The World's End (2013) Review

After creating the exceptionally popular films Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Pegg and Wright’s third film, The World’s End, is often overshadowed. Often, this film is considered unworthy of the critical acclaim bestowed upon its predecessors. Some consider the protagonist, Gary King (Pegg), to be utterly irritating, and also argue that the humour is too dependent on repetition to satisfy an audience. However, despite these minor complaints, this film proves to be a fascinating exploration of nostalgia caused by a disillusionment of the present through Gary’s character. Despite the repetition of some jokes, this superbly directed film does have hilarious moments that showcase the best of British comedy. For some, this is an underrated masterpiece that deserves all, if not more, of the praise that has been showered on its predecessors.

"Don't need it!" 

Initially, the presentation of Gary King could be considered irritating, overblown and too chaotic for an audience to engage in his character arc. He is portrayed with a juvenile wildness and hedonism as he seeks a “fucking mental!” night-out with his friends. He tells Andy (Frost) that they are “going back on a Friday” because the only thing he values is the indulgence of pleasure and fun. Through the use of Primal Scream’s Loaded, we as an audience get the full impression that this character only wants “to have a good time”. This emphasis on Gary’s disorderly nature is repeated throughout the film; thus, some may argue that this presentation is extremely exaggerated, making Gary’s character annoying and tiresome. However, on a much deeper reading, it is clear Gary proves to be an endearing character we can feel great sympathy for. Whilst he could be interpreted as a hedonistic character, his most defining characteristic is his longing for the past. In a similar manner to the eponymous protagonist of Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, Gary is a character utterly trapped and imprisoned in the glorious past, refusing to “join society”. His clothing, his tape recordings and his car all suggest that he is a man stuck in 1990. Even the movie soundtrack of 90s music emphasises this character’s overpowering nostalgia. Wright and Pegg create a lot of sympathy for Gary’s character when we realise his happy memories of the past are “all I’ve got!” He is portrayed as utterly disillusioned with the present day as he realises “life would never feel this good again”; the “promise” of his youth has disappointed him greatly. In a time when the protest vote has shaken British politics to its core, and when reality TV is so appealing to the masses, is Gary not a character we can all sympathise with? We all suffer disillusionment with this bleak period in time, thus making Gary such an endearing and relatable character.

"I'm free to do what I want any old time"

Nevertheless, some audiences may still label The World’s End a poor-quality film because of the humour, arguing that a few of the jokes fall flat. The recurring gag of having every member of the cast exclaim “what the fuck?” was not particularly funny when Oliver (Freeman) first said it. Despite the varying tones in which this phrase is uttered, it struggles to evoke laughter from the audience throughout the film. Furthermore, many elements of humour in this movie feel tired and cliche. Wright and Pegg repeat the ‘falling off the fence’ gag that they used in the other two movies, and it feels exhausted in this film. The cliched drinking jokes (such as “Dr Ink” and “we will in truth be blind- drunk!”) have been so overused in the past that they cease to be funny in the film. Thus, some may argue that The World’s End lacks the charming humour which made the first two films as popular as they are. However, the dynamic between Frost and Pegg proves to be a plentiful source of comedy; in fact, this is the most comic pair of characters the two actors have ever played. Much of the humour of the film lies in the presentation of Andy and Gary’s relationship as being akin to that of a parent and child. Andy consistently holds Gary to account for his actions as Andy tries to control his former friend. When running towards the eponymous ‘World’s End’ pub, Andy calls for Gary to “get back you stupid bastard!”, and is utterly disgusted to discover that Gary lied about his mother’s death: “your Mum just rang, and not from the afterlife: from fucking Bournemouth!” Gary, too, is perturbed by Andy’s maturity; he is shocked to see a “man of your legendary prowess drinking fucking rain” rather than the alcohol consumed in their youth. This dynamic of two friends almost living in two different time zones leads to some of the best comedy in both of their careers. As these two friends battle to change the other, we as an audience are treated to hilarious pieces of dialogue between the two.

"I fucking hate this town!"

The greatest aspect of this masterpiece is certainly Wright’s outstanding direction. His skills are subtle and masterful as he uses a multitude of different types of shot to create meaning, humour and tension. For example, he chooses to open the film with a montage of clips from the main character’s past, voiced over by the Gary King of the future. Whilst this montage is significant for foreshadowing the future events of the plot, creating interest for the audience over what is to come, it has a much greater significance in developing Gary’s character. By using clips of the younger version of Gary as the older version narrates immediately connotes that his character has not moved on from “the best night of my life”. Wright’s superb directorial command is also used to create tension as the action unfolds. Whether he is using an aerial shot to capture the stylised violence of the fight with the twins, or a sequence shot to emphasise the chaotic carnage of Andy’s fury in the bar brawl- “I fucking hate this town!”- Wright’s direction is always excellent. You will struggle to resist the appealing visuals and the directorial charm of what Wright has crafted for the screen. It certainly attractive to the eye. The choreography of the fight scenes is much tighter in this film than in any of his other works, and his skill is magnificently used to develop the character of his protagonist. The direction of the film is masterfully crafted, and really develops the entertaining cinematic experience.

Whilst some of the humour feels dry, cliched and repetitive, this film still proves to be utterly hilarious through the comic chemistry between Pegg and Frost in their performances. The comedy is utterly superb- Wright and Pegg are working at their best. Moreover, the writer-director pairing find much greater success in their carefully constructed characterisation of Gary King. Despite being portrayed as irritating and annoying in the opening scenes of the film, they add a great deal of depth to his character, thus making him a lot more relatable and endearing by the end of the film. However, the greatest achievement of The World’s End is certainly in its wonderful visual parade of different shots. It makes the stylised violence and carnage of the fight scenes visually glorious, and even subtly adds to the characterisation of the protagonist. This impressively directed film achieves a lot of humour and complex characterisation in its short running time. It is a worthy masterpiece of British cinema to follow up Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, as well as serving as the perfect conclusion to the self-titled Cornetto trilogy.

Macbeth (2015) Review

Kurzel’s adaptation of Macbeth is a skilful film that utilises many techniques to answer the key questions raised within the source material. Who is at fault for Macbeth’s violent crimes? How much sympathy can we as an audience truly feel for this flawed protagonist? The answers to these questions appear to be the impetus of this well-made adaptation. Film techniques such as the use of colour saturation, slow-motion and the restructuring of the plot all serve to alter our ability to show compassion for the protagonist as he begins to “stepped so far” into a world of death and brutality.

The use of slow-motion during the opening proves very effective at developing the gothic themes of the source material. From the eager shaking of Macbeth’s sword as he waits for the battle to begin, through to its climactic conclusion, Kurzel chooses to reduce the film’s pace significantly. As a result, every single detail of this bloody battle can be savoured by the audience. Every brutal attack that Macbeth and Banquo execute upon their enemies can almost be felt, as the scenes play out slow enough for us to become more involved with every stab, kick and slice. Kurzel appears to be using this slow-motion technique to glorify and stylise the violence, which may reflect the characterisation of Duncan and his lords within the play itself. Both Macbeth and Banquo are praised as “worthy gentleman!” for their savage fighting style; they are “honoured” and “valiant”. Duncan’s speech is filled with a chain of positive adjectives to emphasise how respected Macbeth is for his actions- “brave Macbeth, well he deserves that name”. This attitude to the protagonist’s heroic efforts is reflected by the use of slow-motion, which presents their patriotic desire to protect their country as impressive, magnificent and extravagant. However, a more effective use of this slow-motion is how it infers the powerful influence of the Witches in this play. In a short segment of the battle sequence, the pace returns to real-time for the soldiers who continue to participate in the combat. This is juxtaposed with the shots featuring the eponymous protagonist and the Witches, who remain in slow-motion. For the audience, this effectively emphasises the influence they have upon Macbeth. Only he can see them, and his focus is on these arcane figures rather than the bloody battle as it continues around him. Kurzel’s use of slow-motion thus serves to isolate Macbeth as a protagonist who is no longer of the temporal world. From this moment on, Macbeth appears to be under the supernatural influence of the Witches.

However, Kurzel appears to spend the rest of the film disputing the assertion that Macbeth is under the influence of overwhelming supernatural forces. In the play, the Witches are otherworldly beings with the sole goal of “draw him [Macbeth] onto his confusion”. The plot is slightly altered in this adaption so that Lady Macbeth sees these mysterious characters. Whilst it may appear to be a small adjustment, this heavily influences the audience’s response to the question at the heart of this play: ‘who is to blame for Macbeth’s actions?’ In the play, it is ambiguous and unclear. This adaptation makes the mistake of eliminating the uncertainty that makes the play the timeless classic that it is. For Lady Macbeth to meet the Witches, Kurzel inadvertently diminishes the integrity of their mysterious representation as paranormal beings. In fact, there is very little makeup or effects (if any) used on these characters, which serves to present them as more human than “juggling fiend”. Rather than “vanish” completely after their meeting with Macbeth, they simply walk off into the fog. Kurzel appears to be creating a very realistic and grounded version of this classic gothic play. Furthermore, the famous dagger scene is adapted so that it is a young boy in a dream who offers the weapon to Macbeth. In the play, the origins of this dagger are much more obscure. We never truly know whether it is Macbeth’s “heat-oppressed” mind that hallucinates this image, or the Witches tempting him down a road of violence and death. Kurzel’s adaption does not preserve this mystery: the Witches are much less supernatural and arcane in this film, as the ambiguity which made them so interesting in the play is stripped away. This also makes it very difficult to blame Macbeth’s transgressive murders throughout the play on the overpowering influence on the Witches. Whilst the use of slow-motion earlier did appear to suggest that Macbeth was completely enchanted by their power, it is clear that the true fault for Macbeth’s actions lies with the protagonist himself.

In fact, Kurzel and Fassbender’s presentation of Macbeth appears to deliberately restrict our sympathies for the protagonist. During the film, the domination and command of Lady Macbeth is almost entirely omitted. Cotillard’s performance is very subtle as her character seduces Macbeth into committing regicide, rather than completely overpowering him. When Macbeth cowardly asks “if we should fail,-” in the film, it appears to stem from a fear of disappointing his wife for not being masculine enough. In the play, it is Lady Macbeth who uses his manhood and his pride as weapons in order to convince Macbeth. The film does not utilise this key concept within the play, for the delivery of Cotillard’s lines are too quiet for us to interpret her as the commanding partner of this relationship. In fact, much of the dialogue in the play has been cut from the film’s screenplay. Following Duncan’s murder, the use of imperatives and insults in her language- such as “infirm of purpose”; “white” hearted and “go get”- is absent from Kurzel’s adaptation. Similarly to the Witches’ presentation, her influence has been stripped to its core so that there is very little of it. This serves to increase the blame of Macbeth’s actions upon the titular protagonist himself.

Furthermore, Kurzel presents Macbeth as worthy of the titles “butcher” and “devilish Macbeth” during the act of regicide itself. In Shakespeare’s source narrative, the murder is completely omitted. It takes place off-stage, which may initially infer that Macbeth feels so much guilt for his crime that he cannot process it. He runs and hides immediately, refusing to go back to the “sorry sight”. However, a much greater interpretation would suggest that this crime is actually more abhorrent for the audience, hence why it is absent from the narrative. There is a suggestion that the crime is too horrific to be imagined. Kurzel appears to be adapting the play so that it coincides with the latter interpretation. He chooses to include Duncan’s murder within the film, and directs it in a perfectly chilling way. In what is one of the most accomplished scenes in the film, the audience is left repulsed by the violent, barbaric and bloody murder that Macbeth commits. It is the repeated stabbings, and the uncontrollable burst of ferocity, that presents Macbeth as so cold, and so indifferent. Thus, it could be interpreted that Kurzel is deliberately restricting our sympathies for the protagonist. Whereas the play included a duality about his character, which made him both sympathetic and morally revolting, the film does not portray Macbeth as someone we should feel sorry for. Even the film’s colour saturation, so that the scene appears orange and red during the final battle sequence, serves to distance us from Macbeth. We struggle to feel sympathy for the character because the colour saturation obscures him from view; all we can see is the ‘red’ that symbolises his bloody and violent path to power.

Whilst this film is flawed in its lack of ambiguity or mystery, there are many elements of the source material that Kurzel translates to screen faultlessly. He masterly reflects the glorification of violence in the play through stylised and stunning visual storytelling, and he cleverly restructures the story to open up original interpretations on how we as an audience should respond to Macbeth’s character. It is an impressive film that proves to be a faithful adaptation of this 400 year old play, whilst also having its own fresh, innovative and modern flair.