Red Riding Trilogy
Posted 26 February 2010 - 02:31 PM
Posted 26 February 2010 - 03:23 PM
Edited by Baal_T'shuvah, 26 February 2010 - 03:26 PM.
Posted 26 February 2010 - 04:28 PM
I am greatly looking forward to it some day.
FWIW, from the Jan/Feb 2010 Filmcomment:
Tony Grisoni adapted 1974 from the first novel in David Peace's "Red Riding Quartet," named for a Grimm's fairytale, the color of blood, and the West Riding district of Yorkshire. He also adapted 1977, which wasn't filmed; 1980, which was directed by James Marsh; and 1983, directed by Anand Tucker. The absence of 1977 doesn't dilute the overall intensity, but producer Andrew Eaton still hopes to greenlight it once Ridley Scott has completed his American Feature adaptation of the entire quartet. It's been mooted that Scott's film will be set in a run-down industrial state such as Pennsylvania, but whether the screenwriter, Steve Zaillian, will feel obliged to replicate the fierce regionalism of Peace's novels, as did Grisoni, is another matter.
Trailer looks awesome:
Also for the search: Julian Jarrold
Edited by Persona, 26 February 2010 - 04:32 PM.
Posted 27 February 2010 - 03:34 AM
Posted 27 February 2010 - 01:33 PM
Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:41 PM
When the Red Riding trilogy hit my neck of the woods this year, all three films showed up for one week and one week only, and then they were gone. It's a terrible marketing strategy. Why would you show interest in seeing 1974, the first film in the trilogy, if you knew that if you liked it you'd have to cram hard to get to a theater twice more in the same week? Who plans a week for a trilogy when they don't even know from the first film whether the following two garner interest?
With such a horrible marketing strategy it seems the trilogy is more suited for Americans to see on DVD. The three DVDs came out this week, and I made sure to throw them in the top of my queue.
Judging from the first film I would have been very conflicted about the next two had I had to face that week of the trilogy in theaters. I simply can't tell from the first one whether this is going to be worth an investment of my time.
Ebert compared the films to the Italian epic The Best of Youth. In terms of the time invested, I guess the comparison is apt enough. For those six hours you had to plan two trips to the theater, but the comparison ends there. The Best of Youth was up and down, all over the place emotionally, full of the highs and lows of life, the greatest joys and the bleakest despairs, but like most of life there was always an upside to the many downs.
After 1974, I am persuaded that Yorkshire is a county full of people of bleak despair, and nothing but.
I guess I should take into account the subject matter. Maybe a serial killer in the neighborhood really would make this an awful place to live. And maybe the rampant police and civil corruption of the early to mid-1970s would add to the bottom-of-the-barrel feel of all the characters in this film. But -- yuck. Are the next four hours going to be as icky as this?
The trilogy is loosely based on the Yorkshire Ripper, a serial killer who took thirteen lives in England between 1975-1980. It is a very real case which lit up the community, landing the killer in prison for life and causing quite a stir at the corruption and ineptness of the West Yorkshire police force. 1974 follows young reporter Eddie (Andrew Garfield) who seems to be the only one who wants to bring the killer to justice, but I'm sure he wants a way into covering the hottest case in town, too.
It's not that it's not an interesting story, because it is, and it's not that it's not told really well, because there are exceptional moments. In the beginning we're focused solely on the story of the Yorkshire Ripper, not even fully convinced of his existence, but as the film progresses we lose that focus and a new mystery begins to emerge. We never return to the original mystery. In the end, we seem to, but we're somewhat sure we actually haven't. And that narrative ambiguity makes its way into the acting, the choreography and the general atmosphere as well. There are moments of utter lostness, hallucinogenic, like groping in the dark. The grainy, organic 16mm feel suits this fictional film based on a true-to-life serial killer.
But it is miserably hopeless, and that's why I'm having difficulty deciding whether it is actually going to be worth it or not.
Originally broadcast on BBC TV, the trilogy is made by three different directors in three different formats (the next two films are shot on 35mm and digital video, respectively). I know I'll make it through at least the second film in the trilogy, because 1980 is directed by James Marsh, and I loved his documentaries Man on Wire and Wisconsin Death Trip. The completist in me will most likely want to see the third once I've seen the first two. I guess I'll continue reporting as I go.
Posted 21 September 2010 - 07:12 AM
Posted 21 September 2010 - 07:24 AM
I considered that, but decided the subtitles really help with this one.
The three films are also on Netflix's Watch Instantly.
Posted 21 September 2010 - 10:04 AM
So my UK history is messed up. Now I wonder whether the serial killer from 1974 is also based in reality, and if so, wow. What a brutal period of time to live in this place. And if that serial killer was also based in reality, I wonder if he was ever caught, because 1980 moves right into the police investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper.
Edited by Persona, 21 September 2010 - 10:06 AM.
Posted 21 September 2010 - 10:34 AM
And if that serial killer was also based in reality, I wonder if he was ever caught, because 1980 moves right into the police investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper.
I thought it was
I've got to re-watch the first movie; my Netflix streaming has been touch-and-go lately and I've not had much luck watching complete movies. But I recall liking it well enough, even if the overall experience left me desperately depressed.
Posted 21 September 2010 - 11:12 AM
In any case, we're still discussing the film, which is good to try and piece together, but I'd really like to find out whether this part of the trilogy is based on a real case. I'll poke around with it later and see if I can find something.
Posted 21 September 2010 - 11:39 AM
Posted 21 September 2010 - 11:51 AM
I think I need to have the DVD sent, or try streaming again, so I can concentrate on the actual story.
Edited by NBooth, 21 September 2010 - 11:55 AM.
Posted 21 September 2010 - 10:48 PM
Posted 22 September 2010 - 09:32 AM
On another note, I wish somebody would give Roberto Bolano's superb monster-novel, 2666, the RED RIDING treatment, and adapt it into five features by five different directors.
Posted 22 September 2010 - 03:33 PM
Whereas in 1974 we followed young and cocky journalist Eddie Dunford, who appeared truly caring in tracking down the killer for his paper, 1980 gives us Paddy Considine as Peter Hunter, the upstanding cop who also has unanswered questions from the first film's closing shootout. Frustrations with an investigation finding nothing after thirteen murders, and Hunter's known integrity and fearlessness in pursuing justice land him a job on a special task force, what the press calls a "super squad," appointed to apprehend the killer and solve this mysterious case once and for all. Like Dunford before him, Hunter is over his head before he even knows it. What he begins to solve is a mystery, indeed -- but not the one he was jobbed out for.
Police corruption once again takes priority. The Yorkshire Ripper will certainly be caught, but he once again takes second fiddle when Hunter starts digging in the files. I wouldn't call the serial killers MacGuffins, it's just that these are extremely large stories and Red Riding chooses to prioritize the story within the story.
Two or three things became immediately apparent only a few seconds into 1980:
1. The look of 1980's 35mm shreds 1974's 16mm, which was obvious from the first frame. There's a cinematic quality here that leaps the production up quite a few notches.
2. We now understand that there's more than one murder mystery. In fact, there are at the very least three.
3. Sometimes one simply prefers one directorial or cinematographic style over another, and it can make all the difference in the subject matter and one's experience in dealing with tough material. Like watching Hannibal Lecter, or Se7en, there's nothing easy about this subject matter. Frankly speaking, some of it is sick and goes back to our Old Testament fascination with the strange side of humanity most of us only relate to through story. That we're grappling with an issue that's been around since Cain and Abel makes it no less easy to watch, and stories like this are going to make certain that the horror of it stays with us for a while. But personally I can say that it was easier to take with James Marsh at the helm. It's probably that he simply knows how to add filmic pizazz without it necessarily being noticeable. There are also moments of reprieve that weren't present in 1974, moments when we get a breather from the ickiness.
At the end of 1974 I was left wondering whether this was going to be a worthwhile endeavor. At the end of 1980 I'm left dazed, spellbound. I cannot wait for 1983.
Edited by Persona, 22 September 2010 - 03:34 PM.