Saturday, November 22, 2014

New Hunger Games film is not for ‘real adults’ - opinion BBC article

Review: New Hunger Games film is not for ‘real adults’

Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1(Lionsgate)
(Lionsgate)
Jennifer Lawrence leads a revolution in the third Hunger Games movie. But can a YA novel yield a worthwhile film? Critic Owen Gleiberman delivers his verdict.
Early in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), nestled 50 storeys underground in a top-secret rebel command station, is summoned to a strategy meeting. Alma Coin (Julianne Moore), the high-handed leader of the rebellion, and Plutarch (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the movement's jaunty minister of propaganda, explain that the proletarian revolt that Katniss ignited now has the chance to take wing. If she can find it within herself to become the icon of revolution known as ‘The Mockingjay’, then the oppressed districts of the dystopian nation Panem will rise up, join forces, and break the fascist grip of the Capitol. Faced with this offer, Katniss seems neither pleased nor particularly incendiary. Instead, with a look of glazed yearning, she wants to know just one thing: "What about Peeta? Is he alive?"
This moment has an unmistakably kitschy ring to it, and it speaks to the quintessence of young-adult fiction and why no real adult should take it seriously (though more than ever, they do). Civilisation hangs in the balance, but what's really at stake is Katniss' feelings for Peeta – the dewiest of junior love stories. Of course you could argue that Casablanca, minus the puppy-love factor, works in pretty much the same way, with the outcome of World War II hinged on the issue of whether Humphrey Bogart's Rick will remain with Ingrid Bergman's Ilsa. But if Katniss is the forceful prime mover in Mockingjay – Part I, Peeta, let's be clear, is no Ilsa. As played by Josh Hutcherson, he has all the charisma of the least interesting member of the Yale crew team. Katniss, for most of Mockingjay – Part I, is more interested in saving this preppy hand-puppet than she is in bringing about the overthrow of tyranny. By now, even much of the audience may not share Katniss' Peeta fixation. Three movies into the Hunger Games series, their bond comes off as more desperately theoretical than ever.
Lawrence, who had the implacability of an Olympian in the first two Hunger Games films, now plunges Katniss into a mood of Hamlet-esque doubt: having become the poster girl for revolution, she's not at all sure if she wants the role. She's wary and woeful, just like the Katniss who first volunteered for the Hunger Games to save her sister. Lawrence has a chance to show some more vulnerability, but Katniss' tearful ambivalence about whether she's committed to the cause, or merely to saving Peeta, plays out in a less than scintillating way. It's not the actor’s fault. This is what happens when you split the third installment of a YA series into two blockbuster movies: Part I is basically all dragging exposition.
Games, must we?
When Katniss shot an arrow  at the end of the previous film and shattered the forcefield covering the Capitol’s barbaric children-killing-children contest, she did more than bring down the Hunger Games. She effectively eliminated the premise of reality TV as a death match – and the critique of it – that had been the liveliest element in this series so far. The closest thing that Mockingjay – Part I comes up with to replace it is a televised war of propaganda. Plutarch, played by the late Hoffman with a sly-dog cynicism that makes you realise how much you'll miss him even in a franchise movie like this one, produces a series of propaganda videos, or 'propos'. They feature Katniss in her black-latex archer suit (so fetchingly colour-coordinated with her dark tresses) making revolutionary speeches to camera. At first, her words sound stilted and fake, but then Plutarch sends Katniss and a team of young cohorts to survey the smoking ruins of her home. Suddenly, her outrage is real. She's on fire again.
The Capitol’s wily President Snow (Donald Sutherland) comes up with a PR weapon of his own: it's the captured Peeta, interviewed, as if on some nightly chat show, by Stanley Tucci's unctuous, high-haired host. Peeta has been set up to preach to the Capitol’s subjects against Katniss, and that makes it obvious to us he's been drugged, or brainwashed, or something. His fate probably shouldn't amount to a hill of beans, but Katniss is fixated. And President Coin, who knows she needs Katniss to lead the revolution, agrees to her demand: that the rebels go in and rescue him.
Directed by Francis Lawrence (who made the franchise’s previous film, Catching Fire, as well as the upcoming Mockingjay sequel), Part 1 has gravity and sweep, with grandly sombre visual motifs lifted out of films from Metropolis to the original Star Wars. There are also some gripping scenes of impending battle. The destruction of a dam by rebel explosives gives a little rush of triumph: the revolution has begun! Yet for anyone who's not emotionally immersed in Suzanne Collins' book trilogy to begin with, your ultimate reaction may still be: why should I care? Sutherland continues to make President Snow a compelling despot with a Machiavellian twinkle in his eye, but in a funny way you like him more than you do the good guys.  Lawrence, as a director, hasn't figured out how to turn the ragtag masses of Panem into anything more than a sodden tableau of oppression. And why does Moore play the leader of the revolt like Eva Peron with a touch of Pol Pot? She doesn't exactly inspire sympathy for the cause. Of course, I sound like I'm missing the point: it's all about Peeta! I just wish that wasn't the point.
★★☆☆☆

Monday, November 17, 2014

Riversimple - the world's first hydrogen powered electric car

(Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

A hydrogen-powered electric car under development in Wales is bringing more than just a C02-free powertrain to the table. Riversimple founder and chief engineer Hugo Spowers and his team are striving to upend the business model of making and selling – not to mention owning – cars.

“Disruptive technology can only work if it comes with a new business model,” says Spowers, who, in addition to being an entrepreneur, is a lifelong motorsport enthusiast, having fielded a private team in the 1980s. “When someone comes up with a radical new idea, the conversation always turns to why it can’t be done. And generally speaking, many of those reasons are true. But if you’re prepared to throw out the whole context and start again from scratch, all the reasons why something can’t be done just fall away.”

(Riversimple)

(Riversimple)

Spowers is no stranger to challenging the status quo, having worked on the hydrogen-powered LIFECar, a demonstration hydrogen-powered vehicle developed by a consortium that included Morgan Motor, the defence contractor QinetiQ, Cranfield University and Oxford University.

Like that project, Spowers’ little Welsh startup is perhaps best represented by its prototype, an as-yet-unnamed, two-seat wonder of Smart Fortwo stature whose toylike form conceals radical innards. “We’ve designed a car around hydrogen fuel cells rather than trying to put fuel cells into cars designed around the internal-combustion engine for the last 100 years,” Spowers says.

Compressed hydrogen travels from a pressurised tank mounted at the rear axle to hydrogen fuel cells tucked in the car’s nose. The cells convert the fuel into electricity, which in turn powers four direct-drive motors, one housed in each wheel. The direct-drive equipment obviates Riversimple from having to fit a gearbox; drivers just push buttons on the dash for forward, neutral or reverse.

“There are no moving parts, except for the wheels,” Spowers says. “There’s no metal-to-metal contact, no lubrication required and no mechanical wear.”

(Riversimple, via 40fires)

The carbon-fibre body shell of Riversimple's earlier prototype. (Riversimple, via 40fires)

Additional electricity is created via regenerative braking – whereby energy expended in slowing or stopping is recaptured rather than being lost as heat – and stored in a bank of supercapacitors that Spowers says will provide 80% of the car’s motive power down the road. “That means the fuel cells only need to supply 20% of the power during acceleration,” Spowers notes. Conventional friction brakes intercede for higher-speed emergency stops and braking below 8kph (5mph).

The prototype, which weighs about 520kg (1,147lbs) and measures 3.7 meters (roughly 12ft) long, scoots from zero to 50mph – its top crusing speed – in a respectable 8 seconds, Spowers claims, and has a driving range of about 300 miles before requiring refuelling.

While the final design is still being finalised, the demonstrator model reveals a sleek, light carbon-fibre body created by Chris Reitz, the company’s design chief. Reitz has put his stamp on many notable cars, including the Fiat 500, and has worked for Volkswagen, Audi, Nissan and Alfa Romeo.

But Riversimple also differentiates itself in another key respect. Just as the Beatles observed that money can’t buy love, it can’t buy a Riversimple car, either.

Rather, consumers will be charged a monthly fee that ostensibly serves as a lease payment, but also covers other car-related expenses such as insurance, fuel and routine maintenance. “Refuelling bills will come right to us for payment,” Spowers says.

The first prototype was presented at Somerset House in London. (Riversimple)

The first prototype was presented at Somerset House in London. (Riversimple)

This mobility-as-service approach is not new; the (now bankrupt) battery-swapping startup Better Place tried it, and Hyundai recently introduced a similar programme in the southwest US for its Tucson electric SUV, powered by hydrogen fuel cells. (A $499 monthly lease payment over three years covers all fuel and maintenance costs.) Spowers says that the monthly payment will also help subsidise the development of fuelling infrastructure.

While an exact fee remains undetermined, Spowers estimates it will total about £450 (roughly $720) – comparable to the monthly operating costs of a new, moderately priced car. Fees will vary according to how far consumers drive each month.

“We’re rethinking the provision of mobility from a clean sheet of paper, without the legacy barriers imposed by the existing industry,” Spowers says. ”We’ve designed a solution that’s not just a car, but a business model that suits the 21st Century.”

That consumers will eventually return their cars to Riversimple for “resale” motivates the company to design products that last, as opposed to the conventional planned-obsolescence mindset of the car industry at large.

“Designing a car for this business model requires us to sell performance, not just cars,” Spowers says. “This changes our design drivers from obsolescence and high running costs to longevity and lower running costs – completely opposite from what drives the current auto industry.”

The principle may be difficult for consumers to grasp initially, Spowers concedes, but Riversimple ultimately expects motorists to gravitate towards a clean, viable alternative to ownership or conventional leasing schemes. Beta testing of 20 vehicles is slated for late 2015, with production expected to start in mid-2017.

As for name recognition, all in good time.

Hugo Spowers

Hugo Spowers and the Riversimple car. (Riversimple)

If you would like to comment on this or anything else you have seen on BBC Autos, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.