Thursday, April 15, 2010

BD impressions: Harry Brown

11:15 AM / BD Impressions / Comments15 Comments

BD Impressions
Blu-ray

Generally speaking I try to avoid politics on this site, since I think it's fairly safe to assume that people come here for my latest impressions on films and BD transfers, not who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming election (although, in case you're wondering: the Liberal Democrats). However, with a film like HARRY BROWN, politics are pretty much impossible to avoid, as the plot seems to have been culled from the pages of the Conservative Party manifesto. The world portrayed in HARRY BROWN is, I suspect, what the Conservatives would like us to believe the whole of the UK looks like, in spite of the country's murder rate last year being the lowest in 20 years, with a drop of 5% in overall reported crime compared to the previous year. We are repeatedly told, on rather slim evidence, that this country has lost its way, and while I won't for a moment pretend that crime isn't a problem, the notion that we've fallen into anarchy and that things were infinitely better in the "good old days" (whatever THOSE were) strikes me as nothing more than fantasy.

(Incidentally, the film's star, Michael Caine, recently came out an openly backed the Conservatives, which I can't say was much of a surprise to me given the film's leanings.)

HARRY BROWN is often described as a British GRAN TORINO, and the similarities are readily apparent. Both revolve around an elderly former soldier living in a crime-infested area who, fed up with the situation, decides to take matters into his own hands. The differences lie in the ideology. Whereas GRAN TORINO effectively undercut Clint Eastwood's DIRTY HARRY image by ultimately refusing to have the character pick up a weapon and go around blasting away his neighbourhood's problems, Harry Brown is more than happy to torch a drug den (after killing the two resident dealers), threaten to kneecap one youth and shoot at least three others to death. I get the impression we're meant to see him as a man pushed to the edge and driven to commit actions he would normally abhor, but something about the ease with which he slips into the role of ultra-violent vigilante undermines this.

Morally, I find it all rather suspect, but at the same time there's a lot to admire in the film. It's very nicely shot and manages to maintain a palpable atmosphere of foreboding from beginning to end, and when all said and done there IS something rather compelling about watching a pensioner taking on some of the most disreputable examples of humanity. Michael Caine is terrific as the eponymous Harry Brown, and the supporting cast is comprised of a number of very capable performers, including Iain Glen, Liam Cunningham and Emily Mortimer, although the former two are playing characters that are too thinly written to make much of an impact, while Mortimer is stuck with the most thankless role in the movie: a buttoned-down detective who must simultaneously serve as Harry's foil and represent the counter-argument that the filmmakers seem to have little interest in airing.

So which film did I prefer? On the one hand, HARRY BROWN provides a sense of catharsis that GRAN TORINO, for obvious thematic reasons, denies the viewer. On the other, GRAN TORINO is a far more optimistic film. The moral of HARRY BROWN, fundamentally, is that the world is filled with scumbags and the best of dealing with them is with a bullet in the head, while GRAN TORINO is considerably more egalitarian. Divorced from its underlying message, HARRY BROWN is a rather effective piece of work, but eh... it all seems a bit mean-spirited. Maybe I'm guilty of over-analysing it, but I suspect HARRY BROWN is aimed less at the sort of people who actually live on estates such as the one depicted in the film and more at the sort of Tory-voting Daily Mail readers who lament how society has gone to pot while tucking into the Sunday roast.

Image quality: This is a very impressive-looking disc from Lions Gate. According to IMDB, HARRY BROWN was shot in Super35, but I find that very hard to believe, as the image looks nothing like film and at times suffers from many of the problems that tend to blight digital photography, namely heavy noise in darker scenes and "tizzing" around high contrasts. Detail is very impressive, and I can't fault the encoding on any level. Contrast is a little murky, and while I suspect that this may have been intentional on the part of director Daniel Barber, the fact that there are numerous fades to dark grey rather than to black leads me to suspect that some elevation of the blacks may be occurring. On the whole, though, I was rather pleased with how the film looked. 9/10

Harry Brown
studio: Lions Gate; country: UK; region code: B; codec: AVC;
file size: 26.6 GB; average bit rate (including audio): 37.06 Mbit/sec

Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown Harry Brown

 
15 Comments

1. Erik said:

Believe the Sony F35 CineAlta was used for this.

(Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 3:21 PM)

2. FoxyMulder said:

Reported crime is dropping due to the fact the police do f*** all when you report it.

I have suffered anti-social behaviour, the latest incident happening today and all because i live next to a park which is frequented by teenage hooligans who swear and abuse and throw stones and do not like being told to stop, police do f-all to rectify the situation.

I firmly believe law and order is soft in this country and i am sick of it, and this is from someone who comes from the Scottish Borders where it is supposed to be tranquil and peaceful.

Things were better in the past.

For the record, I won't vote Liberal Democrat because i don't believe the planet needs saving, i won't vote conservatives because they do nothing for Scotland, and i won't vote Labour because they are useless and the SNP want to give us independence and then throw it away by entering into the Euro, kinda pointless getting independence and then letting Europe control your money and laws.

In fact i'm not voting this year, i don't trust any of them.

For me law and order is a big issue and anti-social behaviour is a huge problem facing the UK, a recent ITN news broadcast highlighted this as have many independent polls. It may not have affected you yet but its an issue and people are fed up reporting to the police and having nothing done about it thus they stop reporting it and the reported incidents fall.

Sorry for getting political but i'm fed up of having to deal with anti-social idiots who spoil my day and ignoring them is impossible when they start throwing things at your greenhouse just because you live next to the local park and are thus an easy target.

(Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 4:05 PM)

3. Author Profile Page Michael said:

Foxymulder:

I'm sorry to hear about what you've been experiencing. It can't be fun at all. However, I'm not yet ready to assume that a perceived increase in crime in one area necessarily indicates a nationwide increase in crime. You make a valid point in saying that a lower rate of crime being reported could be down to people being sick of the police doing nothing about it, but by the same token it can be argued that one of the main reasons why people perceive crime to have increased is that there is so much more media coverage of minor (and by minor I don't mean unimportant or acceptable, I just mean at the lower end of the spectrum) offences. I'm more interested in actual statistics than polls, which are heavily weighted by individuals' perceptions and are not necessarily reflective of reality. I again draw attention to the murder rate - I very much doubt that THESE figures have been weighted by people not reporting them. I'd be more willing to accept that "lesser" crimes (such as vandalism and antisocial behaviour) may have increased, while more severe crimes have decreased.

By all means don't vote, but I'm inclined to suggest that those who sit the election out and then continue to lament the state of the country have no-one to blame but themselves. Vote for one of the fringe parties - there's no shortage of them, and chances are one of them will align with your views! Even vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party if the fancy takes you - that makes more of a statement than not bothering to fill out the ballot ever will.

As for the Liberal Democrats, they're about considerably more than just saving the planet, although I'd consider that as good as reason as any to vote for them. Maybe I'm just being overly idealistic, but I still think something can be done about climate change etc., and I'm not about to write this planet off just yet.

No need to apologise for getting political, by the way. I'm the one who started it so I have only myself to blame!

(Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 6:32 PM)

4. ChuckZ said:

Come to the U.S., Foxy, and help us get Ron Paul elected. :)

(Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 6:56 PM)

5. FoxyMulder said:

I believe the United Kingdom political system needs a complete overhaul, i also do not agree that by not voting it means i cannot voice an opinion because to vote for any party or system which i believe is unfair and lets people down is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Lets have a final choice on the ballot papers which reads none of the above because they are all self serving idiots and i'll vote.

I actually went to the parliament pages and downloaded the information on what the politicians had taken for expenses, so much blacked out info and so many tiny petty expense claims which should be paid by the politicians out of their own pockets, lies and promises about referendums on Europe, immmigration policies, supplying troops equipment etc etc.

Climate change is real but its not man made, emails which showed British scientists exaggerated data to make it look like we were destroying the planet proves that, scientists who disagreed with the theory that we are creating the climate change issues were not listened to and many resigned from the panel that oversees this in protest.

In fact the Earth has cooling periods and warming up periods and always has had them, i don't believe we can do anything about climate change and i believe its all one big bandwagon and has become an industry where people make money out of climate change.

I'm not convinced by what i am told about climate change, The fact is i have been recycling for many years and long before climate change became an issue, recycling is important but saving the planet is just ridiculous, the planet is going through a natural cycle and of course scientists and people who say this get shouted down and the cries of "what if you are wrong - we only have fifty years left to save the planet we must take action just in case we are right" - It's an industry now and the poorer people are paying for the changes as the rich are never affected by all this, so no i disagree about climate change and i have researched it and there are many conflicting facts depending on who you listen to but if one top scientist says its going to happen and another says it isn't then you go with your own head and my head tells me the planet has natural cycles of cooling and warming.

I therefore do not believe the planet needs saved as i believe its just going through one of its natural cycles, yes there will be devastation because of it but i really think its something we cannot control no matter what we do, but having said that it just makes sense to recycle and conserve energy but lets not do it for so called climate change.

You know people often say anti-social behaviour is the lower end of the spectrum but it can do far more damage to communities and people than other forms of crime, it is very much psychological and it puts you off going out, it makes you on edge all the time and it ruins lives and is never taken seriously by the authorities because they see it as lower priority, the trouble with that thinking is not only does it let people down who need help but if you don't stamp out behaviour like this then you have people growing up thinking they can get away with stuff like that, it's intimidation and bullying and it hurts when it happens to you and the law is so weak that no one listens or wants to resolve the situation, i mean when the best advice you get is ignore the problem and they will move onto someone else then i gotta say thats not really solving the real problem.

We do have a Liberal Democrat MP here called Michael Moore and he is actually a decent guy and has helped us with an issue once so i'm not totally against all politicians i just think the system has far too many faults and needs looked at by independent people and changes need to be made. ( not the politicians themselves )

(Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 at 12:54 PM)

6. BobaFett said:

There is a strong international consensus in the scientific world about the reality of climate change. Of course it is also true that there are natural periods of cooling and warming, but the current period of global warming cannot be explained by those alone. If you take a look at the complete amount of data we have today, it is most likely that the increase in global warming is due to human factors like the industrial revolution and the emission of greenhouse gases. Yes, as with every scientific issue there are always some individuals with dissenting views, but those are only the views of a few individuals and that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of scientists regards today's amount of global warming as being caused by human intervention because of all the data we have. It would be more than careless to simply ignore this. Yes, I also think that we should at least try to make a change.

It is also untrue that e-mails obtained by hackers illegally from the University of East Anglia prove anything and especially not the exaggeration or fabrication of data by scientists of that institution. All in all more than 1000 e-mails have been leaked in that incident out of which only passages from a few mails have been cited out of context in order to construct the notion in the media that some kind of wrong-doing had been taken place. The real exaggeration has been made about those e-mails.

In the end it's not out-of-context citations from e-mails, but hard scientific data that counts, which has been collected not only by the University of East Anglia but from different scientific institutions all over the world. It's sad that some parts of our media are so effective in manipulating people into believing that human induced climate change is a controversial topic among scientists when in reality this is not the case.

(Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM)

7. FoxyMulder said:

Not true BobaFett and hey what happened to your ORIGINAL voice!!!

Hundreds of scientists resigned because their voice was not being heard and that is unheard of, the data has been exaggerated due to political agendas. The scientists who toe the line get their lovely european grants too.

I totally disagree with what you are saying but i'll leave it at that and if we are both living fifty years from now we can talk about how right i was.

(Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 at 10:34 PM)

8. Author Profile Page Michael said:

I'm going to refrain from commenting on this discussion of climate change, except to say that I completely agree with BobaFett, and that until today I'd never actually personally spoken to anyone who disputes the notion that it is largely a problem created by humankind. To me, anything to the contrary is about as absurd as trying to contest evolution (and yes, I'm sure you'll find a tiny handful of scientists who attempt to do just that). So yay, I feel that my life experience has been suitably enriched by what to me is a crackpot conspiracy theory of the most ludicrous kind. Sorry.

(Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 at 10:44 PM)

9. ChuckZ said:

Head on over to Ars Technica if you want to dive right into the hornet's nest of the AGW debate.

(Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 at 11:17 PM)

10. FoxyMulder said:

Michael, This has nothing to do with evolution and thats just ridiculous to even put the two together like that.

There are many people who feel as i do and they are not crackpots or idiots but intelligent people who have listened to both sides of the debate and thats all i'm going to say on this. I do not believe climate change is caused by humans.

(Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 12:57 AM)

11. Author Profile Page Michael said:

I compared it to the evolution debate because once again we have a situation where a minority viewpoint is flying in the face of a damning quantity of evidence supported by the vast majority of experts in the field. And no, I don't for a second believe that they say global warming is caused by humans because they've all been bribed with "lovely European grants". That sort of conspiracy theorism simply cheapens your own argument. I might just as well point out that a number of scientists with ties to big business, particularly in the US, have claimed that their employers have put pressure on them to deny climate change.

My suspicion, I'm sorry to say, is that the majority of those who believe the climate change we're currently experiencing is an entirely natural phenomenon do so not because they've weighed up the evidence but because they would LIKE that to be the case. Did you study the subject extensively before coming to the conclusions you've reached? If you choose to adopt a stance that is debunked by the vast majority of experts in the field, then in my opinion you have a duty to back that stance up with extensive proof of your own. "I believe" simply isn't enough. I don't for a minute pretend I know all the ins and outs of the science behind this debate, but when every single national science academy says exactly the same thing, I'm inclined to believe them. People far smarter than me have dedicated much of their lives to investigating these issues, and have come to the same conclusions. Scepticism is healthy and something I wholeheartedly endorse, but there comes a point when it stops being scepticism and becomes wilful self-delusion.

(Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 9:32 AM)

12. FoxyMulder said:

In the 1970's we had all the scientists predicting doom and saying the Earth is cooling down, now it's warming up.

I just have lost all faith in the people leading us so maybe i'm sticking my head in the sand here but i'm very doubtful about any of these claims.

I'm all for recycling and more efficient energy and its up to big business to help design better cars and planes so we use less fuel and indeed lets find alternative fuel that is cleaner, no issues with any of that, i just don't believe what is being said about global warming.
( climate change as its now called )

Incidentally i have always been against the destruction of the rain forests where many species are being wiped out by humans, rainforests apparently also soak up the greenhouse gases many say are destroying the planet and yet we are cutting them down, shouldn't governments be devoting their time to stopping this and yet i see apathy and lack of action on the rainforests. I see governments telling us all what we must do to "save the planet" but i just don't see the people in power doing anything to save the rainforests, Indeed a judge just gave permission for a large dam to be built yesterday and so once again the destruction begins.

Now rainforests i am passionate about saving but i do not believe in climate change being caused by humans. I want rainforests saved to protect endangered species and tribes who still live there. Thats the sort of action i can understand and appreciate but i cannot get into this climate change thing as i don't believe it.

(Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM)

13. Author Profile Page Michael said:

"All the scientists" certainly did NOT claim that the Earth was cooling down in the 70s. That's a myth. A minority did, but the concept gained a significant amount of public attention due in part to ignorant reporting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling (Apologies for linking to a Wikipedia article, but I think it provides the more coherent explanation.)

I'm not sure I really understand why you're so doubtful of the current claims and research. It's clearly something we're not going to reach a consensus on, but I'd be genuinely interested in why it is that you're so convinced that the majority of experts on the subject are either completely wrong or willingly participating in a global conspiracy to hide the truth.

(Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 3:54 PM)

14. BobaFett said:

Evolution/creation is a different topic, but yes, it shows how a minority opinion can find support in parts of the media and even by a handful of scientists despite of the existing evidence to the contrary. To me the whole notion that man-made global warming could only be a "conspiracy" seems to be rather absurd, although it might be quite popular in some circles of the Internet. I agree that it would be absolutely necessary to provide hard evidence to prove such a theory, because it definitely goes against our current scientific knowledge.

I don't know who the resigned scientists that have been mentioned are and I could imagine that there might indeed be some scientists who have resigned over this issue, but not on a grand scale. The majority of science is just very clear about this, e.g. take a look at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I also see a bit of anti-europeanism in some posts here, so maybe the rejection of man-made global warming could be somehow politically motivated?

Actually, if one understands the basics of the natural greenhouse effect, I don't know how anyone could come to the conclusion that additional greenhouse gases that go out into the atmosphere would not have an impact, because the percentage of absorbed long wavelength (thermal/infrared) radiation changes.

One thing I agree with is that today's economy has discovered environment protection as a new marketing ploy. That's not the worst thing that could have happened though, because it could indeed have a positive result, even if the main motivation behind it is still making a profit. ;) Of course one should be careful, because not every product that claims to be "green" really is.

(Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 4:24 PM)

15. BobaFett said:

I can't edit my last comment, but just want to add that I also agree that there's not enough that is being done to protect the rainforest. This is an important issue, both because the rainforest absorbs CO2 and because it provides living space to endangered species.

(Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM)

 
To combat spam, commenting is automatically disabled on entries older than 30 days.

Did a comment you tried to post accidentally get eaten by the spam filter? It happens from time to time. I get upwards of 200 spam comments every day and unfortunately don't have the time to weed through all of them in case something genuine ended up there by mistake. If one of your posts gets incorrectly flagged as spam, email me at whiggles[at]ntlworld[dot]com and I'll do my best to retrieve it.

 
Archives
Categories
Recent posts