According to Screencraft, there are six essential elements to a Christmas film: nostalgia, magic, family, atmosphere, hope, and redemption. These can all be easily applied to festive classics we know and love, such as the iconic It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), the joyous Elf (2003), and the British household staple Nativity! (2009).

Even so, there has been debate upon debate about whether certain films can be entered into the yuletide Hall of Fame, the most prominent of these being Die Hard (1988). One film that should be considered but seems to fly under the radar is Steven Spielberg’s 2002 crime caper and comedy-drama Catch Me If You Can.

Released on Christmas Day, the film is based on the true story of how teenager Frank Abagnale Jr. (Leonardo DiCaprio) successfully pulled off confidence schemes worth millions of dollars by impersonating a pilot, a doctor and a lawyer, all whilst evading the clutches of FBI agent Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks).

Doesn’t sound very Christmassy, right? Wrong!

Spielberg’s caper immediately establishes the film’s sense of nostalgia through its period setting of the 1960s. We are transported back in time to when banks didn’t have high-tech security, Pan Am was the kingpin of American air travel, and Frank’s ugly orange knitted vest was considered fashionable. These are all nostalgic for the people who grew up in and around the 1960s, and that group would have been the target audience for this film back in 2002.

The film’s sense of nostalgia still holds up today. There is a scene in which Frank, in the midst of his pilot con, goes to the cinema to watch the iconic James Bond film of the era Dr. No (1962), then it cuts to him having a suit measured. What name does he give the tailor? Ian Fleming, the author of James Bond.

In a way, it’s magic. Which is, of course, a key ingredient of a Christmas film.

Whilst the magic isn’t depicted in the stereotypical manner of wizards and fairy dust, Frank is represented as an immoral magician, right from the moment he steps into his classroom in a new school and hoodwinks his class into thinking he is the substitute teacher. We buy into the grand scale of Frank’s ongoing mastery of disguise and sleight of hand, and it makes for entertaining viewing even if certain elements of the true story have been widely disputed.

As with most Spielberg films, one of the central themes is a broken home and the effects it has on the children involved. If anything screams “Christmas film” it’s the idea of family and themes of reconciliation and repairing broken relationships.

We are introduced to the tight-knit Abagnale family, with Frank Sr. (Christopher Walken) receiving an award as his wife Paula (Nathalie Baye) and son Frank watch on in admiration. We then cut to a scene in which Frank watches his parents dancing by the family Christmas tree, as Frank Sr. recounts the story of how he and Paula met. From here, the idyllic family life takes a turn when Frank Sr.’s tax problems and Paula’s affair ultimately lead to their divorce. Upon being forced to choose which parent to live with, Frank rebels by running away from upstate New York to the City, thus kickstarting his career as a high-stakes con artist.

Throughout the film, we see Frank meeting up with his father, hoping that the money he has made will convince his parents to reconcile and make their living situation go back to the way it was. Frank Sr. resists this idea, having moved on and accepted what happened. This upsets Frank, who plunges deeper and deeper into his scams.

The film’s heartbreaking climactic moment comes years later, as Carl tells Frank that his father has died whilst they are flying back to the US. Distraught, Frank escapes the plane and finds the house of his mother, who has a new family. This prompts Frank to finally stop running and to surrender to Carl and the FBI.

In the climax, Frank sees his mother’s new family on Christmas Day, where there are fairy lights and a tree just like the one in the start of film. He looks on through the window, excluded from the life he used to have and desperately longed to have back. The beautiful tones of Nat King Cole’s “The Christmas Song” underpin the emotional weight of the scene, with the warmth of the classic song heavily contrasting Frank being left out in the cold.

Christmas Eve itself is a recurring motif throughout the film. Frank calls Carl to provoke him to send a team to chase him and apologise for their last encounter. Carl sees through this, realising that Frank has nobody to talk to. A few years later, Frank calls Carl on that day to tell him that he wants a truce, as he is getting married. Carl declines, saying that he will be caught and put in prison. Their final interaction on this day comes when Carl tracks Frank down to Montrichard, where his father met his mother on Christmas Eve. Frank is subsequently arrested by French police.

Hope is another seasonally relevant key theme throughout Catch Me If You Can, as Frank’s schemes are based upon his hope that the rewards will prompt his parents to get back together. The naivety of this notion makes the film’s climax all that more heartbreaking. Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance in this regard is phenomenal, as he is able to shape-shift from a cocky kid playing the part of an adult into an anxious young boy going through a traumatic change in his life when he is on the brink of adulthood. It is certainly a gamble to cast a 32 year-old as a 16 year-old, but it paid off. Spielberg is able to utilise the actor’s talents to convey this loss of childlike hope over time, presenting a type of coming-of-age we often see in Christmas films like Elf and Meet Me In St. Louis.

At the end of the film, after Frank is sentenced to 12 years in prison, Carl offers him an opportunity for redemption, as he realises that Frank’s conning skills can be utilised to help the FBI detect fraud. Frank accepts serving the rest of his sentence by working at the FBI, but finds that an office job is incredibly tedious. Frank prepares to impersonate a pilot one last time, but Carl finds him in the airport, saying nobody is chasing him. He tries to question Carl about his family, as Carl reveals that he is the father in a broken home, with a daughter not much younger than Frank himself. At that moment, we think Frank is going to go through with the con, but he appears back at the FBI and the film ends with him and Carl discussing one of the cons in great depth. This is a bright, feel-good ending reminiscent of any number of great Christmas films, and one that arguably ties their father-son-like relationship together, revealing to us a found family staple of a deeply unconventional nature but a wholly Christmas one nonetheless.

Written by Grace Laidler

Follow Grace Laidler on Twitter: @gracewillhuntin

These debates are of relevance to this article because, in reality, the identities of the two clashing cultures (that of the Osage, and the all-consuming wave of capitalist USA) are largely irrelevant to the thematic core of the story. They are relevant in that they are only tangential to the beating heart of the point of the film. This specific filmic presentation of this storyline uses the Osage and white USA as two sides of the coin, but you could transplant this to colonial Africa with Britain exploiting the native peoples of those nations and it could be the same frame with differing cosmetics. Put a French colonial power in Vietnam or Morocco, and the same is there. Go to Tasmania and look at the occupying forces there, as Jennifer Kent did with her revenge western The Nightingale. The principals remain constant, an examination of the deliberate exercise of colonial, oppressional power over the native inhabitants of a land. This is what the surface level of Killers of the Flower Moon would have us take away.

Whilst KOTFM is based on a book (“Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI”, by David Grann), which is in turn based on real events, it is the specific presentation of events in Martin Scorsese’s film which are of discussion here. This film’s narrative, detailing the marriages and assassinations of Osage people at the hands of white locals in order for the white people to strategically inherit their oil-rich land, is not the centre of the film. It is not what it is all about. As is often the case, the plot and the story are different levels of communication.

Instead, the film is actually about the relationship between Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) and William King Hale (Robert De Niro), and the exploitation of a malleable, weak individual by a stronger, more ambitious, and more ruthless mind. The plot goes along, but what drives it is the obedience and defiance of Burkhart to his powerful uncle. De Niro is the snake whispering in DiCaprio’s Eve of an ear with the promise of power from the metaphorical tree of knowledge. It is about evil corrupting those who are on the fence, and dragging them down to the ground. Once we realise this, we see that much of KOTFM plays out as a reinterpretation of William Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”, written over 400 years ago. Not everything lines up perfectly (that’s how reinterpretations work; Akira Kurosawa had the three witches changed for a single medium in Throne of Blood, for example), but there are enough similarities to line up fairly nicely.

Macbeth, warlord for King Duncan of Scotland, begins the play having just taken out Macdonald, an usurper to the throne. His penchant for violence is well noted, and in killing Macdonald, ‘unseam’d him from the nave to th’chops’. In KOTFM, Earnest Burkhart may not be quite that violent, but he does return at the film’s opening from WWI, so they both have that ability in them, having both returned from national combat. In Macbeth, the titular character is told of a prophecy that he will one day be king, which he expresses with his wife. Lady Macbeth then takes charge, constantly whispering to him that the prophecy will come true, that he will be king. She already has a plan. Everything will be OK. She tells her husband ‘look like the innocent flower,/ But be the serpent udner’t.’ The mention of flowers here is obviously mere coincidence in connection with the film’s title, but it is exactly this notion of being the evil hiding in plain sight under a notion of goodness which both Ernest and King act out in KOTFM. King is constantly giving out grants and finances to the community, and is fluent in the Dhegihan Siouan language of the Osage. Lady Macbeth, in Duncan’s words, is ‘our honour’d hostess!’. The similarities are plain to see in the setup. Lady Macbeth manipulates her husband into carrying out murders so that he will become King and inherit the country, and make her queen by default, which is what she is really after. In KOTFM, Ernest is manipulated by King to carry out murders so that Ernest will inherit the wealthy land, and King will get some of the wealth as a result. Once more, the whisperer in the ear is not so much concerned with the wellbeing of their familiar, but what their understudy’s success will mean for them.

A common misconception with Macbeth’s character is that he is a tyrant and ambitious warlord right from the start. He may well have ambition, but most of his actions are as a result of the persuasion of his wife, and then being in too deep to pull out. Macbeth asks before murdering the king what happens ‘If we should fail?’, and Lady Macbeth has to reassure him to ‘nail your courage to the sticking place,/ And we’ll not fail.’ He constantly questions whether what he is doing is right, hallucinating the murderous dagger before going to kill Duncan, his mind already fracturing under the pressure. After one murder, everything runs away from him, and he has no choice but to keep going. He must kill his friend, Banquo, not only because of the witches’ prophecy that Banquo will sire a line of kings, but because of Banquo’s tendency to sit on the fence about absolutes. Banquo is unsure about the intentions of the witches, ‘oftentimes, to win us to our harm,/ The instruments of darkness tell us truths,/ Win us with honest trifles…’ and even muses to himself as part of a soliloquy to open Act 3 Scene 1, about Macbeth becoming king, that ‘Thou play’dst most foully for’t…’ It’s clear that Banquo would never be on Macbeth’s side, for as much as he is Macbeth’s friend and similar in many ways (he is also a great warrior on the battlefield, and fought alongside Macbeth against Macdowell), he is always on the side of justice and so must be silenced. Macbeth therefore pays two assassins to take out Banquo to keep himself in power. After this, when Macduff flees, Macbeth brands him a traitor and must kill his family as a warning against uprising. He rules with the sheer intention of holding onto the power he was (to an extent) pressured into. With his wife’s persuasion, he has dug a hole, and he refuses to stop digging, instead continuing down in the hopes of an escape.

Ernest likewise finds himself executing more and more murders in order to maintain his position and keep himself close to King. He pays to have Harry Roan killed as part of King’s plan, but it goes wrong, showing that Ernest isn’t as completely in control of things as he would like to think. He later hires for the murder of more family members, which begins to put his wife Molly into a kind of surrogate role for three characters; that of Duncan (the one who holds the power), Banquo (someone he must kill, and appears, ghostlike, to haunt and prevent Ernest from keeping himself completely on the dark side), and eventually Macduff (when she goes to Washington to bring reinforcements to out the tyrant). Note that like Macbeth, Ernest is often reticent to kill himself, and on multiple occasions gets others to carry out his dirty work for him.

It is, tangentially, interesting that a deliberate highlighting of King’s membership to freemasonry is made in the outcome of the botched assassination of Roan, as this implies a belief in a supreme being. There are a lot of supernatural moments in Macbeth, from witches to prophecies to apparitions to ghosts, to the appearance of Hecate (for almost no reason except to tell the witches to go somewhere and have a musical number; got to maintain audience interest somehow). But Lady Macbeth also clearly believes in spirits, through her belief that the prophecy must come true, and explicitly in her speech calling to them; ‘Come, you spirits/ That tend on mortal thoughts…’ Once again, more parallels appear.

In the second half of Killers of the Flower Moon, the new Bureau of Investigation is brought into the scene by Molly, Ernest’s wife, fulfilling her role as a partial avatar for Macduff. Led by Jesse Plemons’ Tom White (who plays the military side of Macduff), a kind of army from a land far away (Washington standing in for England, in a twist of irony for American history), arrives in the town. The BOI is not exactly the moving copse of Burnham’s wood, but what is interesting is not necessarily the arrival of the cavalry, but what this does for Ernest, who the plot centres around.

In the final reels he undergoes a constant turmoil of emotions. This mix has been seen throughout in relation to his seemingly genuine affection for his wife, Molly, and at one point he swallows some of the poison he has been putting in her insulin. The similarity to Macbeth Act 3 Scene 2, where Macbeth is tormented by what he is doing, beautifully demonstrated by the famous line of ‘full of scorpions is my mind, dear wife!’, is interesting, as scorpions are known for their poisonous sting.

Three points are of note in the finale of the film and play in relation to this turmoil. Firstly, Ernest is initially convinced to fight on and defend King by the townsfolk (the white ones, at least), in order to preserve their way of life; after all, King is a great benefactor for the town. In Macbeth, despite the army marching toward them and the apparent tyrannical rule of Macbeth (Macduff describes him as the ‘fiend of Scotland’), he still has servants and doctors attending him, messengers, and so on. However, overcome by sorrow for his child who has passed away, Ernest decides to testify against King. This idea that the battle is perhaps lost is mirrored in Macbeth’s final soliloquy, where he stares into the abyss of time and finds life meaningless, the fighting pointless, the murder empty. Life, he says, ‘is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing.’ However, there is still a little of that bitterness in him. Macbeth still fights on, despite Macduff telling him that the prophecy has come true and Macbeth can die by his hand. He says, ‘I throw my warlike shield: lay on, Macduff;/ And damn’d be him that first cries ‘Hold, enough!’ Similarly, Ernest can’t admit to Molly, when she has recovered and she knows he was poisoning her, even with prison just around the corner, that he was putting the poison in the insulin. Like Macbeth, there’s still that initial grain of darkness left inside him. It’s not a big, eye-popping finale as seen in Justin Kurzel’s direct 2015 adaptation, but it is a moving finale nonetheless.

This article hasn’t been to say that Scorsese deliberately set out to make a new version of a classic Shakespeare tale with this film. It’s not even to say that Scorsese must have been deliberately conscious of Macbeth when adapting the script. Indeed, most of the elements (though shifted and changed a little for dramatic purposes), were based on the real serial murders of innocent people – the real Ernest Burkhart and William King Hale were despicable individuals. For all of the extraordinary influence of The Bard, he didn’t create these people. Additionally, by saying that this presentation of the narrative echoes Macbeth should not in any way be taken as a suggestion that it reduces these figures to caricatures. Real lives were lost needlessly and cruelly by individuals hellbent on murder for their own material gain.

What it does hope to show, however, is how much William Shakespeare was able to put a finger on human nature, and how he was seemingly able to immortalise it in a narrative that has its unconscious echoes throughout time, to be rediscovered in the most unlikely of places. The real history and folklore that inspired Shakespeare to write Macbeth were not invented by him, but he found a way to use it to shine a light on the folly of humankind, and the corruption underneath polite society. That these narrative ideas find their way across the centuries, across the waters, to Scorsese’s film (which did have script changes in development, showing that differing perspectives and angles even to real events are possible), proves if nothing else that cinema as a medium has harsh truths inside its beams of light. That these stories are still relevant, redigested, disguised, and re-presented, is both a damning proof of humanity’s inability to learn from its past, and a testament to storytelling’s continued effort to plead with us to listen.

Recommended for you: Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) Review

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenwriter: Terence Winter
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jon Favreau, Jean Dujardin, Joanna Lumley, Cristin Milioti

What is there to say about Martin Scorsese’s three-hour, instant classic The Wolf of Wall Street that hasn’t been said before? If you were young in 2013, you would understand this film as culture itself. From putting Margot Robbie on the map to introducing the song “Jordan Belfort” to every high school basement party in America, Wolf of Wall Street defined a generation of simultaneously wealth-obsessed and wealth-repulsed youth.  

Scorsese succeeds at a have your cake and eat it too approach to satire. His sprawling biopic of financial criminal and multimillionaire stockbroker Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is both braggadocious and reflective. On the heels of the 2008 financial collapse and the subsequent Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, the film examines America’s obsession with wealth – the good, the bad, and the drug-fueled. Belfort’s lifestyle enthrals us – the mega yachts, three-day parties, even the crime. The film approaches everything with a larger-than-life approach. The score is boisterous, we hear a foul-mouthed Belfort narrating his trials and tribulations with the feds, and everything is dialed up to the nines. 

We do see the eventual fall of Belfort, but it’s as stylized as ever. In perhaps one of the most iconic scenes in modern film history, Belfort is confronted with the gravity of his financial crimes and the eventual ruin of his criminal empire. Just as this realization kicks in, so do the quaaludes that Belfort popped 90-minutes ago. Earlier in the film, Belfort brags about the many benefits of the retro drug but now he has entered a new phase of intoxication: the “cerebral palsy phase.” Belfort drags himself like an infant toward his white Ferrari. We see him crumble to the ground; gone is the the fast lifestyle of a degenerate and in his place lays a helpless man at the mercy of his own hubris. 

The scene is both funny and ironically sobering. We finally watch Belfort answer for his crimes in the most physical sense. Scorsese plays perfectly with tension and humor. We hold our breathe, wondering if Belfort will make it to his Ferrari or drive off into the sunset. We don’t root for him, but we have no choice but to be at the mercy of his storytelling. 

The script functions as a mere skeleton for this ambitious film, making it an absolute treat for any viewer. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his career-best performances. He skilfully adlibs his way through Belfort’s life, adding many a “fuck” or New York slang to make the character feel that much more real. On his first day at a brokerage firm on Wall Street, Belfort goes to lunch with his magnanimous boss, Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey). Like everything they do, the scene is filled with popping pills and downing champagne in the middle of the day. At one point, the two even break into full song in the middle of the restaurant. The best part of the scene? It’s almost all improvised. McConaughey and DiCaprio have an undeniable chemistry that makes the scene impossible to look away from. They play up on each other’s ludicrous energy and take turns trying to outdo the other’s performance, all for the benefit of the viewer. 

More than ten years after its release, The Wolf of Wall Street holds up as an incredibly fun watch and a decisive voice on class in the United States. It underscores how the people at the top will exploit the system until the bitter end and those at the bottom will be forced to pay the price. Scorsese is a master of humor and pacing, making the three-hour run feel like nothing. 

Score: 23/24

Recommended for you: Where to Start with Martin Scorsese

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)
Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenwriters: Eric Roth, Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone, Jesse Plemons, Tantoo Cardinal, John Lithgow, Brendan Fraser, Cara Jade Myers, Janae Collins, Jillian Dion

Is there any greater betrayal than the betrayal of someone who loves you? This is the central question at the heart of Martin Scorsese’s newest epic, Killers of the Flower Moon. Starring the renowned director’s long-time and dearly loved collaborators Robert De Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio, alongside Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon is an adaptation of David Grann’s explosive book of the same name. 

The book, published in 2017, investigates a series of gruesome murders in Osage County, Oklahoma, following the discovery of large oil deposits on Native American land, alongside the birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Although the book is credited as Scorsese’s source material, Killers of the Flower Moon reads more as a companion piece to Grann’s novel, with Scorsese finding a unique perspective from which to access this insidious tale. 

Scorsese’s three-and-a-half-hour-long true-crime epic finds its footing within the love story between Ernest and Mollie Burkhart. Ernest, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is a newcomer to the small but affluent Osage County. Upon arrival, and with much encouragement from his persistent uncle, William Hale (Robert De Niro), a man who insists that his friends and family call him King, Ernest meets Mollie (Lily Gladstone, Certain Women). Mollie, an Osage-born native, like several members of her tribe, is a multimillionaire, owing to the plentiful amounts of black gold found upon her family’s land. In antithesis to the barren western town upon which our stage is set, First Nation people ride around in chauffeur-driven cars and wear expensive furs. They appear as the image of wealth and prosperity, although access to their money must be first justified and requested through their white trustees. 

Ernest, fresh from the war, is upfront about his desire for wealth: ‘I just love money’ he declares playfully throughout the film, slowly revealing himself as a man willing to scheme and bend the law to get the cash to flow in his direction. William Hale, a wealthy cattle farmer in his own right, is consumed by a desire for the oil deposit ‘headrights’ on Mollie’s land, the pursuit of which he considers fair game. The only thing standing in his way is Mollie and her family. Hale, well versed in the legal benefits of marriage, encourages his family to pursue the young and stupidly rich Osage women so they might reap the benefits of inheritance should any unfortunate event befall them. One by one, Mollie’s family starts to dwindle: unexplainable illness, murder, and unprecedented explosions begin to plague the family until all of the headrights conveniently rest with Mollie and her husband Ernest. 

Leonardo Dicaprio, who ran from the set of Titanic directly into Martin Scorsese’s arms, gives one of the best performances of his career as Ernest. The melancholy downward turn of his mouth and slow southern drawl indicate a simpleton, incapable of fully understanding the atrocity of William Hale’s plot against his wife and her family. DiCaprio presents us with the enigma of a man consumed with love for a woman he is actively trying to murder. Across from him is Lily Gladstone, who plays Mollie with a steadfast sensibility and awareness of the men around her. She has Earnest and his family pegged from day one, her wry smile and persistent calmness indicating that she is always one step ahead of any danger that might present itself. Yet love, which has the power to hoodwink even the sharpest of minds, gets in her way.

As the murders progress, so does Molly and Ernest’s relationship. In between harrowing scenes of grief and murder, we see them cling to each other desperately for comfort. He takes her into his arms while she struggles with the agony of her grief. He learns her language and traditions, and they parent three children, who they protect and adore fiercely. With each fresh death, Mollie’s circle grows smaller, and Ernest becomes the last man she can trust. How couldn’t she? We watch as he begs and pleads with her to take a life-saving new drug (insulin) that will regulate her diabetes, as if he isn’t the one also spiking the medication with a poison that will slowly kill her. ‘I love this woman’ he tells his uncle sincerely, as Hale explains the uncanny way Osage women never manage to live to a ripe old age.

As Hale, Robert De Niro circles like a vulture, conjuring the same chilling presence he portrayed as Max Cady in Scorsese’s remake of the revenge classic Cape Fear. The potency of his performance bleeds out of the screen, filling all empty space with a feeling of looming threat. Hale has seeded himself deeply into the Osage community as a friend and ally, offering up reward money to anyone who might have information about the suspicious deaths creeping up all around them. Like Jack Nicholson’s Costello in The Departed, Hale is above the law, and he’s become cocky and psychopathically devoid of loyalty and love.

Killers of the Flower Moon is nothing short of a masterpiece from our greatest living filmmaker. Although the film’s stealthy runtime might feel harsh on our bladders, the film is extremely well-placed; the story blooms organically and doesn’t waste a single second. Scorsese’s mastery of filmmaking is apparent in every single frame; he understands exactly where the camera needs to be, and it dances beautifully within the story, offering us an immensely satisfying masterclass in storytelling. This is the first time Scorsese’s two best boys have shared the screen in a Martin Scorsese picture, and the result is electric. The film feels like an extension of their friendship and shared legacy. There is a collective sense that the three men are comfortable enough with one another to experiment and take chances with our expectations. Gladstone, alongside an impossibly talented supporting cast, keep the boys on their toes, taking the iconic trio to unseen heights.

The film’s greatest strength is the unique vantage point from which it approaches the atrocities. Although the crimes depicted on screen happened many years ago, the treatment of the First Nation people throughout America’s vast history is still an open wound. Scorsese, like Grann, approaches his work with the utmost respect and care. To escape the connotations of Westerns and crime dramas, which typically circle the white-lead adventures of cowboys and lawmen, Scorsese dives right into the heart of the truth, presenting Killers of the Flower Moon as a love story. While the great filmmaker still utilises the atmospheric soul of the Wild West, by presenting a more human perspective, he cuts right to the centre of the raw open heart of a woman in love, and we feel the sting of betrayal tenfold. 

Score: 24/24

Recommended for you: Where to Start with Martin Scorsese

Before the Australian-born director achieved his swell success as an auteur, he starred alongside Judy Davis in Winter of Our Dreams (1981), a low-budget Australian drama. With his paycheck, he set up a production enterprise, The Bond Theatre Company, with Nellee Hooper and Gabrielle Mason. After a few years of success in theatre, Luhrmann went on to create some of cinema’s most extravagant films which have won countless BAFTAs and Academy Awards. 

At the apex of Luhrmann’s filmography is a sense of all-encompassing immersion. In many of his films, it does not feel like a ‘movie’, it feels like an experience.

In this edition of Ranked, we at The Film Magazine are comparing and contrasting the six feature directorial efforts of this great and influential filmmaker to judge which films are the most impactful, important, artistically expressive, culturally observant and critically beloved, for this: the Baz Luhrmann Films Ranked.

Follow @thefilmagazine on Twitter.

6. The Great Gatsby (2013)

F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel “The Great Gatsby” (1925) is a grandiose tale of love, passion, and lingering devotion. It’s also about classism, gender, and race. Above all, it is considered to be a brutal and pessimistic take on the American Dream. Many adaptions have been made over time in every sector, but none have achieved the same romantic yet sardonic tone that Luhrmann achieved with his take on the classic book. 

The film is dripping in a whimsical light, with every scene seeming to sparkle with luxury, highlighting the social divide seen throughout its original source. Quite a lot of the narrative falls upon the mysterious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a wealthy tycoon whose lavish soirees are at the focal point of Luhrmann’s attention. Gatsby’s manor is adorned with diamonds, coupe champagne glasses, and an ambitious score that contrasts against the roaring 1920s aesthetic. As it will be revealed, Luhrmann revels in the modernisation of bygone eras, remixing vintage with a latter-day style. The film dresses the party scenes (as well as a multitude of other sequences) with incredibly high-definition camerawork, presenting the most stunning wide shots before swiftly transforming the frame with vibrant energy, making use of the ‘dolly’ angle’s flexibility.

However, there are a few setbacks that fail to make The Great Gatsby Luhrmann’s greatest cinematic achievement. The film has an awful lot of style, but its substance lacks in comparison to Luhrmann’s other work. The narrative is rife with theology, on top of its already heavy love story – it’s rather a lot to digest. When combining the magnitude of the imagery with the extensive plot, it can be hard to fully embrace every single detail. It tests the patience of fans of the original novel while not being inviting enough for more casual audiences, proving that a heap of flair isn’t all that is needed when adapting an important piece of work.

5. Australia (2008)

Baz Luhrmann’s Australia made a near clean sweep at awards seasons, with many praising the stunning outback landscapes captured on film, bringing a sense of filmic euphoria to the eyes. Lying underneath the glimmer of striking scenery are some truly great performances by Aussie royalty, Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman, who hit every mark with such grace and passion. Yet when it comes to Australia’s narrative, something dark lurks, haunting the screen with a harsh truth. 

The film delves into political dynamics, with Luhrmann dipping into themes such as colonisation, war and sacrifice. Whilst Luhrmann’s work thrives in its garishness and enchanting aesthetics, Australia proves that his work is far from shallow. The film reveals harsh truths that are not easy to come to terms with. And rightly so. Luhrmann unveils the abhorrently cruel reality that Aboriginals were forced to live within, with much of the film focusing on Nullah (Brandon Walters), a young boy with an Aboriginal mother and a white father. During the film’s time and setting, part-white Aboriginal youth were captured by the authorities to spiritually rid their ethnic heritage. The disgusting practice was only abolished in the early 1970s.

The 2hr 45min runtime may test the patience of some, but Australia is a confronting watch that digs right into its emotional tone to provoke, alert, and ultimately fascinate. 

Recommended for you: 10 Films from the Past 10 Years To Teach You About White Privilege

In this edition of Ranked, we at The Film Magazine are taking a look at these 8 films, the Best Picture nominees that found massive box office success. These are movies that smashed records and received critical praise, while managing to reach the masses and enthral Oscar voters. From pioneers in special effects to genre-defining stories of love and loss, these blockbusters pursued the highest artistic integrity, became touchstones in cinema, and stayed with us long after the lights went up. From fantasy epics to disaster movies, supervillain origin stories to legacy sequels, here is Every $1Billion+ Best Picture Nominee Ranked.

Follow @thefilmagazine on Twitter.

8. Joker (2019)

Joker Review

Set against the backdrop of the increasingly volatile and corrupt home of Batman, Gotham City, Joker tells the story of Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), an aspiring stand-up comic who just can’t catch a break. After an assault on the subway results in a violent and deadly confrontation, Arthur slowly descends into madness and unknowingly becomes the symbol of the oppressed and downtrodden.

Joker’s success can largely be attributed to our collective thirst for something outside the increasingly predictable, paint-by-numbers formula of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Gone are the witty one-liners and post-credits scenes; say goodbye to the colorful and smooth spandex suits and lengthy action sequences. Instead, director Todd Philips opts to paint a grim and intimate portrait of a man just trying to get by; a man largely ignored and abused by the system. Clearly inspired by the films of Martin Scorsese, namely Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, Joker is frustratingly self-serious, desperately trying to say something deep and meaningful without saying much of anything at all.

Whilst Joker falls short thematically, it excels in performance. Joaquin Phoenix, who won his first Oscar for this role, is tremendous. Following in the footsteps of Cesar Romero, Jack Nicolson and Heath Ledger, Phoenix makes the Joker his own, breathing new life into a character that has been a constant presence for comic book fans for more than 80 years.

Despite the divisive response amongst audiences and critics, Joker no doubt made its mark on the superhero genre. In addition to its nomination for Best Picture, the film was nominated for a total of 11 Oscars, breaking The Dark Knight’s previous record of 8 nominations for a superhero movie.

Recommended for you: 2020 Oscars Best Picture Nominees Ranked

7. Avatar (2009)

James Cameron is no stranger to box office success. With Avatar, Cameron managed to beat his own record, unseating Titanic as the highest-grossing film ever made. At the 82nd Academy Awards, the film was nominated for 9 Oscars including Best Picture, and won 3. The film was in development for roughly a decade whilst Cameron waited for the right technology to become available. When it eventually premiered in 2009, Avatar was groundbreaking – showing off numerous innovations in visual effects, including motion capture.

Avatar takes place sometime in the distant future. Earth’s resources are depleting and humans have set their sights on mining and colonizing the moon of Pandora. Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is selected for the avatar program and tasked with earning the trust of the indigenous Na’vi people and convincing them to relocate. But when Jake meets and falls in love with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), he must decide whose side he’s really on and what he’s willing to fight for.

While Avatar’s visuals were unmatched at the time, its storytelling leaves something to be desired. The dialog is often stilted and the characters, especially Jake and his fellow Marines, sound more like video game Non-Player Characters (NPCs) than real people. The narrative is one we’ve seen countless times before, and although the story is largely predictable, it’s also accessible, which no doubt helps with regard to the film’s wide appeal.

The ceremony will seemingly go ahead, despite TV network NBC dropping it from their schedule. This decision followed a controversial report about the awards that revealed that there were no black people included in the 87 members of the HFPA. This is the body of journalists that vote at the awards. This shocking lack of diversity resulted in many celebrities shunning the show, including Tom Cruise who handed back his three Golden Globes.

Additionally, a report by the L.A. Times implied corruption within the association and suggested that voters were often bribed by production companies. The example given was when voters were flown to Paris by Netflix to coincide with the release of the streaming service’s series ‘Emily in Paris’. Despite the show’s mixed reviews, ‘Emily in Paris’ received two nominations including Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy.

Following the controversy, the HFPA have recruited 21 new members that are predominately diverse and made its existing members take diversity and equality training. A chief diversity officer has been appointed in addition to a partnership with National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to ensure an awards ceremony more representative of the diverse talent that makes up the film industry.

Typically the Golden Globes mark the beginning of awards season, being the second biggest ceremony behind the Oscars. However, it remains to be seen what impact the upcoming event will have with no network to air on and likely little fanfare from the nominated talent.

The nominations themselves seek to highlight the top films of the year. The most nominated films for the 2022 ceremony are Sir Kenneth Branagh’s drama Belfast and Jane Campion’s gripping western The Power of the Dog. Both films are nominated for 7 awards, including Best Motion Picture – Drama and Best Director. Belfast has already picked up some significant awards including the People’s Choice Award at the 2021 Toronto International Film Festival. The Power of The Dog meanwhile continues Netflix’s trend of releasing award show juggernauts, with previous efforts including The Irishman and Roma. 

Behind these two are the star-studded Don’t Look Up, Will Smith vehicle King Richard, Paul Thomas Anderson’s love letter to 1970s L.A., Licorice Pizza, and Steven Spielberg’s first ever musical, West Side Story. Each have been nominated for 4 awards.

The winners will be announced on the 9th January 2022.

The nominees in film for the 2022 Golden Globes are:

BEST MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA
Belfast
Coda
Dune
King Richard
The Power of the Dog

BEST MOTION PICTURE – MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Cyrano
Don’t Look Up
Licorice Pizza
Tick, Tick … Boom!
West Side Story

BEST DIRECTOR
Kenneth Branagh (Belfast)
Jane Campion (The Power of the Dog)
Maggie Gyllenhaal (The Lost Daughter)
Steven Spielberg (West Side Story)
Denis Villeneuve (Dune)

ADVERT

BEST ACTOR – DRAMA
Mahershala Ali (Swan Song)
Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos)
Benedict Cumberbatch (The Power of the Dog)
Will Smith (King Richard)
Denzel Washington (The Tragedy of Macbeth)

BEST ACTRESS – DRAMA
Jessica Chastain (The Eyes of Tammy Faye)
Olivia Colman (The Lost Daughter)
Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos)
Lady Gaga (House of Gucci)
Kristen Stewart (Spencer)

BEST ACTOR – MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Leonardo DiCaprio (Don’t Look Up)
Peter Dinklage (Cyrano)
Andrew Garfield (Tick, Tick … Boom!)
Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza)
Anthony Ramos (In the Heights)

BEST ACTRESS – MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Marion Cotillard (Annette)
Alana Haim (Licorice Pizza)
Jennifer Lawrence (Don’t Look Up)
Emma Stone (Cruella)
Rachel Zegler (West Side Story)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A MOTON PICTURE
Ben Affleck (The Tender Bar)
Jamie Dornan (Belfast)
Ciarán Hinds (Belfast)
Troy Kotsur (CODA)
Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Power of the Dog)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A MOTON PICTURE
Caitríona Balfe (Belfast)
Ariana DeBose (West Side Story)
Kirsten Dunst (The Power of the Dog)
Aunjanue Ellis (King Richard)
Ruth Negga (Passing)

BEST SCREENPLAY
Paul Thomas Anderson (Licorice Pizza)
Kenneth Branagh (Belfast)
Jane Campion (The Power of the Dog)
Adam McKay (Don’t Look Up)
Aaron Sorkin (Being the Ricardos)

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
The French Dispatch (Alexandre Desplat)
Encanto (Germaine Franco)
The Power of the Dog (Jonny Greenwood)
Parallel Mothers (Alberto Iglesias)
Dune (Hans Zimmer)

BEST ORIGINAL SONG 
“Be Alive” (King Richard)
“Dos Orugitas” (Encanto)
“Down to Joy” (Belfast)
“Here I Am (Singing My Way Home)” (Respect)
“No Time to Die” (No Time to Die)

BEST MOTION PICTURE – ANIMATED
Encanto
Flee
Luca
My Sunny Maad
Raya and the Last Dragon

BEST MOTION PICTURE – FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Compartment No. 6 (Finland)
Drive My Car (Japan)
The Hand of God (Italy)
A Hero (Iran)
Parallel Mothers (Spain)

ADVERT

The film, which is being produced for release by Netflix, follows two low-level scientists who discover an asteroid on course to hit Earth. The pair embark on a media tour to warn people of the impending doom. McKay’s previous work includes the Anchorman films, Step Brothers, The Big Short and Vice, the latter two of which proved to be quite successful during their respective awards seasons, including a win for Best Adapted Screenplay and nominations for Best Picture. As was the case with those latter films, Don’t Look Up is expected to blend comedic and dramatic elements.

The ensemble is of a high caliber if awards are anything to go by. DiCaprio, Streep, Lawrence and Blanchett have all won Academy Awards for acting, whilst Chalamet and Hill have been nominated. According to Deadline, most of the actors had been attached since spring and it was DiCaprio who was holding up any announcements. This was reportedly due to him working out if he could appear in both this and Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon. 

Don’t Look Up is scheduled to start filming before the end of 2020, with its release date currently unknown.

This is the opening scene to Christopher Nolan’s Inception, which ten years ago drew immense audiences into its dream-centric world without saying a single word.

Oscillating between genres and varying levels of blockbuster, Nolan struck gold with what is arguably his best piece, definitively his most unique, and defiant of what it means to be a blockbuster – and as a result has lay in the subconscious of Hollywood ever since.

Inception was not your typical type of blockbuster. The film found itself surrounded by a lineup of sequels, remakes and adaptations, all of which relied on the stereotypical expectancies of the modern tent-pole. But here it stood regardless, a brilliantly unique and complexly layered film that relied more on its unravelling story than it did explosions and special effects.

Taking in over $800 million at the box office worldwide, Inception clearly resonated with its audiences. It proved to the world that a film could be a success while telling an unattached story that made you think rather than mindlessly stare as you shovel another handful of popcorn into your mouth. Yet, all the same, there were no immediate copycats, nor was there a flurry of brave bolstering originals. In fact, Hollywood has struggled to conjure up much comparable work since, outside of a small handful and Nolan’s own filmography. However, while Inception failed to ignite the passion for filmmaking in the Tinseltown high-ups, it did mark the turning of the tide – planting the idea of the more intelligent blockbuster.

Impressing audiences since his directorial debut in 1998, Nolan has always been known for trying to push the envelope. From his memory-loss thriller Memento to the Victorian-era-based The Prestige, the director has long been a spokesperson for original and off-kilter stories. However, it wasn’t until the release of his 2008 comic book movie sequel The Dark Knight that the director finally and definitively put his name on the map. For a period, the film became one of the highest grossing of all time, and as a result Nolan was effectively given free reign for his next feature – which just so happened to be something he had been sitting on for a decade.

Recommended for you: Christopher Nolan Films Ranked

Approaching Inception with an incredulous cast and whopping $160 million budget, Nolan worked away on a film that would categorically stand out from the crowd – even bagging DiCaprio in an uncharacteristically mainstream role. From its extended runtime to slower paced nature, Inception defied, in any form, the urge to be the loud, crass and blisteringly dumb summer film that so has often instigated success. It managed to take the familiar concept of a heist movie and blend it with an excellent dose of sci-fi, leaving its viewers as invested in the gang pulling off the job as they were waiting to see if a spinning top finally toppled.

Inception is not by any means a difficult film to follow. Yet where many films would spoon feed their audience, Inception trusts that you’ll be able to keep up. There is, naturally, exposition – something completely unavoidable with a premise such as this – but it gets to the point and gives its viewers just enough of what they need in order to understand. The film even warrants repeated viewings as new details and plot intricacies reveal themselves.

Across its two-and-a-half-hours, the story of Inception delves deeper into its concept of traversing dreamscapes, while being relatively bare of action for a summer hit of its kind. Nolan instead presents his idea with shape and purpose, avoiding the pitfalls of his characters dreaming up giant guns and non-logistical car chases. Indeed, rather than the mindless barrage of bullets and explosions we are typically accustomed to, Nolan structures action that directly affects the next conceptual stage. A car flip in one dream means altered gravity in the next, and an avalanche in the one after that – there is no spectacle for the sake of spectacle.

Since its tackling of this simplistically complex narrative, we have seen a slow expansion of elevated stories. Blockbusters that were typically on the nose have become more nuanced, the most simple tales now layered. The belief that audiences won’t just turn off when they have to think for themselves has started to spread – albeit slowly and without direct comparison.

By trusting its audience, Inception inspired others, albeit minimally, and we began to see titles such as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes – a prequel film that immeasurably stepped up its game from the previous installment. Or Gravity, which placed its viewers amongst the stars in a big budget, yet wholly reserved space drama. Or eventually Nolan’s very own Interstellar, which would prove itself even further removed from what a big-budget film should be.

Inception did not become the hallmark on how to make a hit however. In an age where “success” is reserved for those grossing over the billion-dollar mark, Inception’s success was relative. Faced with the option between a film that takes narrative risks, or something tried and tested, the choice for many studios remains obvious. The bigger yet more thought-provoking films such as Blade Runner 2049 have proven that audiences will not always respond to more nuanced tales, whereas another Fast and Furious film will easily rev its way up into the Billion Dollar Club.

Smash cut to just last year and cinemagoers were sitting down to watch Avengers: Endgame. The complexities, or lack thereof, in any of the MCU films could easily be debated in another article, yet instead of the stereotypical origin story which the universe had become known for, Endgame was a ridiculously large affair with the kind of story you had to pay attention to. There were dozens of characters, each with their own arcs and relationships, as well as alternate timelines, and all of that was wrapped up into a runtime pushing three hours. Endgame’s relation to Inception isn’t immediately apparent, yet it highlights that another layered and expansive story made its way into the mainstream – and this one just so happened to become the highest grossing film of all time.

Since the release of Inception ten years ago, the blockbuster industry has attempted to grow and mature. There is and always will be a place for the mindless action film, or further unneeded sequels, and they in their own right have merits. However, Inception’s influence has trickled its way down through the years, highlighting the audience demand for more challenging stories in the mainstream space, and signalled by the changing nature of the blockbuster over the last decade. The anticipation building for Nolan’s next, Tenet, only furthers this point. Much like Inception, it features another original premise which already threatens to perplex its audience as it tantalizingly hangs over its constantly postponing release date.

While a world filled with blockbusters that break the mould just as Inception did a decade ago seems more a far-flung dream than a reality, the subtle snowball effect that Nolan’s work has inspired gives hope for a cinema landscape that doesn’t pander or rehash. Yet as Tenet approaches with similar aspirations to its spiritual predecessor, audiences will wait with bated breaths, as the totem spins, threatening to topple over.

Written by Aaron Bayne

Following its theatrical debut on 19th February 2010, Shutter Island was met with mixed reviews from critics and audiences alike, although patterns did emerge soon after that illustrated a more distinct fondness for the film – the picture now being an 8.1 rating on IMDb, placing it on the list of Top 250 Highest-Rated Films.

Shutter Island sees Scorsese take on a slightly different from usual directorial perspective with the film’s thrilling horror elements, seemingly leaning towards the sensibilities of his 1991 film Cape Fear than the more widely known Goodfellas (1990). Nonetheless, the 20-year gap between his famous works certainly doesn’t cause one to outshine the other; Scorsese’s adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s 2003 novel still ringing true as an arguably equally as frightening psychological thriller, connecting with the audiences of 2020 through its combination of distressing themes and a killer cast.

Shutter Island heavily carries conspicuous notions of child murder, severe mental illness, isolation and war; issues that continue to resonate with and distress today’s audiences. The serial killer, murder mystery, true crime-loving viewers of the 21st century will note that Shutter Island can fit right back into the popular culture of the present, with even its cast – including Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Michelle Williams and Ben Kingsley – remaining steadfast A-listers in the years that have followed.

In many respects, Shutter Island is a perfect example of cinema that film scholars everywhere can connect and engage with. Not only is it directed by one of the world’s most recognised directors, but it also offers exceptional analytical elements that can be explored in great detail.

Teddy’s flashbacks to WWII, for example, present an allusion to the classic style of Film Noir, with inspiration seemingly taken from the works of Hitchcock as well as the likes of Double Indemnity (1944) and The Maltese Falcon (1941). The intriguing flashback scenes incite the film’s setting of post-War 1950s America, while the protruding feelings of loneliness, separation, paranoia and incertitude brought forth by the film’s setting on an imposing but isolated island chime well with the shared societal fears following American conflicts from WWII right up to present day.

Directly, Teddy’s perceived reality is a consequence of his time in the War and his activities following. His reality is seen through rose-tinted glasses compared to his hidden truths which offer him great trauma. The subject of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is not directly discussed due to the era in which the film is set, yet it is clear to the spectator what is really happening – PTSD and wider mental illness are topics that are explored greatly in cinema, with recent films such as Birds of Prey, Joker and Glass highlighting the fears surrounding severe mental illness, and in Shutter Island that becomes the directive of its narrative. It’s a prolific theme that has more meaning today than it perhaps did in 2010, but in Shutter Island its combination with the themes of war, nostalgia and American values makes for a much more erratic feeling of unease.

Back in 2010, Roger Ebert shrewdly examined that, “the movie is about atmosphere, ominous portents, the erosion of Teddy’s confidence and even his identity. It’s all done with flawless directorial command.”.

This remains true, and can be identified clearly through the consistently mounting tension and the dreary, ominous music that drives right through the soul of both the film and the viewer. This is, in part, the reason for the film’s success and longevity – these are elements that have not faltered over time and maintain an air of fascination and fear.

The fear and obscurity surrounding the island’s lighthouse creates a centre point for Laeta Kalogridis’ screenplay. It’s as if depravity radiates from the lighthouse, spreading throughout the island like a disease, coming to a head in the penultimate scene revealing Teddy’s hidden secrets. The war in his mind thunders and roars just as the war did ten years before he arrived on the island. Bluntly explained by Dr. Cawley (Kingsley), the audience sees Teddy spiralling out of his survival mode, judged and penalised by healthcare professionals insisting that they’re going round in circles with Teddy’s fantasy life. This in itself is an inherent characteristic of so many stories from people who have attempted to seek help for their mental health.

This final reminder in Shutter Island of the stigma hanging over mental illness pulls together the entirety of the previous two hours of film. The dread, the trauma and the building number of questions can all be put to bed now that Teddy understands. Or so we think. Teddy concludes the film having seemingly regressed into his rose-tinted survival state, continuing the cycle that was apparent throughout the film; the radiating depravity thus continuous, with DiCaprio’s ending dialogue, “which would be worse: to live as a monster or to die as a good man?”

The story of Teddy Daniels is one that has urged die-hard fans to rewatch over and over again. Shutter Island’s ambiguous ending gave viewers a reason to mull over the story for a time, coming up with various interpretations and plot twists, and leaving room for further exploration. Ten years on, it is still unclear whether Teddy was the victim or the cause, which elements of the story were the truth, and what really went on in that lighthouse. Perhaps in another ten years, we will have come to a final conclusion and the case of Shutter Island will, at last, be solved.