Cecil says: At last a feel-good film. This 1939 classic was showing at the NFT to a packed audience. Average age in the room must have been 70 and I couldn't help wondering how many were watching the film for the 10th or 12th time. For Bea and me, it was our first, but may well not be our last!
Set in Hungary, in a small, family-run leather goods store. James Stewart is the lead salesman (or clerk, as the Americans obviously called them then). Stewart the actor is already 31 when this film was made (his first film was at what would now be considered the ancient age of 28), but he is probably supposed to be quite a bit younger in role (and the programme notes suggested that he was chosen over other Hollywood greats of the time as he was thought to be relatively 'ugly', which seems a bit unfair).
The most charming character is Pirovitch, the Groucho Marx lookalike whose comic value early in the film (he does an about-turn every time the shop owner asks for an 'honest opinion') slowly changes into compassion and warmth: he is the one who is always there to support Kralik (Stewart) through thick and thin.
The plot centres around an early-day Lonely Hearts correspondence. Remember those days when a hand-written letter could be eagerly awaited in the poste restante? The ending is predictable but warm and delightful; the kind of boost to the spirit everyone needs around Christmas. A film to rival 'It's a Wonderful Life' for cosy charm on a winter's night.
Just not sure about the garters in the last scene...
***
Bea says: The garter scene was completely lost on me - too young I guess to remember men wearing garters with socks! Yes this film was a tonic after our recent overwhelmingly gloomy choices. Lovely Christmas-y snow scenes, and a certainty that it was all going to turn out alright in the end - Stewart was going to get the girl. The best scene for me was Matuschek describing their shared Christmas dinner to the young messenger lad - roast goose, red cabbage, potatoes, cucumber salad, stewed apple, and apple strudel to follow. Exactly as my own (German) grandmother would have made for Christmas. It made my mouth water just to think of it, and a trip to Cafe Daquise wouldn't have been out of order afterwards. However, we were on the South Bank, so Wagamamas had to do.
***
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Nowhere Boy
Bea says: As the daughter of a Liverpudlian, the niece of a major Beatles fan, and as they were the soundtrack to much of my childhood and adolescence, I felt I had to see this film about John Lennon's early life. I knew bits and pieces of it - that he was brought up by Aunt Mimi because his mother couldn't look after him, and about Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane as they were places my family talked about too. As I grew up in South Australia - about as far from Liverpool as you can get, geographically - these places seemed like something out of a storybook. I knew that John Lennon lived near - or in - the area my grandmother grew up in, and that my mother was born in the same hospital, as this was the kind of thing my family talked about.
So it was with pleasant anticipation that I settled down in the Vue cinema in Hull to see this film, and it didn't disappoint. Two hours flew by as the film focussed on a year or so of Lennon's life - trouble at school, the forming of the skiffle band The Quarrymen, the fated meeting with McCartney, and most importantly being reunited with his mother Julia, and his subsequent relationship building with her, and Mimi, under these changed circumstances. I think the film presented a fair and even-handed view of Lennon from what I know of him, and Julia and Mimi were sensitively handled. McCartney was extremely baby-faced and rather goody-two-shoes, but as he is still a bit like that now I expect that was the truth. I did wonder however whether the writers/directors were going easy on McCartney as the only Beatles member from that era (Ringo was not part of this film) still alive.
I must say that this film showed a side of 1960s sex I hadn't seen before - when Lennon nips off to the woods with a pretty female school friend I expected the usual wham, bam, thank you ma'am (and we do get this later), but much to my surprise the scene showed Lennon pleasuring the young woman before anything happens to him at all. A very considerate lover for those times, I would have thought.
***
Cecil says: I thought this film would be packed-out in Hull, a Northern city with a tradition of spawning young musical talent. The queue was certainly long to get tickets, but with only a dozen or so others in the room with us, I guess they were all heading to watch Avatar or Sherlock Holmes. Sad.
This was a delightful film. The music was fab. None of the major Beatles hits (and somehow they contrived never to utter the word 'Beatles' even when it was specifically mentioned that the band had changed name), but some great rock 'n' roll classics, which made me want to go straight out and buy the film soundtrack.
As Bea said, the film focused on the family triangle of Lennon, his Mum and his Aunt Mimi. Mimi the solid support, who bought his first guitar, but also confiscated it when he misbehaved; his Mum the creative and musical influence, teaching him to play banjo and encouraging his musical talent.
You get a hint of Lennon's short temper and tendency to violence, especially after the death of his mother. But above all, you feel the straitjacket of late 50s/early 60s caution and constraints working against anyone trying to do something out of the ordinary. This is the second film we have seen in recent weeks dealing with this period (see An Education) and how tough it was to defy the norms of the period. I can remember schools career sessions in an early 1970s Hull comprehensive, where I was being advised to look at banking as a career even though I had 'university' written all over my school reports. Banking was safe (!!) and ten years earlier, when this film was set, safety and security seemed far more appealing to struggling adults than a career in music...So much easier these days to follow your instinct and take risks, even in a recession.
Highly recommended.
***
So it was with pleasant anticipation that I settled down in the Vue cinema in Hull to see this film, and it didn't disappoint. Two hours flew by as the film focussed on a year or so of Lennon's life - trouble at school, the forming of the skiffle band The Quarrymen, the fated meeting with McCartney, and most importantly being reunited with his mother Julia, and his subsequent relationship building with her, and Mimi, under these changed circumstances. I think the film presented a fair and even-handed view of Lennon from what I know of him, and Julia and Mimi were sensitively handled. McCartney was extremely baby-faced and rather goody-two-shoes, but as he is still a bit like that now I expect that was the truth. I did wonder however whether the writers/directors were going easy on McCartney as the only Beatles member from that era (Ringo was not part of this film) still alive.
I must say that this film showed a side of 1960s sex I hadn't seen before - when Lennon nips off to the woods with a pretty female school friend I expected the usual wham, bam, thank you ma'am (and we do get this later), but much to my surprise the scene showed Lennon pleasuring the young woman before anything happens to him at all. A very considerate lover for those times, I would have thought.
***
Cecil says: I thought this film would be packed-out in Hull, a Northern city with a tradition of spawning young musical talent. The queue was certainly long to get tickets, but with only a dozen or so others in the room with us, I guess they were all heading to watch Avatar or Sherlock Holmes. Sad.
This was a delightful film. The music was fab. None of the major Beatles hits (and somehow they contrived never to utter the word 'Beatles' even when it was specifically mentioned that the band had changed name), but some great rock 'n' roll classics, which made me want to go straight out and buy the film soundtrack.
As Bea said, the film focused on the family triangle of Lennon, his Mum and his Aunt Mimi. Mimi the solid support, who bought his first guitar, but also confiscated it when he misbehaved; his Mum the creative and musical influence, teaching him to play banjo and encouraging his musical talent.
You get a hint of Lennon's short temper and tendency to violence, especially after the death of his mother. But above all, you feel the straitjacket of late 50s/early 60s caution and constraints working against anyone trying to do something out of the ordinary. This is the second film we have seen in recent weeks dealing with this period (see An Education) and how tough it was to defy the norms of the period. I can remember schools career sessions in an early 1970s Hull comprehensive, where I was being advised to look at banking as a career even though I had 'university' written all over my school reports. Banking was safe (!!) and ten years earlier, when this film was set, safety and security seemed far more appealing to struggling adults than a career in music...So much easier these days to follow your instinct and take risks, even in a recession.
Highly recommended.
***
Bright Star
Bea says: It's some time since I've seen a film by Jane Campion, and I had loved The Piano, so I was very amenable to Cecil's suggestion that we go along and see this, her latest offering. It was...okay. Neither particularly gripping, nor memorable, it did however pass a couple of hours fairly pleasantly. What seemed to be missing from it was the raw emotion of The Piano, although this was perhaps deliberate as the plot dealt with the English middle classes, rather than New Zealand immigrants.
Bright Star's apparently true story centres on Keats' time living in with a friend and fellow poet (Brown) in the village of Hampstead, near London (how quaint). A family live next door, and soon the eldest daughter of the household is enamoured with Mr Keats - cue much sobbing and some self harm whenever he has to go away. Keats is the archetypal penniless poet, and also rather delicate of constitution - before too long he has consumption and is clearly not long for this world, as those of us who know the Romantic poets knew anyway. He leaves for the improving climate of Rome, but as any visitor to the Spanish Steps knows, he dies there, leaving Fanny Brawn to walk the Heath alone until her own death years later.
Although I found Fanny's character a little tiresome and felt like telling her to pull herself together at times, I did enjoy her dressmaking, and the fabulous costumes, and cinematography, of this costume drama. I am not sure if I was supposed to be, but I wasn't convinced of Keats feelings for Fanny - it seemed he was more in love with the idea of love, rather than with her which fits, I suppose, with the Romantic poets. Cecil and I wondered afterwards if there was a hint of homosexuality in his relationship with the friend he lived with (Mr Brown - best performance in the film, I think).
Not highly recommended, and a sad end, but not a bad DVD film perhaps. It made me want to read a biography of Keats, which is no bad thing I guess.
**1/2
Cecil says: I don't have much to say about this film. Indeed, I don't remember much about it, even though we only saw it about a week ago. It was midday on a Saturday before Christmas, but perhaps the fact that we were the only people in the cinema when the lights went down should have been a clue about its popularity. At first, I was slightly miffed when a third person came in late and ruined our private viewing. But half an hour in, I had an inkling of why everyone was out Christmas shopping instead.
"Bright Star" sounds so optimistic, such a positive-sounding film, after our gloom-fest with the "White Ribbon" a few weeks ago. I had been warned by someone who knows a fair bit about Keats' life that it was likely to be a sad ending, given his early demise, but honestly there was not a lot to be positive about through the whole film.
Relationships not quite fitting; his work not quite selling; his health on a slow but steady downhill path. Yep, gloom and doom again. How do I pick these films?
And now, two weeks later, I am struggling to remember anything about the film. Is that not the worst indictment of a film: that it is utterly forgettable?
*.5
Bright Star's apparently true story centres on Keats' time living in with a friend and fellow poet (Brown) in the village of Hampstead, near London (how quaint). A family live next door, and soon the eldest daughter of the household is enamoured with Mr Keats - cue much sobbing and some self harm whenever he has to go away. Keats is the archetypal penniless poet, and also rather delicate of constitution - before too long he has consumption and is clearly not long for this world, as those of us who know the Romantic poets knew anyway. He leaves for the improving climate of Rome, but as any visitor to the Spanish Steps knows, he dies there, leaving Fanny Brawn to walk the Heath alone until her own death years later.
Although I found Fanny's character a little tiresome and felt like telling her to pull herself together at times, I did enjoy her dressmaking, and the fabulous costumes, and cinematography, of this costume drama. I am not sure if I was supposed to be, but I wasn't convinced of Keats feelings for Fanny - it seemed he was more in love with the idea of love, rather than with her which fits, I suppose, with the Romantic poets. Cecil and I wondered afterwards if there was a hint of homosexuality in his relationship with the friend he lived with (Mr Brown - best performance in the film, I think).
Not highly recommended, and a sad end, but not a bad DVD film perhaps. It made me want to read a biography of Keats, which is no bad thing I guess.
**1/2
Cecil says: I don't have much to say about this film. Indeed, I don't remember much about it, even though we only saw it about a week ago. It was midday on a Saturday before Christmas, but perhaps the fact that we were the only people in the cinema when the lights went down should have been a clue about its popularity. At first, I was slightly miffed when a third person came in late and ruined our private viewing. But half an hour in, I had an inkling of why everyone was out Christmas shopping instead.
"Bright Star" sounds so optimistic, such a positive-sounding film, after our gloom-fest with the "White Ribbon" a few weeks ago. I had been warned by someone who knows a fair bit about Keats' life that it was likely to be a sad ending, given his early demise, but honestly there was not a lot to be positive about through the whole film.
Relationships not quite fitting; his work not quite selling; his health on a slow but steady downhill path. Yep, gloom and doom again. How do I pick these films?
And now, two weeks later, I am struggling to remember anything about the film. Is that not the worst indictment of a film: that it is utterly forgettable?
*.5
Sunday, 6 December 2009
The White Ribbon (Das weisse Band)
Bea says: If you've ever watched an episode of Lark Rise to Candelford and found its tweeness just too sickly sweet for words - then this is the film for you!
Das weisse Band, shot entirely in black and white, and with absolutely no soundtrack at all, other than the singing of Protestant hymns in church and a bit of fiddling and dancing at the Harvest festival, begins in a beautful and peaceful north German village in 1913. However, over the two and half hours that we watch the film, the rural idyll is completely shattered by revelations of grinding poverty, murder, accidents, suicide, child abuse, incest, paedophilia and possible child killers.
It is certainly gripping stuff, and well acted and shot, but very, very grim - Cecil and I saw this late last Wednesday evening after a quick meal, feeling all was well with the world. We didn't feel that way when we came out. The story is narrated by one of the key characters - the village schoolmaster, who begins to investigate some of the strange accidents, abductions, beatings and murders that take place. We also follow his bumbling romance with the local laird's nanny, conducted in the shadow of WW1. However, by the film's end we are none the wiser as to the reason for, or perpetrators of, the incidents, nor are we given any information as to whether the schoolmaster and nanny every married - all we discover is that he survived WW1.
The best and most memorable scene for me - the church choir singing Bach. That is one moment in the film I did enjoy - but probably the only one.
It is not a bad film - just so depressing.
**
Cecil says: If you fancy a good belly laugh or some quick-witted dialogue, or a mystery with a quirky twist to the plot, this film is definitely not for you. I'm not one of those film reviewers who likes to search for 'meaning' or 'purpose' in a film. But I left the cinema after this one thinking: but, why? Why did this guy make this film? What was the point he was making? And why have I spent over two hours of my life watching a film where we don't even know at the end 'whodunnit'...
There was something hypnotic about the German in the film - very clear, very slow, very...rural. I did find myself listening rather than reading the subtitles, whereas in most subtitled films I try to taking in the action AND reading the subtitles, even if I follow the dialogue perfectly.
The complete lack of soundtrack also felt significant. Village life in 1913 after all must have been pretty quiet: no cars, no police sirens, no radios blaring out music. And the silence certainly added to the starkness of the atmosphere.
What was odd, though, was that the lack of theme music took away all desire to stay and read the credits, whereas I am usually one of those film geeks who stays to the bitter end to see every detail of what was filmed where, what music was used, who the gaffer was etc. But then maybe it was just the utter bleakness of the film that made me just want to get out of there.
The German title of the film is actually: Das weisse Band. Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte. This was no children's story in the usual sense of the word, but it did tend to see life from a child's perspective (the bullying, the punishments, the permissions sought or denied, the pet animals, the rivalries, the pecking order) and I guess when you are a child, the world can seem as sinister as this film made it appear.
**
Das weisse Band, shot entirely in black and white, and with absolutely no soundtrack at all, other than the singing of Protestant hymns in church and a bit of fiddling and dancing at the Harvest festival, begins in a beautful and peaceful north German village in 1913. However, over the two and half hours that we watch the film, the rural idyll is completely shattered by revelations of grinding poverty, murder, accidents, suicide, child abuse, incest, paedophilia and possible child killers.
It is certainly gripping stuff, and well acted and shot, but very, very grim - Cecil and I saw this late last Wednesday evening after a quick meal, feeling all was well with the world. We didn't feel that way when we came out. The story is narrated by one of the key characters - the village schoolmaster, who begins to investigate some of the strange accidents, abductions, beatings and murders that take place. We also follow his bumbling romance with the local laird's nanny, conducted in the shadow of WW1. However, by the film's end we are none the wiser as to the reason for, or perpetrators of, the incidents, nor are we given any information as to whether the schoolmaster and nanny every married - all we discover is that he survived WW1.
The best and most memorable scene for me - the church choir singing Bach. That is one moment in the film I did enjoy - but probably the only one.
It is not a bad film - just so depressing.
**
Cecil says: If you fancy a good belly laugh or some quick-witted dialogue, or a mystery with a quirky twist to the plot, this film is definitely not for you. I'm not one of those film reviewers who likes to search for 'meaning' or 'purpose' in a film. But I left the cinema after this one thinking: but, why? Why did this guy make this film? What was the point he was making? And why have I spent over two hours of my life watching a film where we don't even know at the end 'whodunnit'...
There was something hypnotic about the German in the film - very clear, very slow, very...rural. I did find myself listening rather than reading the subtitles, whereas in most subtitled films I try to taking in the action AND reading the subtitles, even if I follow the dialogue perfectly.
The complete lack of soundtrack also felt significant. Village life in 1913 after all must have been pretty quiet: no cars, no police sirens, no radios blaring out music. And the silence certainly added to the starkness of the atmosphere.
What was odd, though, was that the lack of theme music took away all desire to stay and read the credits, whereas I am usually one of those film geeks who stays to the bitter end to see every detail of what was filmed where, what music was used, who the gaffer was etc. But then maybe it was just the utter bleakness of the film that made me just want to get out of there.
The German title of the film is actually: Das weisse Band. Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte. This was no children's story in the usual sense of the word, but it did tend to see life from a child's perspective (the bullying, the punishments, the permissions sought or denied, the pet animals, the rivalries, the pecking order) and I guess when you are a child, the world can seem as sinister as this film made it appear.
**
Sunday, 15 November 2009
An Education
Bea says: I knew very little about this film before seeing it, except that Nick Hornby wrote the screenplay so I was kind of thinking - "blokey". Well, nothing could be further from the truth, and I was gripped by this early 1960s story of a bright young middle class woman, about to sit her 'A' levels and apply to Oxford, and her affair with an older man. Discussing it with Cecil on the way home I was amazed at how much still resonated with my own 1980s high school days - going out to clubs and bars with older friends and acquaintances and beginning to realise that older men found me interesting; a dread of getting pregnant; and the casual comment I remember a university lecturer making on discovering one of the honours students in my class had got married and pregnant in her final year of study - "well, that was a waste of our time, then".
The affair ends but not in the ways I thought it might as I watched the film, and Hornby's script is well written, although it would seem he had a good piece to work with in his adaptation. It was a great treat to see and hear a woman's story of that beatnik era, as often pieces from that time solely chart the lives and experiences of men, and although the themes (women's experiences of love, sex, marriage, and career choices) are familiar (Revolutionary Road for instance) this exploration offers a somewhat less harrowing portrayal, that gave me a lot to think about, about my own youth, and my life now.
****
Cecil says: Thoroughly good way to spend a Sunday afternoon. Good story, interesting characters and excellent script: an example of how this is all you need to be caught up in the plot of a film.
Funnily enough, the only character I really identified with was the clumsy school boy Graham, who gets nowhere with Jenny. His nervous dropping of the Battenberg cake reminded me of the time I turned up at Louise's house in Sixth Form to ask her out, only to find her older boyfriend (who I had thought was an ex by now) standing behind her at the fron door; I knocked over the milk bottles as I made my exit, humbled and embarrassed...
If I had any criticism of the film, I would say that the actress who played Jenny was a touch too posh in her accent, and a little too at ease with herself for a real 16-17 year old (but maybe some girls at that age just ARE!!). And, although amusing to watch, the parents were taken in a little too easily by the con-artist older boyfriend. AND, surely in 1961 EVERYONE would have been smoking upstairs on the bus...
But these are small nit-pickings of a thoroughly enjoyable film. "An Education" also makes some fascinating observations on a period which is even before my earliest memories. I loved the fact that Walthamstow dog track used to host glamorous jazz nights; the notion of a 'year-off to travel' (good old geeky Graham) after school was a mite too forward-thinking for an age when university was seen as the way to secure employment or marriage, though I have the feeling it was only seen as route to marriage for women in those days - and, as Bea says, this was really a film about young women finding their way in the world
***.5
The affair ends but not in the ways I thought it might as I watched the film, and Hornby's script is well written, although it would seem he had a good piece to work with in his adaptation. It was a great treat to see and hear a woman's story of that beatnik era, as often pieces from that time solely chart the lives and experiences of men, and although the themes (women's experiences of love, sex, marriage, and career choices) are familiar (Revolutionary Road for instance) this exploration offers a somewhat less harrowing portrayal, that gave me a lot to think about, about my own youth, and my life now.
****
Cecil says: Thoroughly good way to spend a Sunday afternoon. Good story, interesting characters and excellent script: an example of how this is all you need to be caught up in the plot of a film.
Funnily enough, the only character I really identified with was the clumsy school boy Graham, who gets nowhere with Jenny. His nervous dropping of the Battenberg cake reminded me of the time I turned up at Louise's house in Sixth Form to ask her out, only to find her older boyfriend (who I had thought was an ex by now) standing behind her at the fron door; I knocked over the milk bottles as I made my exit, humbled and embarrassed...
If I had any criticism of the film, I would say that the actress who played Jenny was a touch too posh in her accent, and a little too at ease with herself for a real 16-17 year old (but maybe some girls at that age just ARE!!). And, although amusing to watch, the parents were taken in a little too easily by the con-artist older boyfriend. AND, surely in 1961 EVERYONE would have been smoking upstairs on the bus...
But these are small nit-pickings of a thoroughly enjoyable film. "An Education" also makes some fascinating observations on a period which is even before my earliest memories. I loved the fact that Walthamstow dog track used to host glamorous jazz nights; the notion of a 'year-off to travel' (good old geeky Graham) after school was a mite too forward-thinking for an age when university was seen as the way to secure employment or marriage, though I have the feeling it was only seen as route to marriage for women in those days - and, as Bea says, this was really a film about young women finding their way in the world
***.5
Sunday, 11 October 2009
Death in Venice
Bea says: I had never seen this, so Cecil insisted we go - we were in Paris, not Venice, but nevertheless. I was immediately struck by how attitudes have changed over the past 30-40 years; nowadays only a very brave (or foolish) producer would contemplate making a film about a middle aged man lusting after a young male teenager on a Venice beach, or if they did, they would handle the subject matter very differently. However, the claustrophobic filming and sense of impending terror drew me in and I was gripped as Venice burned with fever (and desire) under a hot sun. I could sit down right now and watch it all over again, and, I am sure, see many different things in it if I did. There are few films one can say that about - truly a classic.
****
Cecil says: This is a classic, Bea is right. Probably 25 years since I last saw this film, but still as gripping as ever. My memory is of a film dominated by homo-erotic scenes, but actually, while Bea is right that the storyline would be treated differently today, remarkably little actually happens and some of the poses by the teenage boy are camp to the point of ridicule.
When I first saw the film I had never even been to Italy, let alone Venice. But I can remember being determined to go to the Lido when I did finally go there in October 1990 and being struck by its emptiness but with echoes of former glories and crowds which probably only go there during peak holiday period or the Venice Film Festival.
Dirk Bogarde is fantastic, though I am struck now by the fact that he is probably portraying a man who is little older than I now am, which makes for a rather different perspective on the film from when I was just 25. Visconti tries hard to get across the complexity of this personality, who has lost his wife and daughter apparently to tragic illness some years earlier, and who engages in heated philosophical discussions with his friend back home, who challenges the very essence of his being on matters of music, beauty and truth.
It's easy to get carried away by the storyline as the main character slips deeper and deeper into trouble, and the musical score just carries you away with the enfolding plot. But, as Bea says, there is so much more to read into this film, and I feel I would need at least one more viewing to come anywhere near understanding the significance of those fiery debates with Bogarde's closest friend.
Oh and one last comment on those opening scenes again: this time a ship arriving silently in a fog-laden Venice: fantastically evocative opening to a great film.
****
****
Cecil says: This is a classic, Bea is right. Probably 25 years since I last saw this film, but still as gripping as ever. My memory is of a film dominated by homo-erotic scenes, but actually, while Bea is right that the storyline would be treated differently today, remarkably little actually happens and some of the poses by the teenage boy are camp to the point of ridicule.
When I first saw the film I had never even been to Italy, let alone Venice. But I can remember being determined to go to the Lido when I did finally go there in October 1990 and being struck by its emptiness but with echoes of former glories and crowds which probably only go there during peak holiday period or the Venice Film Festival.
Dirk Bogarde is fantastic, though I am struck now by the fact that he is probably portraying a man who is little older than I now am, which makes for a rather different perspective on the film from when I was just 25. Visconti tries hard to get across the complexity of this personality, who has lost his wife and daughter apparently to tragic illness some years earlier, and who engages in heated philosophical discussions with his friend back home, who challenges the very essence of his being on matters of music, beauty and truth.
It's easy to get carried away by the storyline as the main character slips deeper and deeper into trouble, and the musical score just carries you away with the enfolding plot. But, as Bea says, there is so much more to read into this film, and I feel I would need at least one more viewing to come anywhere near understanding the significance of those fiery debates with Bogarde's closest friend.
Oh and one last comment on those opening scenes again: this time a ship arriving silently in a fog-laden Venice: fantastically evocative opening to a great film.
****
Clara
Cecil says: Regular readers know how I love the opening scenes of a film, and this was another great scene-setter: 1850, we are told, and a wonderful opening of the coal being shovelled into the engine of a steam train.
Interesting biopic focusing on Clara Schumann, wife of Robert Schumann, lover (muse, says the film preview) of Johannes Brahms and composer in her own right. The film follows the course of Schumann's career from Bonn to Hamburg and Dusseldorf as he gradually succombs to arthritis and (probably) a similar disease to the one that afflicted George III (if we are to believe The Madness of King George); Clara takes over as conductor of the Dusseldorf orchestra as Schumann himself becomes less and less able to work. Brahms meanwhile is the budding talent who is infatuated with Clara.
I love any story linking famous composers as it gives a great sense of context and continuity in the music world (the best choir masters we sing with are the ones who tell stories of who was doing what to who while such-and-such a work was being written). And the jealousies and rivalries between great musicians are very contemporary (Lennon/MacCartney; Oasis/Take That).
Bea and I are both intrigued by Brahms, though, more than the Schumanns. When we were trying to find an appropriate Brahms song to have sung at our wedding, we struggled to find anything uplifting and his songs give the impression of a man who was perpetually unhappy in love. The song we chose in the end is called "Your blue eye", so either this was not about Clara Schumann or the actress Martina Gedeck was badly cast as she definitely had two eyes and they appeared to be brown.
In spite of the excellent story-line, this was a difficult film to watch. In part this was because Martina Gedeck is the spitting image of Davina McCall and you kept wondering if there might suddenly be a Big Brother cameo piece about to take off; it was also annoying because, in spite of its billing as an 'original version' French-German-Hungarian film, the version we saw was dubbed into French and it reminded me just how hard it is to watch dubbed films, when the lips are out of synch with the sound.
Final observation: how primitive neuro-surgery was at the time. Cringe-worthy to watch how the Bonn-based 'surgeon' gets his drill out to get through the skull of Schumann in an effort to release whatever pressures there were building up next to his brain. Turn away at that point if you're squeamish.
***
Bea says: I had some reservations about seeing this film when Cecil suggested it; not because of the subject matter which was entirely up my street, but because many years ago when I was a university student studying German I wrote an essay on Helma Sanders-Brahms' 1980s film Deutschland, Bleiche Mutter which is without doubt the most depressing film ever to have been released. I made it all the way through Deutschland, Bleiche Mutter twice in the interests of writing the essay - Cecil told me he left the cinema half way through when he saw it, as it was just too unbearable to watch.
Clara was, in comparison, much more uplifting, beautifully costumed and shot, and with a particularly fine performance turned in by the actor playing Schumann, his excellent skills all the more noticable to me as I do not speak or understand a lot of French, so I was totally reliant on facial expression and context to follow the plot, which I managed to do. The story was fascinating; despite being interested in classical music I had not known of Clara Schumann's key role in both of these composers' lives.
Highly recommended.
***
Interesting biopic focusing on Clara Schumann, wife of Robert Schumann, lover (muse, says the film preview) of Johannes Brahms and composer in her own right. The film follows the course of Schumann's career from Bonn to Hamburg and Dusseldorf as he gradually succombs to arthritis and (probably) a similar disease to the one that afflicted George III (if we are to believe The Madness of King George); Clara takes over as conductor of the Dusseldorf orchestra as Schumann himself becomes less and less able to work. Brahms meanwhile is the budding talent who is infatuated with Clara.
I love any story linking famous composers as it gives a great sense of context and continuity in the music world (the best choir masters we sing with are the ones who tell stories of who was doing what to who while such-and-such a work was being written). And the jealousies and rivalries between great musicians are very contemporary (Lennon/MacCartney; Oasis/Take That).
Bea and I are both intrigued by Brahms, though, more than the Schumanns. When we were trying to find an appropriate Brahms song to have sung at our wedding, we struggled to find anything uplifting and his songs give the impression of a man who was perpetually unhappy in love. The song we chose in the end is called "Your blue eye", so either this was not about Clara Schumann or the actress Martina Gedeck was badly cast as she definitely had two eyes and they appeared to be brown.
In spite of the excellent story-line, this was a difficult film to watch. In part this was because Martina Gedeck is the spitting image of Davina McCall and you kept wondering if there might suddenly be a Big Brother cameo piece about to take off; it was also annoying because, in spite of its billing as an 'original version' French-German-Hungarian film, the version we saw was dubbed into French and it reminded me just how hard it is to watch dubbed films, when the lips are out of synch with the sound.
Final observation: how primitive neuro-surgery was at the time. Cringe-worthy to watch how the Bonn-based 'surgeon' gets his drill out to get through the skull of Schumann in an effort to release whatever pressures there were building up next to his brain. Turn away at that point if you're squeamish.
***
Bea says: I had some reservations about seeing this film when Cecil suggested it; not because of the subject matter which was entirely up my street, but because many years ago when I was a university student studying German I wrote an essay on Helma Sanders-Brahms' 1980s film Deutschland, Bleiche Mutter which is without doubt the most depressing film ever to have been released. I made it all the way through Deutschland, Bleiche Mutter twice in the interests of writing the essay - Cecil told me he left the cinema half way through when he saw it, as it was just too unbearable to watch.
Clara was, in comparison, much more uplifting, beautifully costumed and shot, and with a particularly fine performance turned in by the actor playing Schumann, his excellent skills all the more noticable to me as I do not speak or understand a lot of French, so I was totally reliant on facial expression and context to follow the plot, which I managed to do. The story was fascinating; despite being interested in classical music I had not known of Clara Schumann's key role in both of these composers' lives.
Highly recommended.
***
Monday, 7 September 2009
Broken Embraces
Cecil says: I must confess I am not a fan of films about film-making. They seem so self-indulgent and really only speak to people who work in the film industry. So I was disappointed to come away from Almodovar's latest thinking just that.
The plot in a nutshell: film director has an accident which blinds him and after the accident he carries on his life as a completely different character: Harry Caine, the blind writer. Everyone goes along with this new character, new name, new personality, but then someone comes back on the scene from the film director's former life to blur the boundaries and challenges everything. The film switches back and forth between the present and the past so that we gradually put together the story of what happened in the run up to the accident and we see how Harry Caine deals with what comes to light.
The trouble is, although it was quite interesting to see how the two lives joined together, the film itself did drag on. It felt like it hadn't been edited enough and some of the scenes could easily have been left out. Well over two hours long and could have been 90 minutes. Is there an irony there or was it Almodovar's intention, given that the final point of the film is all to do with poor editing of the director's last film?
I hadn't seen an Almodovar film for over 20 years. I know, I missed loads and I'm trying to remember why I stopped wanting to go to them. Maybe it's because he does just talk about himself too much: that period when he was expressing all the unconventional sides of his personality which made films like 'The law of desire' so powerful had become almost boring by 'High heels'.
Ultimately, I didn't care about any of the characters; and I was looking at my watch with half an hour to go. Not a great advertisement for a film, I'm afraid. Or was I just hungry for my dinner?
**
Bea says: Hear, hear. "All About My Mother" was the last Almodovar film I saw, and although I enjoyed it at the time it wasn't memorable. I liked the slow unravelling/untangling of the story in this film, although I could guess a lot of what was about to happen. I also liked the beautiful colours of the character's flats and the striking black beach of the island the protagonists visit - it is a beautiful film to watch. There is some interesting depth to the film - we talked a while afterward trying to tease out what Almodovar might have been trying to say. But boringly like Cecil, I didn't like the film-within-a-film plot, or the length - perhaps Cecil and I made a mistake going to see this before rather than after dinner! I won't be in a rush to see another Almodovar, but I wouldn't object either.
**
The plot in a nutshell: film director has an accident which blinds him and after the accident he carries on his life as a completely different character: Harry Caine, the blind writer. Everyone goes along with this new character, new name, new personality, but then someone comes back on the scene from the film director's former life to blur the boundaries and challenges everything. The film switches back and forth between the present and the past so that we gradually put together the story of what happened in the run up to the accident and we see how Harry Caine deals with what comes to light.
The trouble is, although it was quite interesting to see how the two lives joined together, the film itself did drag on. It felt like it hadn't been edited enough and some of the scenes could easily have been left out. Well over two hours long and could have been 90 minutes. Is there an irony there or was it Almodovar's intention, given that the final point of the film is all to do with poor editing of the director's last film?
I hadn't seen an Almodovar film for over 20 years. I know, I missed loads and I'm trying to remember why I stopped wanting to go to them. Maybe it's because he does just talk about himself too much: that period when he was expressing all the unconventional sides of his personality which made films like 'The law of desire' so powerful had become almost boring by 'High heels'.
Ultimately, I didn't care about any of the characters; and I was looking at my watch with half an hour to go. Not a great advertisement for a film, I'm afraid. Or was I just hungry for my dinner?
**
Bea says: Hear, hear. "All About My Mother" was the last Almodovar film I saw, and although I enjoyed it at the time it wasn't memorable. I liked the slow unravelling/untangling of the story in this film, although I could guess a lot of what was about to happen. I also liked the beautiful colours of the character's flats and the striking black beach of the island the protagonists visit - it is a beautiful film to watch. There is some interesting depth to the film - we talked a while afterward trying to tease out what Almodovar might have been trying to say. But boringly like Cecil, I didn't like the film-within-a-film plot, or the length - perhaps Cecil and I made a mistake going to see this before rather than after dinner! I won't be in a rush to see another Almodovar, but I wouldn't object either.
**
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
The Time Traveler's Wife
Bea says: I was keen to see this as I had very much enjoyed the book (although enjoying a book certainly doesn't always make for an enjoyable film), and in fact had thought at the time of reading Audrey Niffeneger's novel that it would make a good film. This adaptation is relatively true to the original story, although noticeably less dark, which I felt was a shame as the darkness of the book casts the potential soppiness - for want of a better word - of the love story into relief; the film loses much of this contrast. Neither lead actor was particularly familiar to me, although they both carried their parts off well, and the potential pitfalls of the disappearing, time travelling husband were avoided: as in the book, it becomes totally believable. I might have thought this was really good, if I hadn't watched The Curious Case of Benjamin Button recently (on the plane journey home from Australia), which deals with a similar theme so much better, and so much more beautifully.
***
Cecil says: My main problem for the first half hour was distinguishing between the 'really old' guy in his mid-30s and the apparently younger guy of the moment, who must have been - ooh, let's see - 25. They apparently put grey highlights through the older guy's hair but blow me if you can tell the difference; so I had no idea really if she married the man she was supposed to or the time-travelling oldie.
OK, continuity apart, this film has a nice story and the film kept me happily entertained for an hour and a half, without ever feeling any real affinity or involvement with the characters. I must admit I struggle to engage with this kind of 'what if' scenario. Bit like Back to the Future or Doctor Who - can be rip-roaring stuff, but not a lot of meaning...
I did reflect on one incident, however, as it had an echo of something very personal and painful from my own experience in the last few months. How often in life do you know deep down that this is the last time you will ever see a person? or that they are about to die? It happens in The Time Traveler's Wife and it happened to me 6 weeks ago at the bedside of my father as I left him to return to London for the last time before he died. Unimaginably difficult moments in one's life which you hope will never happen again. So, yes, this scene did bring a tear to my eyes, but I'm not sure it would have been the weepie film it was billed as if it had not been for my recent personal experience.
***
***
Cecil says: My main problem for the first half hour was distinguishing between the 'really old' guy in his mid-30s and the apparently younger guy of the moment, who must have been - ooh, let's see - 25. They apparently put grey highlights through the older guy's hair but blow me if you can tell the difference; so I had no idea really if she married the man she was supposed to or the time-travelling oldie.
OK, continuity apart, this film has a nice story and the film kept me happily entertained for an hour and a half, without ever feeling any real affinity or involvement with the characters. I must admit I struggle to engage with this kind of 'what if' scenario. Bit like Back to the Future or Doctor Who - can be rip-roaring stuff, but not a lot of meaning...
I did reflect on one incident, however, as it had an echo of something very personal and painful from my own experience in the last few months. How often in life do you know deep down that this is the last time you will ever see a person? or that they are about to die? It happens in The Time Traveler's Wife and it happened to me 6 weeks ago at the bedside of my father as I left him to return to London for the last time before he died. Unimaginably difficult moments in one's life which you hope will never happen again. So, yes, this scene did bring a tear to my eyes, but I'm not sure it would have been the weepie film it was billed as if it had not been for my recent personal experience.
***
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Coco before Chanel
Bea says: Another film seen at the wonderful Colloroy cinema in Sydney, at 12.30 in the afternoon (bliss!) after a bracing swim in the Colloroy rock pool. I will make no bones about the fact that I love clothes and fashion, so was thrilled when Cecil suggested this one. Despite being a dedicated follower of the fashion world though, I realised as I watched this film that I knew next to nothing about Coco Chanel. I did not know that she had been abandoned as a child and brought up in an orphanage (where the nuns taught her to sew beautifully), I didn't know she had made a living singing in bars with her sister, or that she had been forced by circumstance to throw herself on the mercy of a wealthy man, who took her in as his mistress, all before being supported by another man to move to Paris and begin her fledging hat and clothing business.
But aside from a riveting story, and the beautiful and striking clothes - everything worn by Chanel could easily be worn today, and reminded me of a piece of dressing advice I once read by her (and which I follow): "before you go out, take one thing off" - this was nicely written, well executed, and lovely to watch. The always good Audrey Tatou played a star turn in the leading role, and Alessandro Nivola puts in a solid performance as "Boy". My only gripes - Chanel came across as a little precious at times, and I guessed the outcome of Chanel and Boy's relationship before it happened.
A very enjoyable afternoon.
***
Cecil says: I love the fact that a small arthouse cinema across the road from a surf beach in Sydney can show this film 4 weeks before it hits London's cinemas. Testing the audience in other parts of the world? If so, it's a particular cross-section of Australian society who pitched up to watch this with us for the matinee. I was the only man in the cinema - apart from the guy in the projection room; and the rest of the audience? 12 ladies, average age 65 - where did they all appear from??? Anyway, it made Bea and me the odd couple in the place.
Now, I'm not a great connoisseur of women's fashion, but I can tell when something really is awful and have quite a good eye for a stylish outfit. It's true that the fashion when Chanel started up was ridiculous: hats with bowls of fruit on top of them and other flouncy dresses and accoutrements so in that sense it was pretty easy to be revolutionary and keep things dramatically simple, as Chanel did. But actually I don't particularly like the style myself - a bit too boyish and plain for my liking, but hey, we aren't here to comment on fashion taste, but on film...
I must say I didn't really warm to any of the characters: the wealthy ex-officer from the French nobility, weary of his social obligations, playing with the young urchin from a provincial singing duo; the dashing young English businessman, a bit too business-like and so, you know, English!; and Coco Chanel herself, cute on one level, with her aspirations to make it on the Paris stage, but actually exploiting the noble officer's inability to throw her out. I didn't feel an enormous amount of sympathy for her really and since I also didn't much like the clothes, there was not a lot for me in this film.
I couldn't help feeling there was an undercurrent admiring the French for either knowing how to behave in society, or knowing how to rebel; while the English are really only interested in business, making money and driving fast cars, with love coming a poor 4th. Well, it's true, you might say. But is it????
**.5
But aside from a riveting story, and the beautiful and striking clothes - everything worn by Chanel could easily be worn today, and reminded me of a piece of dressing advice I once read by her (and which I follow): "before you go out, take one thing off" - this was nicely written, well executed, and lovely to watch. The always good Audrey Tatou played a star turn in the leading role, and Alessandro Nivola puts in a solid performance as "Boy". My only gripes - Chanel came across as a little precious at times, and I guessed the outcome of Chanel and Boy's relationship before it happened.
A very enjoyable afternoon.
***
Cecil says: I love the fact that a small arthouse cinema across the road from a surf beach in Sydney can show this film 4 weeks before it hits London's cinemas. Testing the audience in other parts of the world? If so, it's a particular cross-section of Australian society who pitched up to watch this with us for the matinee. I was the only man in the cinema - apart from the guy in the projection room; and the rest of the audience? 12 ladies, average age 65 - where did they all appear from??? Anyway, it made Bea and me the odd couple in the place.
Now, I'm not a great connoisseur of women's fashion, but I can tell when something really is awful and have quite a good eye for a stylish outfit. It's true that the fashion when Chanel started up was ridiculous: hats with bowls of fruit on top of them and other flouncy dresses and accoutrements so in that sense it was pretty easy to be revolutionary and keep things dramatically simple, as Chanel did. But actually I don't particularly like the style myself - a bit too boyish and plain for my liking, but hey, we aren't here to comment on fashion taste, but on film...
I must say I didn't really warm to any of the characters: the wealthy ex-officer from the French nobility, weary of his social obligations, playing with the young urchin from a provincial singing duo; the dashing young English businessman, a bit too business-like and so, you know, English!; and Coco Chanel herself, cute on one level, with her aspirations to make it on the Paris stage, but actually exploiting the noble officer's inability to throw her out. I didn't feel an enormous amount of sympathy for her really and since I also didn't much like the clothes, there was not a lot for me in this film.
I couldn't help feeling there was an undercurrent admiring the French for either knowing how to behave in society, or knowing how to rebel; while the English are really only interested in business, making money and driving fast cars, with love coming a poor 4th. Well, it's true, you might say. But is it????
**.5
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Is anybody there?
Cecil says: A return to our favourite Sydney cinema up by Collaroy beach on the north shore to see this low-budget UK film with Michael Caine playing a grumpy old man, a former magician, who signs himself into one of those care homes for the elderly.
Let's discuss the cinema first, before we get to the film. This amazing 1930s building just over the road from one of the best surf beaches in Sydney plays about the best programme of mainly independent films you can get anyway in the Sydney area. Its internal decor smacks of neglected English seaside resorts - wonderful old seats, chandeliers all over the place, a magnificent stage - but you know for sure that in every English resort such a building has now become an amusement arcade or a bingo hall.
The scandal is that this cinema does little or nothing to promote itself. Yes, it has wonderful films on show, but this Caine film played to an audience of 4: in fact the main film had started before Bea and I were joined by another couple. Take a look at its website, though ( www.unitedcinemas.com.au ) and you see nothing about the history and character of this fantastic cinema. Where are the archive pictures of great moments in its history? What about a decade by decade slide show of great films they have screened ? Or the changing audiences ? Or the changing decor - were there ever changes? Somebody must love this cinema enough to keep it open for such small audiences - shouldn't they open a Friends of Collaroy group to get worldwide attention on this marvel before it really does collapse in a pile of rubble... Take heed Collaroy - Cecil and Bea would be founder members...
So, to this film: a nice portrayal of a 1980s family struggling to make ends meet by converting their house into a care home for the elderly; the young teenage son fed up because he has had to give up his bedroom to a succession of ga-ga geriatrics; and the old magician (Caine) who pitches up one day in his magician's truck and gradually warms to the place and the people in it after his initial despair at the senile oldies around him.
Coming from East Yorkshire, I found some of the production (or director's?) choices slightly odd. The screenplay was obviously written for a care home somewhere near the coast and near Hull (Cecil's birthplace). They managed to have a bus to Hull in the film; they referred to Skidby windmill (one of the local landmarks), but the scenry was so unlike anything near to Hull and the nearby beach resort was nothing like anything on the East coast of Yorkshire. Even the accents in the local school were wrong (West Yorkshire, I think, but certainly not Hull accents) - I mean, if you're going to do a film set in Hull, why film it in Kent? And why not check up on local accents? Might seem a bit pedantic to non-locals, but did jar with me throughout the film. Isn't the Hull area good enough for filming in?????
** 1/2
Bea says:
I enjoyed the experience of seeing this film, but actually think it was overall somewhat forgettable (just demonstrated here at the Cecil and Bea residence by me asking Cecil which other film we saw in Australia when he suggested blogging the "first"... I remembered the other one all right - soon to be blogged). Michael Caine is like a brilliant spot of colour in the otherwise dreary, dull existance of this family, in the (supposed) north of England in the 1980s. And he really is brilliant in what he does with the dialogue, the spaces he occupies, and the decline he portrays. The other (well regarded) actors pale somewhat in comparison. I wasn't overly keen on the too-neat ending, although it did add to the film's feel-good vibe, and it was this ending, in fact, which made the film forgettable for me. However, a pleasant diversion.
** 1/2
Cecil adds: The film was actually more poignant for me because, just 3 weeks earlier, I had spent a distressing Saturday driving round the country roads north and west of Hull (yes, we did drive past Skidby windmill!) looking for a care home for my own Dad. There can be nothing more soul-destroying for an elderly person who needs constant care, but is of sound mind and has full mental capacities, than to be left in a home where your welcome at the front door is the crazed yellings and screeches of the residents who have basically lost their marbles. And why do the staff of homes like these have to shout in such ever-jolly voices to these old folk as if they were 2-year olds barely out of nappies? Maybe because senility takes you back to a child-like state, but surely there can be more decorum and respect; and voices can be pitched at normal adult register? We certainly saw one home rather like the one depicted in 'Is anybody there?' and for all the difficulties my Dad has had in the home we chose ultimately, I'm sure his experience would have been far far worse in a home like that.
Let's discuss the cinema first, before we get to the film. This amazing 1930s building just over the road from one of the best surf beaches in Sydney plays about the best programme of mainly independent films you can get anyway in the Sydney area. Its internal decor smacks of neglected English seaside resorts - wonderful old seats, chandeliers all over the place, a magnificent stage - but you know for sure that in every English resort such a building has now become an amusement arcade or a bingo hall.
The scandal is that this cinema does little or nothing to promote itself. Yes, it has wonderful films on show, but this Caine film played to an audience of 4: in fact the main film had started before Bea and I were joined by another couple. Take a look at its website, though ( www.unitedcinemas.com.au ) and you see nothing about the history and character of this fantastic cinema. Where are the archive pictures of great moments in its history? What about a decade by decade slide show of great films they have screened ? Or the changing audiences ? Or the changing decor - were there ever changes? Somebody must love this cinema enough to keep it open for such small audiences - shouldn't they open a Friends of Collaroy group to get worldwide attention on this marvel before it really does collapse in a pile of rubble... Take heed Collaroy - Cecil and Bea would be founder members...
So, to this film: a nice portrayal of a 1980s family struggling to make ends meet by converting their house into a care home for the elderly; the young teenage son fed up because he has had to give up his bedroom to a succession of ga-ga geriatrics; and the old magician (Caine) who pitches up one day in his magician's truck and gradually warms to the place and the people in it after his initial despair at the senile oldies around him.
Coming from East Yorkshire, I found some of the production (or director's?) choices slightly odd. The screenplay was obviously written for a care home somewhere near the coast and near Hull (Cecil's birthplace). They managed to have a bus to Hull in the film; they referred to Skidby windmill (one of the local landmarks), but the scenry was so unlike anything near to Hull and the nearby beach resort was nothing like anything on the East coast of Yorkshire. Even the accents in the local school were wrong (West Yorkshire, I think, but certainly not Hull accents) - I mean, if you're going to do a film set in Hull, why film it in Kent? And why not check up on local accents? Might seem a bit pedantic to non-locals, but did jar with me throughout the film. Isn't the Hull area good enough for filming in?????
** 1/2
Bea says:
I enjoyed the experience of seeing this film, but actually think it was overall somewhat forgettable (just demonstrated here at the Cecil and Bea residence by me asking Cecil which other film we saw in Australia when he suggested blogging the "first"... I remembered the other one all right - soon to be blogged). Michael Caine is like a brilliant spot of colour in the otherwise dreary, dull existance of this family, in the (supposed) north of England in the 1980s. And he really is brilliant in what he does with the dialogue, the spaces he occupies, and the decline he portrays. The other (well regarded) actors pale somewhat in comparison. I wasn't overly keen on the too-neat ending, although it did add to the film's feel-good vibe, and it was this ending, in fact, which made the film forgettable for me. However, a pleasant diversion.
** 1/2
Cecil adds: The film was actually more poignant for me because, just 3 weeks earlier, I had spent a distressing Saturday driving round the country roads north and west of Hull (yes, we did drive past Skidby windmill!) looking for a care home for my own Dad. There can be nothing more soul-destroying for an elderly person who needs constant care, but is of sound mind and has full mental capacities, than to be left in a home where your welcome at the front door is the crazed yellings and screeches of the residents who have basically lost their marbles. And why do the staff of homes like these have to shout in such ever-jolly voices to these old folk as if they were 2-year olds barely out of nappies? Maybe because senility takes you back to a child-like state, but surely there can be more decorum and respect; and voices can be pitched at normal adult register? We certainly saw one home rather like the one depicted in 'Is anybody there?' and for all the difficulties my Dad has had in the home we chose ultimately, I'm sure his experience would have been far far worse in a home like that.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
The Young Victoria
Bea says:
Sunday was Mother's Day in Australia, and on this rare occasion, I have my mother and sister here with me in London. So on Sunday I took them both up to the Apollo Cinema in Piccadilly, and we saw The Young Victoria, as a Mother's Day treat. Regular readers will know that I love a historical costume drama, as does my mother, and we both loved this. My sister is made of less sentimental stuff, but even she was won over. I'd had reservations about this film - it has had almost unanimously poor reviews, but after seeing it, I think entirely undeservedly. It documents Victoria's life in detail shortly prior to her coronation, and for about four years after, including her relationship with Albert, and Lord Melbourne. I knew little about this time in her life, and she made an interesting and spirited heroine, and was very well played. Rupert Friend also performed well as Albert. The film was gripping - afterwards over a coffee we all commented on how quickly the time had passed in the cinema.
However what I appreciated the most was not the telling of the story of Victoria's early years on the throne, but the carefully rounded characterisation of all the key characters - the many complexities and flaws of human nature were well drawn, as were the complications and also the endurance of family ties and other close relationships. Victoria's relationship with her mother, her nurse/governess, Albert, and Lord Melbourne all made for fascinating viewing as these relationships changed, grew, developed, became closer or more distant as the years went on. No character was completely likable, none completely unlikable.
A film with much unappreciated depth. I am glad I saw it.
***
Sunday was Mother's Day in Australia, and on this rare occasion, I have my mother and sister here with me in London. So on Sunday I took them both up to the Apollo Cinema in Piccadilly, and we saw The Young Victoria, as a Mother's Day treat. Regular readers will know that I love a historical costume drama, as does my mother, and we both loved this. My sister is made of less sentimental stuff, but even she was won over. I'd had reservations about this film - it has had almost unanimously poor reviews, but after seeing it, I think entirely undeservedly. It documents Victoria's life in detail shortly prior to her coronation, and for about four years after, including her relationship with Albert, and Lord Melbourne. I knew little about this time in her life, and she made an interesting and spirited heroine, and was very well played. Rupert Friend also performed well as Albert. The film was gripping - afterwards over a coffee we all commented on how quickly the time had passed in the cinema.
However what I appreciated the most was not the telling of the story of Victoria's early years on the throne, but the carefully rounded characterisation of all the key characters - the many complexities and flaws of human nature were well drawn, as were the complications and also the endurance of family ties and other close relationships. Victoria's relationship with her mother, her nurse/governess, Albert, and Lord Melbourne all made for fascinating viewing as these relationships changed, grew, developed, became closer or more distant as the years went on. No character was completely likable, none completely unlikable.
A film with much unappreciated depth. I am glad I saw it.
***
Cheri
Cecil says: A glitzy premiere, with red carpets, flashing cameras and gorgeous lead actors. What could go wrong with such an occasion? Well, the first odd thing is that, for a film being premiered at the Institut Francais, based on a novel by Colette and set in Paris, there was a complete absence of French, through the whole evening. Not a word of French on the screen; not a word in French during the Q&A afterwards. The director, Stephen Frears, even confessed that he doesn't speak a word of the language; and the writer, Christopher Hampton, made the strange remark that he had started out with the idea of writing a biopic on Colette herself. So, how and why did he then embark on a screenplay of one of her novels instead? We never found out, but perhaps that is at the root of a sense of emptiness that runs through the film.
Sure, the characters are in a sense empty shells themselves: Michelle Pfeifer, the ageing (at 32!) courtesan determined not to fall in love with Rupert Friend, the young dandy, seven years her junior, who plays at love but gets himself paired off in an arranged marriage. And the whole story is set at the end of the 'Belle Epoque', with a sense of an era drawing to a close and running out of steam. Maybe it's meant to come across as sterile and fading, but it's very hard to engage with characters who have no real...character! Rupert Friend himself said in the Q&A how hard it had been to play the role of such a passive male; of how he had struggled to get any sense of the person he was supposed to be portraying.
Michelle Pfeifer is the best thing about this film, though. Not only her personality, which dominates proceedings through the plot, but her presence on the screen; her diction is perfect and is the one reason why I'm glad the film was in English rather than French - I could listen to her for hours and sit transfixed. But it's a shame Bea wasn't able to join me this time: it's the sort of film where you get the impression a male and female perspective on it would be bound to be different; not necessarily contradicting, but somehow complementary, and it makes my views on the film seem somehow incomplete.
I didn't particularly enjoy the film, but was it, in the words of one viewer I overheard afterwards, really "a film for women"? Without Bea being there, I'll never know...All I can say is that I would like to read the book now, to see how far Frears/Hampton kept to the heart of the story.
I can't end this entry without a comment on the audience again (I know, we are becoming as much people-watchers as film viewers these days). It was fascinating to see the cameras flashing desperately as soon as the young English actress arrived at the Institut. I'm afraid I can't even remember her name and her role is a bit-part compared to Pfeiffer, but the adulation via the lens gave the impression she must be THE star of the movie; I loved the gooey-eyed and adoring cluster of young women who interviewed Rupert Friend ahead of the screening: they were hanging on his every word, but was it his looks or what he had to say? does it matter, if you adore someone that much?
And finally, what is it about the film industry that seems to attract men in the 60s with long hair and wearing black shirts. Now, those of you who know how little hair I have might put this down to jealousy, but black shirts??? Come on!
**.5
Sure, the characters are in a sense empty shells themselves: Michelle Pfeifer, the ageing (at 32!) courtesan determined not to fall in love with Rupert Friend, the young dandy, seven years her junior, who plays at love but gets himself paired off in an arranged marriage. And the whole story is set at the end of the 'Belle Epoque', with a sense of an era drawing to a close and running out of steam. Maybe it's meant to come across as sterile and fading, but it's very hard to engage with characters who have no real...character! Rupert Friend himself said in the Q&A how hard it had been to play the role of such a passive male; of how he had struggled to get any sense of the person he was supposed to be portraying.
Michelle Pfeifer is the best thing about this film, though. Not only her personality, which dominates proceedings through the plot, but her presence on the screen; her diction is perfect and is the one reason why I'm glad the film was in English rather than French - I could listen to her for hours and sit transfixed. But it's a shame Bea wasn't able to join me this time: it's the sort of film where you get the impression a male and female perspective on it would be bound to be different; not necessarily contradicting, but somehow complementary, and it makes my views on the film seem somehow incomplete.
I didn't particularly enjoy the film, but was it, in the words of one viewer I overheard afterwards, really "a film for women"? Without Bea being there, I'll never know...All I can say is that I would like to read the book now, to see how far Frears/Hampton kept to the heart of the story.
I can't end this entry without a comment on the audience again (I know, we are becoming as much people-watchers as film viewers these days). It was fascinating to see the cameras flashing desperately as soon as the young English actress arrived at the Institut. I'm afraid I can't even remember her name and her role is a bit-part compared to Pfeiffer, but the adulation via the lens gave the impression she must be THE star of the movie; I loved the gooey-eyed and adoring cluster of young women who interviewed Rupert Friend ahead of the screening: they were hanging on his every word, but was it his looks or what he had to say? does it matter, if you adore someone that much?
And finally, what is it about the film industry that seems to attract men in the 60s with long hair and wearing black shirts. Now, those of you who know how little hair I have might put this down to jealousy, but black shirts??? Come on!
**.5
Monday, 27 April 2009
In the Loop
Cecil says: We saw this film a week ago at the Ritzy in Brixton and I've already forgotten nearly everything about it. Yes, it really was forgettable, and I have to say I agree with what Michael Portillo is reported as having said about it: boring! But I went into the Ritzy so full of enthusiasm because I enjoyed "The Thick of It" so much, so where on earth did it all go wrong?
Well, first up, it was too long. 'The Thick of It' easily sustained an idea for length of a TV episode with its clever humour and sharp observations, cringingly familiar to anyone working in a civil service press office. In the Loop just felt like a long, very long, TV programme. Sure, I laughed at some of the one-liners, but as the film dragged on, it just became a cliche.
The characters are all caricatures of those spineless, unprincipled politicians we all love to hate. The swearing, funny at first, just gets boring and plain aggressive to the point where I stopped laughing and began to yawn. And of course, the plot is a re-run of the the old 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' story before the Iraq war, fantastic for the audience in the Ritzy, but it just felt tired and more-of-the-same to me.
And that brings me to the audience at the Ritzy: what is it about Brixton, where the majority of faces on the High Street are black, but 90% of the faces in the Ritzy are white, and it's that good leftie right-on 'white' that maybe I used to be too 25 years ago...
After the film, we were honoured to have a Q&A with the Director, Armando Iannucci. Oh dear, oh dear. The more I heard him, the more I hated the film; and the more I heard the audience questions, the more I despised both the film and the people around me. Yes, this was fast becoming a real ordeal for a Saturday night out!
But, why??? Well Ianucci seemed so smug. So sure of his future in films. And so glibly dismissive of those unethical politicians. And the audience lapped it up.
At one point Iannucci mockingly describes how they filmed at Number 10, and how everyone there was in awe of the film-stars; in another answer, he mocks the politicians who are so unsure of themselves that they actually ask people around them how their speech went down. So, hear this Iannucci: politicians are human beings with the same emotions and needs for self-confirmation that we all have. The problem in this crazy world we live in is that people look up to celebrities rather than political leaders; you might say that is because of the poor quality of the politicians; I would say it is something shallow and false in our society and it breeds cynicism rather than passion.
All I could think about by the end of the evening was: this is a caricature of both people and events; this is precisely the kind of film which just adds to the current prejudice and fashion for believing that all politicians are the same, so in that respect I despise it for playing to the tabloid media agenda and basically in the long run undermining democracy through their cynicism (even though, I'm sure. Iannucci himself - and the audience - would say that they are the ones trying to make democracy better...)
No, this was awful. And so disappointing. Will I ever be able to watch 'In the Thick of It' again?
*
Bea says: In fact, we nearly didn't see this film at all - we arrived at the Ritzy just in time to buy tickets and rush in, to find it sold out. The only other film on at that time was The Damned United, which I was prepared to see instead, but Cecil gallantly felt would to foisting too much football upon me. With only a little arm-twisting however, he acquiesced, and we went to the ticket counter to buy our tickets. "Of course, we were planning to see In the Loop" said ever-chatty Cecil to the ticket girl. "Really?" she replied, "as it happens I have two spaces left". After the film, we both agreed The Damned United would have been a better choice...
Oh, it was diverting enough - like a very long TV programme. I chuckled here and there. The young man next to me laughed uproariously - at completely different moments. It's always weird when that happens. But - and there are a lot of buts - it was overlong (like a lot of films these days - whatever happened to the cutting room floor??), it wasn't funny enough, not cleverly funny I mean, there was much too much reliance on cheap swearing humour - which can be funny sometimes, but is basically a cop out. Some of the humour, particularly that directed towards Gina McKee's character - was just crass, like some of the worst stand up I've seen. Like Cecil, I'm a little bored by plots based on the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction thing, if they fail to examine the issue in depth. The whole thing was forgettable, and actually left a bad taste in my mouth - so depressingly cynical.
The Q&A session got on my nerves too, partly because I hadn't been expecting it, the film had been overlong anyway, and I wanted to leave to go out to dinner as it was past 9 and I was hungry; partly because I could see steam coming out of Cecil's ears, but mostly because the director, who had made this film about, as Cecil says, spineless and unprincipled politicans, was asked about the former star character of In the Thick of It, who had a very public fall from grace. In reply he said, "well, in this risk-averse climate at the BBC I couldn't possibly have him on the show again. But I love his work, I'd love to work with him again..." All I can do is echo Cecil - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
*
Well, first up, it was too long. 'The Thick of It' easily sustained an idea for length of a TV episode with its clever humour and sharp observations, cringingly familiar to anyone working in a civil service press office. In the Loop just felt like a long, very long, TV programme. Sure, I laughed at some of the one-liners, but as the film dragged on, it just became a cliche.
The characters are all caricatures of those spineless, unprincipled politicians we all love to hate. The swearing, funny at first, just gets boring and plain aggressive to the point where I stopped laughing and began to yawn. And of course, the plot is a re-run of the the old 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' story before the Iraq war, fantastic for the audience in the Ritzy, but it just felt tired and more-of-the-same to me.
And that brings me to the audience at the Ritzy: what is it about Brixton, where the majority of faces on the High Street are black, but 90% of the faces in the Ritzy are white, and it's that good leftie right-on 'white' that maybe I used to be too 25 years ago...
After the film, we were honoured to have a Q&A with the Director, Armando Iannucci. Oh dear, oh dear. The more I heard him, the more I hated the film; and the more I heard the audience questions, the more I despised both the film and the people around me. Yes, this was fast becoming a real ordeal for a Saturday night out!
But, why??? Well Ianucci seemed so smug. So sure of his future in films. And so glibly dismissive of those unethical politicians. And the audience lapped it up.
At one point Iannucci mockingly describes how they filmed at Number 10, and how everyone there was in awe of the film-stars; in another answer, he mocks the politicians who are so unsure of themselves that they actually ask people around them how their speech went down. So, hear this Iannucci: politicians are human beings with the same emotions and needs for self-confirmation that we all have. The problem in this crazy world we live in is that people look up to celebrities rather than political leaders; you might say that is because of the poor quality of the politicians; I would say it is something shallow and false in our society and it breeds cynicism rather than passion.
All I could think about by the end of the evening was: this is a caricature of both people and events; this is precisely the kind of film which just adds to the current prejudice and fashion for believing that all politicians are the same, so in that respect I despise it for playing to the tabloid media agenda and basically in the long run undermining democracy through their cynicism (even though, I'm sure. Iannucci himself - and the audience - would say that they are the ones trying to make democracy better...)
No, this was awful. And so disappointing. Will I ever be able to watch 'In the Thick of It' again?
*
Bea says: In fact, we nearly didn't see this film at all - we arrived at the Ritzy just in time to buy tickets and rush in, to find it sold out. The only other film on at that time was The Damned United, which I was prepared to see instead, but Cecil gallantly felt would to foisting too much football upon me. With only a little arm-twisting however, he acquiesced, and we went to the ticket counter to buy our tickets. "Of course, we were planning to see In the Loop" said ever-chatty Cecil to the ticket girl. "Really?" she replied, "as it happens I have two spaces left". After the film, we both agreed The Damned United would have been a better choice...
Oh, it was diverting enough - like a very long TV programme. I chuckled here and there. The young man next to me laughed uproariously - at completely different moments. It's always weird when that happens. But - and there are a lot of buts - it was overlong (like a lot of films these days - whatever happened to the cutting room floor??), it wasn't funny enough, not cleverly funny I mean, there was much too much reliance on cheap swearing humour - which can be funny sometimes, but is basically a cop out. Some of the humour, particularly that directed towards Gina McKee's character - was just crass, like some of the worst stand up I've seen. Like Cecil, I'm a little bored by plots based on the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction thing, if they fail to examine the issue in depth. The whole thing was forgettable, and actually left a bad taste in my mouth - so depressingly cynical.
The Q&A session got on my nerves too, partly because I hadn't been expecting it, the film had been overlong anyway, and I wanted to leave to go out to dinner as it was past 9 and I was hungry; partly because I could see steam coming out of Cecil's ears, but mostly because the director, who had made this film about, as Cecil says, spineless and unprincipled politicans, was asked about the former star character of In the Thick of It, who had a very public fall from grace. In reply he said, "well, in this risk-averse climate at the BBC I couldn't possibly have him on the show again. But I love his work, I'd love to work with him again..." All I can do is echo Cecil - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
*
Sunday, 12 April 2009
The Class - "Entre les Murs"
Bea says: We have been caught up in busy lives and have been remiss about seeing films and blogging, but we took advantage of the long Easter weekend and took ourselves off to the Renoir in Bloomsbury to see this much commended French film. A teacher/pupil film, it refreshingly defies the standard formula (inspirational teacher wins students over with catchphrase such as carpe diem, or Bob Dylan lyrics etc etc) and simply shows the ups and downs in the school lives of a teacher and his students - the students are mostly challenging, although occasionally a chink of something else shines through, and the teacher is usually quite good although he gets tired and worn out, and makes mistakes. It's a very real film - it reminded me both of my own school days in a very average comprehensive in a working class neighbourhood with lots of students (myself included) who were the children of migrants, and it struck a lot of chords with my current teaching role, although that is also different in many ways. At the end, everyone has survived the school year bar one pupil. Life goes on. I liked the message.
***
Cecil says: Language is a big part of this film. And let's begin with the title: for me, the French title ('Between the walls') captures the essence of the film far more than the English. The furthest we get from the classroom walls is the playground; we get no sense of any of the characters' lives outside the school - the teacher manages to glean a little information from his pupils through a 'self-portrait' exercise, but for the rest the focus is totally on the intensity and relentlessness of the classroom relationship. The camera work adds to that constant 'in-yer-face' feel, with lots of close-ups and that active, fly-on-the-wall style we associate with so much reality TV these days.
Language is also important because the main character is the French teacher, who uses wonderful methods to try to throw light on some of the words his students don't understand, especially with half his class being non-native speakers. But that's also why I had a problem with the cause of the main conflict between the teacher and his class: he loosely uses an insulting word 'petasse' to describe two of the girls, but for someone with such a feel for language, it is hard to believe he would have opted for this expression in the circumstances (and by the way, where did the subtitler get that word 'skank' from ? Presumably American, it is not even in my Oxford English dictionary...).
For me personally, the film took me back to my days as a language assistant in France 30 years ago (oh my God!!) in a high school; and 26 years ago in a Paris university. My school in the industrial north of France was basically white, working class so had little in common with the class in the film. The flickers of recognition came for me in the staff room morning handshake (yes, you really do have to go round every teacher in the morning and shake their hand) and in the whole structure of head-teacher and admin committee, though I think the concept of student participation in such things may have developed in the last 30 years.
My Paris university teaching experience gave more of a hint of the reality we see in this film. Far more multi-ethnic classes, but the difference being that my students had made it to higher education. It was amusing to see the teacher's problems over the use of names like 'Bill' - the students asked him to use more common names like 'Khoumba' or 'Souleymane', and I can well remember my innocence and ignorance when half my class in 1983 had similar names reflecting their ethnic origins - all quite usual now, but catching me by surprise at the time.
All in all, this as a gripping film - two hours flies by. It is very intense, however, and never lets you relax for more than five minutes. So don't go and see it for light entertainment. Having said that, I thoroughly recommend it...
***1/2
***
Cecil says: Language is a big part of this film. And let's begin with the title: for me, the French title ('Between the walls') captures the essence of the film far more than the English. The furthest we get from the classroom walls is the playground; we get no sense of any of the characters' lives outside the school - the teacher manages to glean a little information from his pupils through a 'self-portrait' exercise, but for the rest the focus is totally on the intensity and relentlessness of the classroom relationship. The camera work adds to that constant 'in-yer-face' feel, with lots of close-ups and that active, fly-on-the-wall style we associate with so much reality TV these days.
Language is also important because the main character is the French teacher, who uses wonderful methods to try to throw light on some of the words his students don't understand, especially with half his class being non-native speakers. But that's also why I had a problem with the cause of the main conflict between the teacher and his class: he loosely uses an insulting word 'petasse' to describe two of the girls, but for someone with such a feel for language, it is hard to believe he would have opted for this expression in the circumstances (and by the way, where did the subtitler get that word 'skank' from ? Presumably American, it is not even in my Oxford English dictionary...).
For me personally, the film took me back to my days as a language assistant in France 30 years ago (oh my God!!) in a high school; and 26 years ago in a Paris university. My school in the industrial north of France was basically white, working class so had little in common with the class in the film. The flickers of recognition came for me in the staff room morning handshake (yes, you really do have to go round every teacher in the morning and shake their hand) and in the whole structure of head-teacher and admin committee, though I think the concept of student participation in such things may have developed in the last 30 years.
My Paris university teaching experience gave more of a hint of the reality we see in this film. Far more multi-ethnic classes, but the difference being that my students had made it to higher education. It was amusing to see the teacher's problems over the use of names like 'Bill' - the students asked him to use more common names like 'Khoumba' or 'Souleymane', and I can well remember my innocence and ignorance when half my class in 1983 had similar names reflecting their ethnic origins - all quite usual now, but catching me by surprise at the time.
All in all, this as a gripping film - two hours flies by. It is very intense, however, and never lets you relax for more than five minutes. So don't go and see it for light entertainment. Having said that, I thoroughly recommend it...
***1/2
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Revolutionary Road
Cecil says: We saw this at one of our local cinemas in Beckenham. Before the film started, I remarked to Bea how the average age of the audience was quite a bit older than when we went to Ritzy in Brixton last week - probably in part because Brixton is a more youthful, trendy place, but also possibly, as Bea said to me: because this is a film about a marriage and most of the kids at the Brixton cinema would not relate to that...It was telling, therefore, that the two young teenage girls next to us in the Beckenham cinema fidgeted and talked through most of the film and said audibly at the end: 'Well, that was the most depressing film I have ever seen'. So, if you're 23 or younger, maybe Revolutionary Road is not for you...
If you're into 50s design, it's a fantastic film: wonderful images of massed men in trilbies heading off to work on the commuter trains; great furniture in the rooms; fantastic cars (where did they find all those 1950s beauties? Havana??); and great dances...
But the film is not really about the 50s, or anything else social or historical. It is a film about a relationship, and actually the issues and conflicts, dilemmas and solutions could all happen in any relationship today. It's about desires, goals in life and realising that the person you are with may not be the one you should share these with. When is a dream best left as just that: a dream? Whose dream was it, anyway? How do you juggle great career opportunities with fulfilling dreams that take you elsewhere? Is it best to talk about things or leave things unsaid so that those cans of worms are not opened?
These are the questions - and Kate Winslett and Leonardo di Caprio do a great job of living through them. Top marks to them both.
By the way, spot the similarity between the sex scene in the car and the Titanic sex scene (same director, same leading players) - is that a hand I see sliding down the window of the car???
***.5
Bea says: A cheery film - not. But for all its downbeat take on life and marriage, it is truly absorbing. A very intelligent piece of writing, many aspects of it rang true for Cecil and me, both in our current relationship, and past ones. Like walking together after a row, but feeling miles apart, for example. Like saying "I don't love you any more". (Had to reassure Cecil that was about past relationships!)
And to me it had some real depth; dredging up my classics and English "A" levels, I thought the character of John not unlike the Greek chorus, or the Fool in Shakespeare - the "fool" who tells the most insightful truths, and the messages about communication, as the couples who stay together are the ones who don't talk and don't listen.
I was however slightly less enamoured with Winslett and DiCaprio's performances, and Sam Mendes' direction. Whilst very good, I've seen this theme before, and better dealt with, by Ang Lee, Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kostner, in The Ice Storm. If you like this, you'll love that.
*** .5
If you're into 50s design, it's a fantastic film: wonderful images of massed men in trilbies heading off to work on the commuter trains; great furniture in the rooms; fantastic cars (where did they find all those 1950s beauties? Havana??); and great dances...
But the film is not really about the 50s, or anything else social or historical. It is a film about a relationship, and actually the issues and conflicts, dilemmas and solutions could all happen in any relationship today. It's about desires, goals in life and realising that the person you are with may not be the one you should share these with. When is a dream best left as just that: a dream? Whose dream was it, anyway? How do you juggle great career opportunities with fulfilling dreams that take you elsewhere? Is it best to talk about things or leave things unsaid so that those cans of worms are not opened?
These are the questions - and Kate Winslett and Leonardo di Caprio do a great job of living through them. Top marks to them both.
By the way, spot the similarity between the sex scene in the car and the Titanic sex scene (same director, same leading players) - is that a hand I see sliding down the window of the car???
***.5
Bea says: A cheery film - not. But for all its downbeat take on life and marriage, it is truly absorbing. A very intelligent piece of writing, many aspects of it rang true for Cecil and me, both in our current relationship, and past ones. Like walking together after a row, but feeling miles apart, for example. Like saying "I don't love you any more". (Had to reassure Cecil that was about past relationships!)
And to me it had some real depth; dredging up my classics and English "A" levels, I thought the character of John not unlike the Greek chorus, or the Fool in Shakespeare - the "fool" who tells the most insightful truths, and the messages about communication, as the couples who stay together are the ones who don't talk and don't listen.
I was however slightly less enamoured with Winslett and DiCaprio's performances, and Sam Mendes' direction. Whilst very good, I've seen this theme before, and better dealt with, by Ang Lee, Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kostner, in The Ice Storm. If you like this, you'll love that.
*** .5
Frost/Nixon
Bea says: Seen at a favourite venue of mine, the Ritzy cinema in Brixton, late on a cold, wet Sunday afternoon. The cinema was rammed with people going to see "Milk", but "Frost/Nixon" was our choice, luckily. Before seeing this film I knew a few things about Watergate - mostly that it involved President Nixon in a not very flattering way, and I knew of David Frost as a fairly serious political interviewer (imagine my surprise when I saw the lightweight TV he was doing prior to the interview). That's about it - sketchy. I think this film was probably made for people of my generation; it filled in the gaps in my knowledge, and I found the story gripping from start to finish. Frost as a character doesn't really come out of it very well, despite the interview being his idea originally; he comes across actually as more of an ideas man, without the necessary tenacity to follow things up, and without his crack research and production team the interview as we know it would never really have happened (although that is probably true for many key television interviews in history). A few scenes stay with me - Nixon's phone call to Frost which changed the direction of the interview entirely; intentional on Nixon's part perhaps?? Late in the film, the scene where Frost watches Nixon leave the filming, knowing what has just happened, and knowing what he has just done - a slightly bitter victory. And toward the end, and I probably paraphrase here: "people only remember Watergate because every political (and other) scandal now has a -gate attached...". That is, I am afraid, true for me.
***.5
Cecil says...For me, the Watergate hearings conjure up memories of the TV being on all day - something we were definitely not normally allowed as kids - and dominating a summer holiday (at my uncle's?); and the famous Nixon sweaty-armpits moment...The whole episode is one of the early big political moments in world politics at a time when I was gradually becoming more politically aware. Fascinating for me, therefore, was to hear from Bea after the film how little she really knew about Nixon and the Watergate story. Even more fascinating was to meet Bea's cousin after the film: this guy was not even born when Watergate happened so it is part of his educated awareness but not something that has any personal resonance for him. It made me think that for someone of his age, Watergate must be a bit like Suez for someone of my age: not quite born so no sense of the time or the people involved, but aware through education and listening to older people of just how significant this moment was in history.
So 'Frost/Nixon' didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know about the events of the time; nor did it give me any real insight into Nixon, who was pretty well laid bare at the time. As Bea says, the only intrigue in the film was this mysterious phone call from Nixon to Frost on the night before the final interview. Did it really happen? Why does Nixon have no memory of it, or why does he pretend it didn't happen?
But it is Frost, whose characterisation interested me. As a small boy, Frost was famous for me as one of the men who did 'That was the week that was' (a kind of Have I got News for You of its day, but in sketch-format rather than a quiz); his time as a trivial TV presenter is lost in my memory, but then he returns in more recent years as the presenter of the BBC's main Sunday morning political programme. He was never seen as a real hard-hitting political interviewer in the Brian Walden, John Humphries mode, though - in fact, in my vaguely political circles in the 1990s, I seem to recall him being considered a bit of a soft touch.
I hope one day the BBC do a more substantial profile of the guy. How did he progress from satirical comedy to trashy trivia to interview with Nixon to his own Sunday morning programme? Was the Nixon interview really his only punchy interview which broke new ground? Certainly he comes across in the film as a rather dislikeable character, more interested in glamour than substance, and only really working for a few last-minute hours on the preparation of this Nixon interview which gave him all the fame when, as Bea says, it is unlikely he'd have got anywhere without his researchers.
The final credits to the film amused me - and showed, I guess, that the film - as all US films - is targeted at an American audience. They gave a little list of 'what are they doing now'- style mentions, and Frost apparently has an annual summer party, which is 'still one of the big events on the London social scene' - well, this may impress an American audience, which probably sees the 'London social scene' as something to be in awe of, but it's not on my to-do list and somehow, I don't imagine I'll be getting an invite soon - but with a character like that, would I want to be invited?
**.5
***.5
Cecil says...For me, the Watergate hearings conjure up memories of the TV being on all day - something we were definitely not normally allowed as kids - and dominating a summer holiday (at my uncle's?); and the famous Nixon sweaty-armpits moment...The whole episode is one of the early big political moments in world politics at a time when I was gradually becoming more politically aware. Fascinating for me, therefore, was to hear from Bea after the film how little she really knew about Nixon and the Watergate story. Even more fascinating was to meet Bea's cousin after the film: this guy was not even born when Watergate happened so it is part of his educated awareness but not something that has any personal resonance for him. It made me think that for someone of his age, Watergate must be a bit like Suez for someone of my age: not quite born so no sense of the time or the people involved, but aware through education and listening to older people of just how significant this moment was in history.
So 'Frost/Nixon' didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know about the events of the time; nor did it give me any real insight into Nixon, who was pretty well laid bare at the time. As Bea says, the only intrigue in the film was this mysterious phone call from Nixon to Frost on the night before the final interview. Did it really happen? Why does Nixon have no memory of it, or why does he pretend it didn't happen?
But it is Frost, whose characterisation interested me. As a small boy, Frost was famous for me as one of the men who did 'That was the week that was' (a kind of Have I got News for You of its day, but in sketch-format rather than a quiz); his time as a trivial TV presenter is lost in my memory, but then he returns in more recent years as the presenter of the BBC's main Sunday morning political programme. He was never seen as a real hard-hitting political interviewer in the Brian Walden, John Humphries mode, though - in fact, in my vaguely political circles in the 1990s, I seem to recall him being considered a bit of a soft touch.
I hope one day the BBC do a more substantial profile of the guy. How did he progress from satirical comedy to trashy trivia to interview with Nixon to his own Sunday morning programme? Was the Nixon interview really his only punchy interview which broke new ground? Certainly he comes across in the film as a rather dislikeable character, more interested in glamour than substance, and only really working for a few last-minute hours on the preparation of this Nixon interview which gave him all the fame when, as Bea says, it is unlikely he'd have got anywhere without his researchers.
The final credits to the film amused me - and showed, I guess, that the film - as all US films - is targeted at an American audience. They gave a little list of 'what are they doing now'- style mentions, and Frost apparently has an annual summer party, which is 'still one of the big events on the London social scene' - well, this may impress an American audience, which probably sees the 'London social scene' as something to be in awe of, but it's not on my to-do list and somehow, I don't imagine I'll be getting an invite soon - but with a character like that, would I want to be invited?
**.5
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Australia
Bea says: Although made slightly nervous by poor reviews, I never like to let reviewers influence my film-going, so Cecil and I went along to see this much-hyped epic from my home country - and I loved it. I like Baz Luhrmann's quirky style anyway, and he didn't disappoint here. Like all Luhrmann's films, tongue is firmly planted in cheek, and if you get into the spirit it's just great, great fun. A sweeping love story etc etc, it draws cleverly on lots of Australian experiences rather than only the big Hollywood blockbusters like Gone With The Wind, but the Australian classics of the 70s and 80s (all the same actors reappear, and all the stockmen, droving, Aboriginal mysticism of films like Storm Boy, The Man from Snowy River and Breaker Morant is drawn upon), and also some funny little observations (no women served at the front bar, everyone rushing out into the street in celebration when it rains). The cinematography is fantastic, particularly the bombing of Darwin, which was kept hushed up if I'm not mistaken, so I certainly don't have a visual memory of photographs or film footage from that event. Nice to see David Gulpilil again - he features in one of our first blog posts of course, in 10 Canoes. Yes, the story is hackneyed, and defies belief, and glosses over what would really have happened - instead, it's the magic of cinema.
***1/2
Cecil says: I too was drawn along by the epic drama of 'Australia' - the 2h45 really flew by and I was actually quite surprised when the credits began to roll at the end. Many of the reviewers seemed really critical of Nicole Kidman; some said she was wrongly cast in the role - I actually thought she played the English lady rather well, whereas I found Hugh Jackman a bit of a caricature, a kind of Crocodile Dundee meets Richard Gere, if that's possible. The actors that stole the show were David Gulpilil, though he did little more than stand on one leg and look mystical most of the time, and the young boy described as 'creamy' by the Whites because of his mixed blood - fantastic performance and someone I hope we see as much of as we have of David Gulpilil over the years.
When the film was first previewed - you know, with those deep-voiced Americans who do the voice-overs for all the previews we see in the cinema - there was a suggestion that this was a film was defining the country, that went deep into the 'soul' of Australia. Having seen it, I'm not convinced (though far be it for a non-Aussie like me to try to judge this) - I have a hunch this was the marketing line both for the film producers and for the Australian tourism industry. I don't think this film goes to the 'heart' of what is 'Australia' any more than Rabbit Proof Fence, 10 Canoes or Picnic at Hanging Rock for that matter! Having said that, as Bea says, it was good entertainment and maybe that was all Baz Luhrmann was trying to achieve?
***
***1/2
Cecil says: I too was drawn along by the epic drama of 'Australia' - the 2h45 really flew by and I was actually quite surprised when the credits began to roll at the end. Many of the reviewers seemed really critical of Nicole Kidman; some said she was wrongly cast in the role - I actually thought she played the English lady rather well, whereas I found Hugh Jackman a bit of a caricature, a kind of Crocodile Dundee meets Richard Gere, if that's possible. The actors that stole the show were David Gulpilil, though he did little more than stand on one leg and look mystical most of the time, and the young boy described as 'creamy' by the Whites because of his mixed blood - fantastic performance and someone I hope we see as much of as we have of David Gulpilil over the years.
When the film was first previewed - you know, with those deep-voiced Americans who do the voice-overs for all the previews we see in the cinema - there was a suggestion that this was a film was defining the country, that went deep into the 'soul' of Australia. Having seen it, I'm not convinced (though far be it for a non-Aussie like me to try to judge this) - I have a hunch this was the marketing line both for the film producers and for the Australian tourism industry. I don't think this film goes to the 'heart' of what is 'Australia' any more than Rabbit Proof Fence, 10 Canoes or Picnic at Hanging Rock for that matter! Having said that, as Bea says, it was good entertainment and maybe that was all Baz Luhrmann was trying to achieve?
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)