2024.

Directed by Richard Linklater.
Starring Glen Powell, Adria Arjona, Austin Amelio, Retta, Sanjay Rao, Molly Bernard, Evan Holtzman, Mike Markoff, Ritchie Montgomery, Kate Adair, Beth Bartley, Morgana Shaw, Richard Robichaux, Bryant Carroll, Stephanie Hong, Gralen Bryant Banks, Jonas Lerway, Murphee Bloom, KC Simms, Jordan Joseph, Joel Griffin, and Garrison Allen.

SYNOPSIS:

A professor moonlighting as a hit man of sorts for his city police department, descends into dangerous, dubious territory when he finds himself attracted to a woman who enlists his services.

Advertisement

Exploring murder as a crime of passionate love, personalities altering across adulthood, who and what danger truly comes from, the spontaneous urge to hire a professional killer (with the mythology of the entire fake profession deconstructed and picked apart), and a study of how to balance the id and the ego, co-writer/director Richard Linklater’s Hit Man (loosely based on a true story magazine article from Skip Hollandsworth, and star Glenn Powell assisting with screenplay duties), this film is much more than the vehicle for sizzling chemistry founded on erotic danger material that its two leads kill with command.

Skillfully wading between genres, Hit Man begins as a situational comedy about boring philosophy studies college professor Gary Johnson (Glenn Powell), who returns home from work to feed his birds (also knowledgeable and obsessed with them) and cat while casually having dinner at a pathetic but hilariously constructed one-person dinner table inside a mostly empty kitchen. Gary also does sting operations undercover for the police on the side, except his role in those operations is promoted to the field once the temperamental Jasper (Austin Amelio) storms onto the scene complaining about cancer culture, having been suspended for physically attacking some teenagers who “deserved it ” on the job.

This allows Gary to become Ron, or rather, the “constantly aggressive,” hardened, cold-blooded killer who couldn’t be any more opposite from his otherwise nerdy, well-articulated, loner real self. Gary comes across as so lame that during a brief reunion with his ex-wife (Molly Bernard), she almost seems disappointed that their marriage was apparently so loveless he never entertained the idea of putting a hit out on her if things went south or generally killing for love.

Nevertheless, Gary finds within himself a more charismatic, twistedly imaginative, likable badass easily capable of easing strangers meeting him in random locations to lower their guard and incriminate themselves into premeditated murder over a wire. At the same time, we are consistently amused observing the cuckoo, zany individuals desperate enough to resort to such an arrangement under the impression it will fix all the problems. It is equally funny that Ron switches up his wardrobe to appeal to different types of people seeking his supposed service, experimenting more with finding his true identity.

However, what happens when someone (Adria Arjona) doesn’t just bring an envelope filled with money to the meeting but a genuinely depressing story about an abusive husband who possibly does deserve to be whacked? It’s a brilliant inversion of what we have been watching up until this point, switching the proceedings from comedy to the aforementioned superheated romantic thrills as fake hitman continues to enjoy the more positive perception people bestow upon him as Ron by using that false identity to get closer to this woman, named Madison, while also giving her some rules to adhere to regarding entering a relationship with a professional killer. 

Advertisement

That shift largely works due to the performances from Glenn Powell and Adria Arjona (who seems to have mostly had smaller roles in blockbusters until this breakthrough, revelatory performance), delivering lines with suave and seduction. Small physical tics in the performances elevate that magnetism, whether it be the opening of an alcoholic bottle mid-sentence and mid-stare, a perfectly timed and corny one-liner, or actors always aware of what the character should be feeling and how they should react in a given scene. There is a moment where Ron does encounter the toxic boyfriend (Evan Holtzman), instantly turning fearful but also regaining that composure the second her new boyfriend whips out a gun. 

Most importantly, the snappy screenplay allows viewers to buy into the initially absurd idea that Madison would be comfortable around a killer, even if we know Gary/Ron has never actually done such a thing. She has been around someone legitimately abusive who has caused her immense emotional and psychological pain, so in her mind, how much worse could it be getting close to a professional killer if he is actually a compassionate human being to her outside that job? Ron even puts it to her in the best terms; he’s a people person outside this line of work.

Hit Man also has its share of convenient, strictly movie moments, although they never threaten to jeopardize or tear down the absorbing character work behind the simmering attraction. The third act does transition into a thriller where an actual murder is in the picture, which makes for a noticeable small drop off in the introspection on identity, but Richard Linklater and the company also find ways to make that refreshing and exhilarating, most notably in an electric sequence involving what amounts to role-play on top of role-play. More to the point, nearly every single moment of Hit Man, well, hits. It is high-voltage fun, armed with smarts, sexiness, showiness, and substance.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★ ★

Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association and the Critics Choice Association. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Check here for new reviews, follow my Twitter or Letterboxd, or email me at MetalGearSolid719@gmail.com

Advertisement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

 

Continue Reading

Trending