Somewhere

Plot:
Hollywood actor Johnny Marco, nested in his luxury hotel of choice, is a stimulated man. Drinking, parties and women keep a creeping boredom under wraps in between jobs. He is the occasional father of a bright girl, Cleo, who may be spoiled but doesn't act it. When Cleo's mother drops her off and leaves town, Johnny brings her along for the ride, but can he fit an 11-year-old girl into his privileged lifestyle?

I went into Somewhere not knowing much about Sofia Coppola or her past work. I fell asleep through The Virgin Suicides but missed Marie Antoinette and Lost in Translation. The latter was supposedly her breakthrough picture with fantastic performances from Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson and a real emotional depth. Sadly, this doesn't have that. Nor does it have what it needs, an antagonist. What I mean by this is that without something to kick-start  the monotonous pace of the film, it drags but it does so without fuss, which is actually even more irritating.  


The film plods along and at times becomes extremely tedious. I almost feel sorry for Sofia Coppola as it feels like the weight of the world is on her shoulders, and it shows in Somewhere. The lead performance from Stephen Dorff, you would expect it to be compelling and full of real emotion. However, through no fault of his own, there are moments where he seems wooden, this is probably due to the peculiar art house approach Coppola has taken with the cinematography and the sense of a script that is out of touch, the polar opposite of what the film is supposed to be. 


The positives of the film come in the performance of Elle Fanning who does a wonderful job of playing a naive girl, caught up in the plastic and contrived nature of modern day Hollywood, which must in some part mirror her own life. The film honestly portrays fame and celebrity culture for what they are which can only be a good thing. The relationship between Fanning's character and Dorff's should be flawless and should grasp the audience but just like Johnny Marco's character is going nowhere, the film does exactly that.


What Sofia Coppola needs to understand is that filming something in an art house style, doesn't mean the film has to be dull and uninspiring. Take the film Fish tank, the Andrea Arnold film about social deprivation, it shows the humanistic side of characters we may not usually be accustomed to liking or relating to. Somewhere is detached and disconnected from its audience which is obviously not the intention.


2/5

Twin Peaks: Owls, Fire, and Coffee.

An image of a bird on a branch fades into the slow cutting of metal at a saw mill. Whilst the enchanting music plays over the top, we see the sparks fly from the machinery and the equipment thrusting into place. A sign, 'Welcome to Twin Peaks' accompanied by the Douglas Fir trees and the foggy mountains. As the opening titles keep rolling, a waterfall flowing in slow-motion. 

Am I dreaming? The show hasn't even started properly and I am mesmerised. From the minute Laura Palmer's pale and lifeless body washes up on the shore of the Twin Peaks river until the climactic scenes of the feature film released after the second series of the show, you cannot keep your eyes off what unfolds. Thirty episodes and one film, yet there is still mystery and confusion and frustration and total endearment hanging over the legacy of this amazing phenomenon. 

I find it difficult to place Twin Peaks into a particular genre of category as the beauty of it is that it has seemingly everything. There is a dream-like quality to it throughout which would appeal to fans of surrealist work. There are Sci-Fi elements especially in the second series. There are action sequences which may not be Michael Bay standard but serve a great purpose. There are love elements which are heart-warming most of the time. There is a score to die for composed by Angelo Badalamenti. Possibly most importantly, a creator who many think (me included) is a genius, the magnificent David Lynch. Twin Peaks has everything. 

Then what is missing? 

The answer to that question is up to whoever is asking. Most people believe that after the huge mystery of Twin Peaks being solved midway through the second series, the show plummeted into mediocrity and became almost incoherent compared to the highs of the first series. The blame can be placed firmly onto the shoulders of American Network ABC. The thing is that if you watch Twin Peaks looking for answers you come out asking more questions which is the genius of it. The more you want to know about Owls, the Log Lady, the Giant, Windom Earle, the Man from another place, and all the other enigmas of the show, the more questions you find yourself asking. 

Twin Peaks: Fire walk with me, the feature film which was booed at its screening at the Cannes film festival in 1992. The film was met with almost universal criticism as there were many things that were left unanswered and the peculiar nature of the film baffled and bewildered fans of the show. I think the problem was not the film itself but the expectation of what it should have been. People wanted the show to finish with a resolution, closure to what had been their favourite television show. What they got was unexpected, therefore disappointment was on the cards. 

Whatever you think of Twin Peaks, there is no denying it is magical, captivating and inspiring. It is a show that is still relevant today. It captures the underbelly of our society like no other show has ever done, combining soap opera elements with horrific and mystifying story lines. The genius of it is that it is untouchable, it is a snapshot of an era and is like nothing out there. You want more when its done yet at the same time its perfect how it lingers and leaves its mark like Laura Palmer does all the way through. 

It is something else.