Bea says: I had thought this was going to be a feel-good film, perfect for seeing with friends on a cold, dull day between Christmas and New Year.
We are temporarily back in London at the moment, and so headed up to the great value Prince Charles Cinema, just off Leicester Square, where tickets are half the price of the big name cinemas in Leicester Square itself (although much more expensive than they used to be, during my first days in London in the mid-90s!).
This was exquisite to watch - such beautiful animation, the likes of which are rarely seen now as studios use more and more CGI/3D effects. Paris, London, the Scottish Highlands and Islands, Edinburgh are captured in such true to life, but soft-focus, detail. I know all these places well and felt I was revisiting them through this film (that bench, that street, that train journey). It wasn't just me - our friends said the same.
There was little dialogue through this achingly sweet yet sad story of a mostly washed-up magician, his rabbit, and a hanger-on he picks up on the Scottish Islands, who eventually finds a better meal ticket than him. Music and occasional murmurings in smatterings of English, French and ?Scottish Gaelic set the scene throughout.
Definitely not feel-good, but wistful, and yes, the perfect thing to see with friends on a dull, cold day between Christmas and New Year.
****
Cecil says: This is apparently a story based on a script by Jacques Tati that never made it to the screen (though there is a moment where the main character stumbles into a cinema showing a Tati film and we see a very brief clip of the man himself, almost Hitchcock style...).
Great characters, though I have to say I saw through the young Highlands lass as soon as she appeared on the scene after the magician's first show in the Scottish pub. But the plot itself didn't really matter.
It was the animation that counted in this film. And if you look at the credits at the end, you see that there were different animators for each of the main characters. Amazing how a dozen different artists could come up with cartoon characters that all fitted so well on the screen together, from the rabbit to the Italian trapeze artists and the Scottish highlanders.
I loved some of the detailed observations. Bea is right about the geography: I could picture the shops on Grassmarket in Edinburgh, and we sat on the very same bench looking down over Waverley station last summer.
But I also loved some of the little details like the crunch of a hearty Scottish Highland handshake; or the pawnbrokers called 'Blair & Brown', which gave the whole film a kind of Aardman Animations feel, though using only-style 2D cartoon characters, which really worked well.
Overall I actually liked this film more than I ever enjoyed Tati's old movies from the 50s and 60s, so hats off to the makers.
***
Monday, 27 December 2010
Monday, 20 December 2010
King's Speech
Cecil says: The last time I saw a film on my own in the States, it was 25 years ago and it also starred Helena Bonham-Carter. I ended up seeing 'Room with a View' 5 times at the cinema, and after seeing King's Speech last night in a packed cinema in DC I felt exactly the same.
Fantastic cast - Bonham-Carter, Michael Gambon, Colin Firth, Timothy Spall, Jennifer Ehle, Geoffrey Rush, Derek Jacobi and a host of other familiar faces; great script; wonderful story. Just a joy to watch.
I think I'll edit my review once I get a chance to take Bea because I'd love to hear her take on it at the same time. But so much to relate to for me personally: from the early onset stammer, to the forced right handedness (well, that may not be true in my case, but some say it was...); through the soundtrack - I haven't heard 2nd movement on Beethoven's 7th for years and always loved it as a teenager, after it was soundtrack to another film in the 70s...); and I loved above all the massive historical characters (Churchill, Chamberlain, Wallis Simpson, Queen Liz herself) in cameo roles, all superbly acted.
Is it significant that the soon-to-be-closed UK Film Council was so prominent in the credits?
I'll stop there, give it my five stars and say more once Bea has been with me...
*****
Fantastic cast - Bonham-Carter, Michael Gambon, Colin Firth, Timothy Spall, Jennifer Ehle, Geoffrey Rush, Derek Jacobi and a host of other familiar faces; great script; wonderful story. Just a joy to watch.
I think I'll edit my review once I get a chance to take Bea because I'd love to hear her take on it at the same time. But so much to relate to for me personally: from the early onset stammer, to the forced right handedness (well, that may not be true in my case, but some say it was...); through the soundtrack - I haven't heard 2nd movement on Beethoven's 7th for years and always loved it as a teenager, after it was soundtrack to another film in the 70s...); and I loved above all the massive historical characters (Churchill, Chamberlain, Wallis Simpson, Queen Liz herself) in cameo roles, all superbly acted.
Is it significant that the soon-to-be-closed UK Film Council was so prominent in the credits?
I'll stop there, give it my five stars and say more once Bea has been with me...
*****
Monday, 13 December 2010
White Material
Cecil says: It's not often you get a chance to see a French film on the big screen in Washington, so we jumped at the chance to see this at our local cinema round the corner.
Beautiful chaos - are the two words that spring to mind, having seen White Material. It's set somewhere in Africa (a never-defined country, but a mixture of Liberia and Somalia would give you an idea); and it's set at some point in time, maybe contemporary, maybe as long ago as the 90s.
It's all beautifully filmed (on location in Cameroon, I think), but the story is disjointed and really quite hard to follow...But that was probably the intention of the director - Claire Denis. She depicts a society in chaos and at war; and a family in the middle of all that which is going through its own chaos
It's the story of a coffee plantation family from France. The family is split over whether to stay and live through the chaos ("Just 5 days left to complete the harvest") or to get out and return to France. Trouble is, it's also a dysfunctional family: three generations are there, but offspring from different relationships make it hard to work out sometimes who is really related to who. But that is all part of the chaos. Through it all, Isabelle Huppert is brilliant as the mother and manager of the coffee plantation.
All around them there is a civil war going on: you have rebels, often boy (and girl) soldiers running amok with guns and spears; soldiers; corrupt mayors with their own personal army; and a reggae-playing rebel DJ announcing the latest names who would do best to get out of the country.
Reading about Claire Denis after the film, I saw that she too had a colonial upbringing in Cameroon, so much of the context is presumably accurate. I've not seen any of her earlier films, but on the evidence of White Material, I'd go again. This was compelling stuff.
And final tips for those who have not yet seen the film: look out for her white dress, because that gives you a hint of what is memory and what is happening now; and then try to work out the significance of the yellow dogs: they open the whole film, but I couldn't for the life of me work them out...
***
Bea says: From the very first moment of this film I was completely caught up in the atmosphere, created by the slow (but never dull) pace, the crackling tension, the African scenery so well filmed I could almost feel the hot wind blowing, and the evocative music by the Tindersticks.
The central female character played by Huppert is at times foolish in the stubbornness of her resolve to remain on the farm despite many warnings to leave, but unusually in cinema she is also strong, capable, resourceful and brave. I enjoyed watching her story unfold.
It was indeed hard at times to follow the jump-cut storyline, and trace the complex family and social relationships of the characters - meaning events would sometimes happen before I had quite figured out how they fit with the story and characters - but this of course is what happens at a time of choas and emergency.
A beautifully made film, well worth a look.
***
Beautiful chaos - are the two words that spring to mind, having seen White Material. It's set somewhere in Africa (a never-defined country, but a mixture of Liberia and Somalia would give you an idea); and it's set at some point in time, maybe contemporary, maybe as long ago as the 90s.
It's all beautifully filmed (on location in Cameroon, I think), but the story is disjointed and really quite hard to follow...But that was probably the intention of the director - Claire Denis. She depicts a society in chaos and at war; and a family in the middle of all that which is going through its own chaos
It's the story of a coffee plantation family from France. The family is split over whether to stay and live through the chaos ("Just 5 days left to complete the harvest") or to get out and return to France. Trouble is, it's also a dysfunctional family: three generations are there, but offspring from different relationships make it hard to work out sometimes who is really related to who. But that is all part of the chaos. Through it all, Isabelle Huppert is brilliant as the mother and manager of the coffee plantation.
All around them there is a civil war going on: you have rebels, often boy (and girl) soldiers running amok with guns and spears; soldiers; corrupt mayors with their own personal army; and a reggae-playing rebel DJ announcing the latest names who would do best to get out of the country.
Reading about Claire Denis after the film, I saw that she too had a colonial upbringing in Cameroon, so much of the context is presumably accurate. I've not seen any of her earlier films, but on the evidence of White Material, I'd go again. This was compelling stuff.
And final tips for those who have not yet seen the film: look out for her white dress, because that gives you a hint of what is memory and what is happening now; and then try to work out the significance of the yellow dogs: they open the whole film, but I couldn't for the life of me work them out...
***
Bea says: From the very first moment of this film I was completely caught up in the atmosphere, created by the slow (but never dull) pace, the crackling tension, the African scenery so well filmed I could almost feel the hot wind blowing, and the evocative music by the Tindersticks.
The central female character played by Huppert is at times foolish in the stubbornness of her resolve to remain on the farm despite many warnings to leave, but unusually in cinema she is also strong, capable, resourceful and brave. I enjoyed watching her story unfold.
It was indeed hard at times to follow the jump-cut storyline, and trace the complex family and social relationships of the characters - meaning events would sometimes happen before I had quite figured out how they fit with the story and characters - but this of course is what happens at a time of choas and emergency.
A beautifully made film, well worth a look.
***
Saturday, 11 December 2010
Black Swan
Bea says: We had seen this previewed and thought it might be worth a go, and made our first attempt to do so on a very cold Sunday evening last week - only to find it sold out! We tried again last night, successfully this time, and noticed that the cinema was almost full. This one is proving relatively popular at the box office it seems.
Black Swan is loosely based on the story of Swan Lake it would seem, and the ballet of Swan Lake is also a key part of the film as the plot revolves aroud a ballet company's performance of this classic. Natalie Portman plays Nina, an anxious and perfectionist young dancer at the company, who is chosen to play the Swan Queen - both "white" and "black" roles, meaning she will have to discover and express the darker side of her good-girl, people-pleasing persona - a challenge for her.
The company's (male) director and a new dancer recently arrived introduce her to this darker side of herself, and Nina experiments with her sexuality and with drugs, alcohol and violence. The result is a magnificent performance as the Black Swan, and, interestingly, a rather poor one as the White Swan - her original character. Watch out for a (now) rare performance by Winona Ryder.
When summarised like this the plot actually sounds quite good - if only the director had kept a light touch and maintained this, the film might have been very good indeed. Instead, for some completely unknown reason, the plot descends into the worst and most boring kind of slasher/horror film with much gratuitous violence (dead people coming back to life covered in blood to startle audience etc). In my view, the plot was almost completely abondoned to achieve this.
I noted that the closing credits included some for 3D effects although the film did not appear to be shown in 3D. This is my worry about the effect of the current vogue for 3D - all effects, no plot or story.
A promising film that was dealt with far too heavyhandedly, and so disappoints.
**
Cecil says: As we walked through the bitter Washington cold to get to the cinema last Sunday, I assumed the little 9 year old girls heading in the same direction were probably going to this film about a ballet dancer. Actually I think they were going to the real Nutcracker ballet at the theatre round the corner, and as Bea says, probably a good thing, given the rather explicit sex and violence we were served up as the film progressed.
Having finally got to see the film last night in a still packed cinema, I have to say I'm not quite sure what all the fuss was about, or why it's such a hit over here. Sure, the dancing is good, and I guess it's cheaper to spend $10 on a cinema ticket rather than $50 at the ballet round the corner, but this film did not do a lot for me. I realised half way through that I had sat arms folded and barely moved from the start. I didn't care terribly much what happened to this anorexic, paranoid young thing who couldn't quite hack it as the star performer and had an annoyingly cloying Mom.
So when the film turned into a classic American horror film more reminiscent of Carrie or Aliens, I really wondered what I was doing there, or why the audience around me were getting so worked up at the various shocking body parts transforming or injuries that weren't really injuries.
Having said that, time did fly by and the music is great, but maybe stay warm at home and buy a good CD of Swan Lake instead. Or maybe I was just troubled by the fact that the guy who played the key male role, Thomas, just reminded me of my sister's ex-boyfriend...
**
Black Swan is loosely based on the story of Swan Lake it would seem, and the ballet of Swan Lake is also a key part of the film as the plot revolves aroud a ballet company's performance of this classic. Natalie Portman plays Nina, an anxious and perfectionist young dancer at the company, who is chosen to play the Swan Queen - both "white" and "black" roles, meaning she will have to discover and express the darker side of her good-girl, people-pleasing persona - a challenge for her.
The company's (male) director and a new dancer recently arrived introduce her to this darker side of herself, and Nina experiments with her sexuality and with drugs, alcohol and violence. The result is a magnificent performance as the Black Swan, and, interestingly, a rather poor one as the White Swan - her original character. Watch out for a (now) rare performance by Winona Ryder.
When summarised like this the plot actually sounds quite good - if only the director had kept a light touch and maintained this, the film might have been very good indeed. Instead, for some completely unknown reason, the plot descends into the worst and most boring kind of slasher/horror film with much gratuitous violence (dead people coming back to life covered in blood to startle audience etc). In my view, the plot was almost completely abondoned to achieve this.
I noted that the closing credits included some for 3D effects although the film did not appear to be shown in 3D. This is my worry about the effect of the current vogue for 3D - all effects, no plot or story.
A promising film that was dealt with far too heavyhandedly, and so disappoints.
**
Cecil says: As we walked through the bitter Washington cold to get to the cinema last Sunday, I assumed the little 9 year old girls heading in the same direction were probably going to this film about a ballet dancer. Actually I think they were going to the real Nutcracker ballet at the theatre round the corner, and as Bea says, probably a good thing, given the rather explicit sex and violence we were served up as the film progressed.
Having finally got to see the film last night in a still packed cinema, I have to say I'm not quite sure what all the fuss was about, or why it's such a hit over here. Sure, the dancing is good, and I guess it's cheaper to spend $10 on a cinema ticket rather than $50 at the ballet round the corner, but this film did not do a lot for me. I realised half way through that I had sat arms folded and barely moved from the start. I didn't care terribly much what happened to this anorexic, paranoid young thing who couldn't quite hack it as the star performer and had an annoyingly cloying Mom.
So when the film turned into a classic American horror film more reminiscent of Carrie or Aliens, I really wondered what I was doing there, or why the audience around me were getting so worked up at the various shocking body parts transforming or injuries that weren't really injuries.
Having said that, time did fly by and the music is great, but maybe stay warm at home and buy a good CD of Swan Lake instead. Or maybe I was just troubled by the fact that the guy who played the key male role, Thomas, just reminded me of my sister's ex-boyfriend...
**
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Fair Game
Bea says: I wanted to see this after seeing it previewed in October, as it is set in DC where we are now living. What I didn't know was that it was a true story.
Set in 2001, during the run-up into the Iraq War, the film follows the story of Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson. Valerie is a long-serving and successful CIA agent, and Joe an ex-diplomat with much experience of Africa. Despite an apparently ordinary life as the parents of twins in Georgetown, they both become involved in CIA investigations into the shipment of yellowcake uranium from Niger into Iraq, via a convulated route (the CIA asks for Joe's help due to his knowledge of Africa; Valerie is leading a number of top secret missions in Iraq to investigate the WMD situation that later received so much press around the world).
The plot is quite intricate and involved and, I think, requires some background knowledge - the Plume/Wilson story was obviously huge here and I guess most US audiences would have this awareness. My take on what happens next is that Plume was sold out by the CIA in order to bury the real news; that there were no WMDs in Iraq, as we now all know.
A press leak meant that Wilson's activity with the CIA, and his relationship to Plume and her identity were plastered all over the news media. This resulted in dismissal from the CIA as she could no longer be covert, and a lot of mud-slinging against her and Wilson.
I was most interested in the film's handling of the strain this placed on Plume's sense of self, of who she really was, and on her marriage. These aspects were well dealt with.
The film is taken from books written by both Plume and Wilson, and they were involved with the adaptation, so clearly it is their version of the story; I would certainly like to read both.
A thought-provoking thriller which also made me realised how much time has passed since 2001.
***
Cecil says: Although the CIA comes out of this film with less than flying colours, the portrayal of the internal discussions and dilemmas, not to mention disagreements among officials shows the Agency in a fairly nuanced light - quite different from the image I had of it in the UK through the 50s to the 80s from its nefarious deeds in countries like Guatemala, Chile etc.
It's also interesting to realise how we see world events through fairly parochial eyes. As Bea says, we'd never heard of this Plume character; probably because all the UK attention during and after the Iraq war was focused on Tony Blair (and to a lesser extent George Bush).
This film had a definite anti-war, critical message on the wheeler-dealing going on as war approached back in 2003. But it did so in a more muted way than someone like Ken Loach would have done; or than that recent film by Armando Ioanucci, which I really didn't like. It had genuine drama, it portrayed the characters well, and it raised lots of issues around work, ethics, family and breakdown.
I felt a certain identification with the Joe Wilson character who, in the 2nd scene of the film, cannot resist getting into an angry row with a dinner guest in the middle of a birthday party (something I confess I have done at least 3 times in the last couple of years). Sean Penn played his obstinate determination well.
I also identified with the Plame character. Thankfully I have never had the power of the White House (or Number 10) pushing against me and undermining my character, but I have experienced that moment of breaking point when the forces of politics, the media and power games somehow try to involve you in their own games. So I had vivid memories as she breaks down in front of the mirror at her parents' home.
This is good drama; psychological and political. Well worth a watch, whatever your views on Iraq.
***
Set in 2001, during the run-up into the Iraq War, the film follows the story of Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson. Valerie is a long-serving and successful CIA agent, and Joe an ex-diplomat with much experience of Africa. Despite an apparently ordinary life as the parents of twins in Georgetown, they both become involved in CIA investigations into the shipment of yellowcake uranium from Niger into Iraq, via a convulated route (the CIA asks for Joe's help due to his knowledge of Africa; Valerie is leading a number of top secret missions in Iraq to investigate the WMD situation that later received so much press around the world).
The plot is quite intricate and involved and, I think, requires some background knowledge - the Plume/Wilson story was obviously huge here and I guess most US audiences would have this awareness. My take on what happens next is that Plume was sold out by the CIA in order to bury the real news; that there were no WMDs in Iraq, as we now all know.
A press leak meant that Wilson's activity with the CIA, and his relationship to Plume and her identity were plastered all over the news media. This resulted in dismissal from the CIA as she could no longer be covert, and a lot of mud-slinging against her and Wilson.
I was most interested in the film's handling of the strain this placed on Plume's sense of self, of who she really was, and on her marriage. These aspects were well dealt with.
The film is taken from books written by both Plume and Wilson, and they were involved with the adaptation, so clearly it is their version of the story; I would certainly like to read both.
A thought-provoking thriller which also made me realised how much time has passed since 2001.
***
Cecil says: Although the CIA comes out of this film with less than flying colours, the portrayal of the internal discussions and dilemmas, not to mention disagreements among officials shows the Agency in a fairly nuanced light - quite different from the image I had of it in the UK through the 50s to the 80s from its nefarious deeds in countries like Guatemala, Chile etc.
It's also interesting to realise how we see world events through fairly parochial eyes. As Bea says, we'd never heard of this Plume character; probably because all the UK attention during and after the Iraq war was focused on Tony Blair (and to a lesser extent George Bush).
This film had a definite anti-war, critical message on the wheeler-dealing going on as war approached back in 2003. But it did so in a more muted way than someone like Ken Loach would have done; or than that recent film by Armando Ioanucci, which I really didn't like. It had genuine drama, it portrayed the characters well, and it raised lots of issues around work, ethics, family and breakdown.
I felt a certain identification with the Joe Wilson character who, in the 2nd scene of the film, cannot resist getting into an angry row with a dinner guest in the middle of a birthday party (something I confess I have done at least 3 times in the last couple of years). Sean Penn played his obstinate determination well.
I also identified with the Plame character. Thankfully I have never had the power of the White House (or Number 10) pushing against me and undermining my character, but I have experienced that moment of breaking point when the forces of politics, the media and power games somehow try to involve you in their own games. So I had vivid memories as she breaks down in front of the mirror at her parents' home.
This is good drama; psychological and political. Well worth a watch, whatever your views on Iraq.
***
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part One
Bea says: When friends suggested we join them to see this very popular new release, Cecil opted out immediately as he is no fan of Harry Potter. I, however, have been following the series since the publication of Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone in the 1990s. I haven't been quite as dedicated a follower of the films, but have seen most of them in a haphazard way, when I've been able to (Sunday afternoons on TV, or on long plane journeys).
Despite my dedication to the series, I haven't yet read the Deathly Hallows, even though it has been out for some years now. I think it's because I know it's the last Potter book ever, and somehow if I read it then I know it's definately ended. If I don't, then I know the last one is always there for me - for sometime in the future when I really, really feel the need to read a comforting book. Books are, except in a few very rare cases, so much better than films that seeing a film of a book first never bothers me - if I even vaguely enjoy a film I know I will love any book its taken from.
So the three of us, sans Cecil, headed up to Georgetown on the day after Thanksgiving to see Part One of the Deathly Hallows. And comforting is probably the least appropriate word to use about this story - it was dark, dark, dark and not very comforting at all. Even the usual comic relief (various Weasleys, the Hogwarts ghosts, Hagrid) were either deadly serious or absent entirely. The film was shot almost entirely in dark interiors or the blue light of northern England in winter. There was much action as usual - as Harry, Ron and Hermione evaded, sometimes not very successfully, capture from various minions of You-Know-Who. As the magical world of wizards and witches fell to these dark forces I couldn't help thinking about our own "muggle" world and the chaos we are in right now - if only we too had some cryptic messages from Dumbledore beyond the grave about how to get out of this mess...
The film ends at a point where it would seem that Harry, Ron and Hermione's cause is lost. We left the cinema feeling low and overwhelmed - one friend commented on how similar to the Lord of the Rings film sequence it felt, and I agree; it felt like watching The Two Towers; the dull blue darkness present throughout, the grim creatures in charge of the world and the sense that it would take some kind of miracle for hope to be restored.
I expect hope will be restored in Part Two, but there will be a long wait for it. And however it is restored, it will never be as light and carefree as The Philosopher's Stone again. That's ok - it's part of growing up, and growing older.
If you like the series, a must-see - but think twice before taking the kids.
***
Despite my dedication to the series, I haven't yet read the Deathly Hallows, even though it has been out for some years now. I think it's because I know it's the last Potter book ever, and somehow if I read it then I know it's definately ended. If I don't, then I know the last one is always there for me - for sometime in the future when I really, really feel the need to read a comforting book. Books are, except in a few very rare cases, so much better than films that seeing a film of a book first never bothers me - if I even vaguely enjoy a film I know I will love any book its taken from.
So the three of us, sans Cecil, headed up to Georgetown on the day after Thanksgiving to see Part One of the Deathly Hallows. And comforting is probably the least appropriate word to use about this story - it was dark, dark, dark and not very comforting at all. Even the usual comic relief (various Weasleys, the Hogwarts ghosts, Hagrid) were either deadly serious or absent entirely. The film was shot almost entirely in dark interiors or the blue light of northern England in winter. There was much action as usual - as Harry, Ron and Hermione evaded, sometimes not very successfully, capture from various minions of You-Know-Who. As the magical world of wizards and witches fell to these dark forces I couldn't help thinking about our own "muggle" world and the chaos we are in right now - if only we too had some cryptic messages from Dumbledore beyond the grave about how to get out of this mess...
The film ends at a point where it would seem that Harry, Ron and Hermione's cause is lost. We left the cinema feeling low and overwhelmed - one friend commented on how similar to the Lord of the Rings film sequence it felt, and I agree; it felt like watching The Two Towers; the dull blue darkness present throughout, the grim creatures in charge of the world and the sense that it would take some kind of miracle for hope to be restored.
I expect hope will be restored in Part Two, but there will be a long wait for it. And however it is restored, it will never be as light and carefree as The Philosopher's Stone again. That's ok - it's part of growing up, and growing older.
If you like the series, a must-see - but think twice before taking the kids.
***
Sunday, 21 November 2010
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Bea says: Last night our plan was to see a film at the wonderful, restored Byrd Theatre in Richmond, Virginia and any film would have done. The Sorcerer's Apprentice wouldn't have been amongst our usual choice of films, but it did well enough, despite being a clear second to the whole experience.
Settled into our plush red seats, we gaped in wonder at the intricate decoration and enormous chandelier (which changed colour regularly - a nice touch!). The evening show got off to a great start with Bob Gulledge at the mighty Wurlitzer, rising up through the floor to play 15 minutes of nostalgic movie tunes (Somewhere Over the Rainbow etc). Patrons clapped, whistled and stamped their feet - it was a fantastic atmosphere.
The film itself was nothing out of the ordinary - a non-animated remake (although I'm not sure how true to the original - except for the famous mop scene) of the animated Sorcerer's Apprentice from many years ago, with some Arthurian legends thrown in and the general gist heavily borrowed from Harry Potter, and with much use made of computer technology.
It was entertaining enough, however, although the car chase scenes were too long for me. I like Nicholas Cage, so was happy enough to watch him play Balthazar, and in classic Disney fashion it all turned out all right in the end (world saved, and both Balthazar and the apprentice got their girl).
It was, rather like the Harry Potter sequence, perhaps a little more dark and violent than I expected and rather scary for some of the younger members of the audience!
If you find yourself in or near Richmond, Virgina, go to this theatre - especially on Saturday nights to catch Bob's playing.
Cecil says: This has got to be one of the most extraordinary cinemas in the world - http://www.byrdtheatre.com/.
And a great policy of charging just $1.99 per seat meant whole families turned up for the show we watched. About 300 in the audience for an early evening showing. If that was repeated for all 5 Saturday showings, it makes a pretty penny for the cinema and something other pricier and modern cinemas might want to think about.
As Bea says, the wurlitzer was fantastic; worth $1.99 just hear and see that; and the audience lapped it up. Cries of 'We love you, Bob', as he disappeared below stage, followed by the spotlight down to the last visible hair on his head. A fantastic spectacle.
We also learnt that Ralph Dolby, son of THE Dolby sound system family, had Dolby sound set up in the Byrd at way below cost, such was his love of the cinema. And the sound is good. A bit too good for my older ears in such a fantasy film with loads of special effects (I'm never quite sure why film makers think that audiences want to be assaulted by crash, bang wallop every 20 seconds; and the computer-generated special effects just seem to accentuate this).
I actually enjoyed Alfred Molina playing the evil sorcerer more than Nicholas Cage. He's one of those actors you see around in films but you can never remember which was his top role; actually he has done so many films over the years, and he has more to come in 2011 already if Wikipedia is to be believed.
As Bea said, it didn't matter to us what film showed - it was the cinema we went to see, so for star rating, I can only give ** to the film but ***** to the cinema. Another example of the community saving a local icon - bravo Richmond, Virginia.
Settled into our plush red seats, we gaped in wonder at the intricate decoration and enormous chandelier (which changed colour regularly - a nice touch!). The evening show got off to a great start with Bob Gulledge at the mighty Wurlitzer, rising up through the floor to play 15 minutes of nostalgic movie tunes (Somewhere Over the Rainbow etc). Patrons clapped, whistled and stamped their feet - it was a fantastic atmosphere.
The film itself was nothing out of the ordinary - a non-animated remake (although I'm not sure how true to the original - except for the famous mop scene) of the animated Sorcerer's Apprentice from many years ago, with some Arthurian legends thrown in and the general gist heavily borrowed from Harry Potter, and with much use made of computer technology.
It was entertaining enough, however, although the car chase scenes were too long for me. I like Nicholas Cage, so was happy enough to watch him play Balthazar, and in classic Disney fashion it all turned out all right in the end (world saved, and both Balthazar and the apprentice got their girl).
It was, rather like the Harry Potter sequence, perhaps a little more dark and violent than I expected and rather scary for some of the younger members of the audience!
If you find yourself in or near Richmond, Virgina, go to this theatre - especially on Saturday nights to catch Bob's playing.
Cecil says: This has got to be one of the most extraordinary cinemas in the world - http://www.byrdtheatre.com/.
And a great policy of charging just $1.99 per seat meant whole families turned up for the show we watched. About 300 in the audience for an early evening showing. If that was repeated for all 5 Saturday showings, it makes a pretty penny for the cinema and something other pricier and modern cinemas might want to think about.
As Bea says, the wurlitzer was fantastic; worth $1.99 just hear and see that; and the audience lapped it up. Cries of 'We love you, Bob', as he disappeared below stage, followed by the spotlight down to the last visible hair on his head. A fantastic spectacle.
We also learnt that Ralph Dolby, son of THE Dolby sound system family, had Dolby sound set up in the Byrd at way below cost, such was his love of the cinema. And the sound is good. A bit too good for my older ears in such a fantasy film with loads of special effects (I'm never quite sure why film makers think that audiences want to be assaulted by crash, bang wallop every 20 seconds; and the computer-generated special effects just seem to accentuate this).
I actually enjoyed Alfred Molina playing the evil sorcerer more than Nicholas Cage. He's one of those actors you see around in films but you can never remember which was his top role; actually he has done so many films over the years, and he has more to come in 2011 already if Wikipedia is to be believed.
As Bea said, it didn't matter to us what film showed - it was the cinema we went to see, so for star rating, I can only give ** to the film but ***** to the cinema. Another example of the community saving a local icon - bravo Richmond, Virginia.
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Get Low
Cecil says: This has got to be the film of the year, and surely an Oscar for Robert Duvall.
But before I go further into the film itself, let me tell you about the place we saw it: the Capitol Cinema in York, Pennsylvania. One of those old 1920s movie theaters that made it into the modern era with hardly a change in its decor or its fittings. Fantastic venue and a credit to the local community in York who apparently campaigned from 1980 onwards to keep the place open. And they managed to keep it as a single-screen, 500 seater sitting alongside the 1,000 seater Strand next door, which is used mainly for stage plays but does also show the occasional film. Hats off to them and may many other towns around the world follow suit. The audience of 100 on a Saturday night paid credit to their efforts for community cinema.
Now to the film: what a classic. Great opening scene: a house on fire, but fixed camera for about 20 seconds just watching the flames, until suddenly you see a body running away from the house towards the camera. But it's not until well into the story that you begin to realise what the house fire was all about...
Get Low is all about story-telling. Old man Felix is feared by the local community; rumours abound of what he has done and what he is capable of, and slowly, as the film develops, we learn more and more about the man himself; he wants his own story to come out, but he feels almost incapable of telling it himself. So he comes up with a great wheeze for how to get everyone together to hear him tell his tale...
It's wonderful stuff. Set in Georgia (USA, not eastern Europe), its tone and atmosphere reminds me of Coen Brothers films. Bill Murray is fantastic. And if they did an Oscar for animal parts, I'd nominate Gracie the donkey for her lips and her smile.
Only one slight jarring, right at the end: what was the point of the final scene, with young Dad holding little baby in his arms, AND little baby smiling like that? Was it some bow to the needs of Hollywood or did it to have some subtle significance like the rest of the film?
Final tip: unless you come from down Georgia way, make time to see the film twice. The story is worth it, and you might need at least two viewings before you catch all the dialogue in that southern twang...
****.5
Bea says:
Cecil and I are agreed on this one - this is easily the best film I've seen this year, and is probably one of the best films I've ever seen, certainly one of the best American films. Duvall is riveting as Felix, Sissy Spacek (so good to see her on screen again) excellent as his old flame, of sorts, and the rather underrated Bill Murray brilliantly cast as the funeral director. Look out for the band playing at the funeral party - is that Alison Krauss? It certainly is her singing as the credits roll. I don't want to say too much and spoil the experience - go and see this film. Suffice to say that I loved the way the story(ies) played out, and the fine balance between tragedy and comedy.
*****
But before I go further into the film itself, let me tell you about the place we saw it: the Capitol Cinema in York, Pennsylvania. One of those old 1920s movie theaters that made it into the modern era with hardly a change in its decor or its fittings. Fantastic venue and a credit to the local community in York who apparently campaigned from 1980 onwards to keep the place open. And they managed to keep it as a single-screen, 500 seater sitting alongside the 1,000 seater Strand next door, which is used mainly for stage plays but does also show the occasional film. Hats off to them and may many other towns around the world follow suit. The audience of 100 on a Saturday night paid credit to their efforts for community cinema.
Now to the film: what a classic. Great opening scene: a house on fire, but fixed camera for about 20 seconds just watching the flames, until suddenly you see a body running away from the house towards the camera. But it's not until well into the story that you begin to realise what the house fire was all about...
Get Low is all about story-telling. Old man Felix is feared by the local community; rumours abound of what he has done and what he is capable of, and slowly, as the film develops, we learn more and more about the man himself; he wants his own story to come out, but he feels almost incapable of telling it himself. So he comes up with a great wheeze for how to get everyone together to hear him tell his tale...
It's wonderful stuff. Set in Georgia (USA, not eastern Europe), its tone and atmosphere reminds me of Coen Brothers films. Bill Murray is fantastic. And if they did an Oscar for animal parts, I'd nominate Gracie the donkey for her lips and her smile.
Only one slight jarring, right at the end: what was the point of the final scene, with young Dad holding little baby in his arms, AND little baby smiling like that? Was it some bow to the needs of Hollywood or did it to have some subtle significance like the rest of the film?
Final tip: unless you come from down Georgia way, make time to see the film twice. The story is worth it, and you might need at least two viewings before you catch all the dialogue in that southern twang...
****.5
Bea says:
Cecil and I are agreed on this one - this is easily the best film I've seen this year, and is probably one of the best films I've ever seen, certainly one of the best American films. Duvall is riveting as Felix, Sissy Spacek (so good to see her on screen again) excellent as his old flame, of sorts, and the rather underrated Bill Murray brilliantly cast as the funeral director. Look out for the band playing at the funeral party - is that Alison Krauss? It certainly is her singing as the credits roll. I don't want to say too much and spoil the experience - go and see this film. Suffice to say that I loved the way the story(ies) played out, and the fine balance between tragedy and comedy.
*****
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Secretariat
Cecil says: We saw this American film about a star race horse in the 1970s just the day before we went to the races ourselves in Virginia. Secretariat seems to have had a place in the heart of the American people in the same way Red Rum or Desert Orchid did for the UK in the 1970s and 1990s.
This film is actually about his owner on the stud farm, which has got into difficulties after her father has a stroke and is no longer able to run the business. It's one of those typical feel-good American movies about family, about personal development, about resilience and fighting for what you believe in, while running the risk of losing all.
In the background of it all is the horse - we have lots of lovely views of the horse being groomed, being fed, being exercised on the gallops; and some lovely red-eye ball close-ups as the horse is about to race.
It's not great cinema but it was an easy watch and, so we thought, a good introduction to American horse racing, just a day before we went ourselves to a race track.
After our day at the races next day, where no betting was allowed (apparently it is illegal to gamble in the state of Virginia), we realised that throughout the film only one reference was made to someone who wished they'd had a bet on Secretariat. Obviously a bow to the moral stance on gambling in some US states: makes me wonder what else was kept from the great American audience in the storyline of this film to make sure that it had the moral message the director wanted to get across.
Maybe I'm being unfair, though. It was a fun evening and definitely a feel-good movie.
**.5
Bea says: When Cecil suggested this film I thought it was going to be about politics! I had not heard of Secretariat, but quickly got the idea that he was a famous horse in American history - the Phar Lap of the USA, if you like (thought I'd throw that in for my Australian readers!).
This was an enjoyable film, which did at least try to take a serious look at life in the late 60s/early 70s for women - Secretariat's owner had many difficult experiences trying to establish herself as a race horse owner; not least extricating herself from her expected role of wife and mother, and being taken seriously by other owners and the press. It did however have a lot of rather hackneyed Disney hallmarks - the sudden and rather unlikely scenario of Penny's husband being won over to the idea of his wife being a race horse owner in Virginia, when he and the kids lived in Colorado, and of course absolutely no mention of the situation of black people in the state of Virginia in the 1960s/70s, despite the plot featuring a black man as a key character. There was the inevitable tension build up in the final minutes - will Secretariat win the triple crown?? Of course, neither Cecil or I knew if he actually did, until we got to those final moments...
The real saving grace of this film is of course John Malkovich, as the nearly-washed-up trainer - his performance is funny, poignant and eminently watchable. A pleasant evening out, suitable for all the family, as any good Disney film should be.
***
This film is actually about his owner on the stud farm, which has got into difficulties after her father has a stroke and is no longer able to run the business. It's one of those typical feel-good American movies about family, about personal development, about resilience and fighting for what you believe in, while running the risk of losing all.
In the background of it all is the horse - we have lots of lovely views of the horse being groomed, being fed, being exercised on the gallops; and some lovely red-eye ball close-ups as the horse is about to race.
It's not great cinema but it was an easy watch and, so we thought, a good introduction to American horse racing, just a day before we went ourselves to a race track.
After our day at the races next day, where no betting was allowed (apparently it is illegal to gamble in the state of Virginia), we realised that throughout the film only one reference was made to someone who wished they'd had a bet on Secretariat. Obviously a bow to the moral stance on gambling in some US states: makes me wonder what else was kept from the great American audience in the storyline of this film to make sure that it had the moral message the director wanted to get across.
Maybe I'm being unfair, though. It was a fun evening and definitely a feel-good movie.
**.5
Bea says: When Cecil suggested this film I thought it was going to be about politics! I had not heard of Secretariat, but quickly got the idea that he was a famous horse in American history - the Phar Lap of the USA, if you like (thought I'd throw that in for my Australian readers!).
This was an enjoyable film, which did at least try to take a serious look at life in the late 60s/early 70s for women - Secretariat's owner had many difficult experiences trying to establish herself as a race horse owner; not least extricating herself from her expected role of wife and mother, and being taken seriously by other owners and the press. It did however have a lot of rather hackneyed Disney hallmarks - the sudden and rather unlikely scenario of Penny's husband being won over to the idea of his wife being a race horse owner in Virginia, when he and the kids lived in Colorado, and of course absolutely no mention of the situation of black people in the state of Virginia in the 1960s/70s, despite the plot featuring a black man as a key character. There was the inevitable tension build up in the final minutes - will Secretariat win the triple crown?? Of course, neither Cecil or I knew if he actually did, until we got to those final moments...
The real saving grace of this film is of course John Malkovich, as the nearly-washed-up trainer - his performance is funny, poignant and eminently watchable. A pleasant evening out, suitable for all the family, as any good Disney film should be.
***
Never Let Me Go
Bea says: This was our first outing to see a film in our new city of residence, Washington DC, and we walked across town from M St, past the White House to E St, to an art house cinema to catch it.
I had noticed it was running on the day's film listings in the Washington Post, and as Ishiguru is one of my favourite novelists and I had loved the book of the same name, I talked Cecil into going, although I wasn't sure it would be his bag. Despite a big name cast (Kiera Knightley), and Ishiguru's popularity, neither of us had been aware of this film before arriving in DC, so we were in the rather surreal situation of watching a film about the UK having newly arrived in another country entirely.
The film is faithful to the book, and I noticed on the credits that Ishiguru was quite involved in the adaptation. It did not however have the impact that The Remains of the Day had on screen, and I wondered if that was due to direction - it was missing, perhaps, the light yet masterful touch of someone like Ang Lee.
In fact different things came out for me in the film that I felt hadn't been as strongly emphasised in the book; one of the final scenes - of Tommy getting out of the car and screaming in anguish as he realises that there is no escaping his destiny - really affected me, but I only have a vague memory of it in the book.
The film felt a much sadder experience for me than the read had, although the overall mix of science fiction, human relationships, and themes of boundaries and questioning (at what will we stop? what does it mean to be human?) is untampered with. Perhaps this was because one of the film's core questions chimed with both Cecil and me that evening, or perhaps in the five or so years since I read the book the way I look at life and humanity has changed.
Thought provoking. Reading the book may be a better experience. I didn't rate Keira Knightley, but rarely do.
**1/2
Cecil says: I hadn't read the book, so unlike for Bea, the plot - or the basic 'thing' going on with the kids in the film - was only gradually revealed over the opening half hour or so of the film. That worked quite well, I thought.
Although I enjoyed the experience - and shared with Bea the sense of the surreal as we watched Bexhill sea front only a day or so after leaving England and flying over to the States - I actually left the cinema feeling rather empty emotionally. But maybe that was the aim of the director, since the existence of a 'soul' was the kind of existential theme running through the storyline and, 48 hours in to our 12 months over in the States, I was seriously wondering what on earth I was doing over here, and why I had come...
Given the familiarity of so many in the cast, it is rather amazing that we had not even heard of this film being made, let alone screened in the UK. I'll never quite understand film distributors across the world: we noticed also that a film we saw almost a year ago about John Lennon's life, was just coming out over here.
***
I had noticed it was running on the day's film listings in the Washington Post, and as Ishiguru is one of my favourite novelists and I had loved the book of the same name, I talked Cecil into going, although I wasn't sure it would be his bag. Despite a big name cast (Kiera Knightley), and Ishiguru's popularity, neither of us had been aware of this film before arriving in DC, so we were in the rather surreal situation of watching a film about the UK having newly arrived in another country entirely.
The film is faithful to the book, and I noticed on the credits that Ishiguru was quite involved in the adaptation. It did not however have the impact that The Remains of the Day had on screen, and I wondered if that was due to direction - it was missing, perhaps, the light yet masterful touch of someone like Ang Lee.
In fact different things came out for me in the film that I felt hadn't been as strongly emphasised in the book; one of the final scenes - of Tommy getting out of the car and screaming in anguish as he realises that there is no escaping his destiny - really affected me, but I only have a vague memory of it in the book.
The film felt a much sadder experience for me than the read had, although the overall mix of science fiction, human relationships, and themes of boundaries and questioning (at what will we stop? what does it mean to be human?) is untampered with. Perhaps this was because one of the film's core questions chimed with both Cecil and me that evening, or perhaps in the five or so years since I read the book the way I look at life and humanity has changed.
Thought provoking. Reading the book may be a better experience. I didn't rate Keira Knightley, but rarely do.
**1/2
Cecil says: I hadn't read the book, so unlike for Bea, the plot - or the basic 'thing' going on with the kids in the film - was only gradually revealed over the opening half hour or so of the film. That worked quite well, I thought.
Although I enjoyed the experience - and shared with Bea the sense of the surreal as we watched Bexhill sea front only a day or so after leaving England and flying over to the States - I actually left the cinema feeling rather empty emotionally. But maybe that was the aim of the director, since the existence of a 'soul' was the kind of existential theme running through the storyline and, 48 hours in to our 12 months over in the States, I was seriously wondering what on earth I was doing over here, and why I had come...
Given the familiarity of so many in the cast, it is rather amazing that we had not even heard of this film being made, let alone screened in the UK. I'll never quite understand film distributors across the world: we noticed also that a film we saw almost a year ago about John Lennon's life, was just coming out over here.
***
Monday, 13 September 2010
Cemetery Junction
Bea says: I knew nothing about this film when we saw it advertised at our new favourite cinema (the Witham film club in Barnard Castle, County Durham); in fact I thought it was about vampires. I was kind of right as there is a vampire link, but it's very minor. The film is actually an outing from Ricky Gervais, which I vaguely remember being reviewed, and not very kindly.
A classic coming of age plotline, it's set in the early 70s, with somewhat questionable accuracy in terms of clothes and music, and follows the stories of three young men, and one young woman, who all live in Cemetery Junction, apparently a real place near Reading and near where Gervais grew up himself. Cemetery Junction is a dead end town, a place hard to get out of, and the film follows the four's attempts to do just that. Only two are successful.
As a woman myself I was most interested in the storyline revolving around the young woman, Julie, and her mother, Mrs Kendrick, a role that was incredibly well written and superbly played by Emily Watson - a complete show stealer for me, although it was not a main part. This particular storyline tapped into the changing times of the 70s more than any other, as Julie made strong, independent, positive choices about her life - an opportunity her mother didn't have.
It wasn't quite all as spot on as this - Cecil will tell you more - but I don't think it deserved the bad reviews it apparently got. It certainly made me think about life, choices, options, and reminded me of feeling hopeful and young, casting caution to the winds.
***
Cecil says: The opening scenes of Cemetery Junction show road traffic, with buses and cars making their way round a street corner. Ah, the 1960s, I thought to myself, only to be slightly troubled when I realised the film was supposed to be set in the 1970s. You could argue that most vehicles on the road in the early 70s were actually 60s vehicles; and my memory of those days is probably rather hazy anyway. But this was not the only thing that felt slightly out of kilter in this film.
The men's clothes bothered me too. Surely nobody in the early 1970s dressed as well as the main men did in the film - Bruce in particular had far too much style for 1974; and only the geeky Snork dressed vaguely in the way my contemporaries did. But maybe that says more about the dress-style of Hull than it does about Merchant/Gervais recollections of the time...
But the timing felt wrong on a deeper level too. I don't actually believe hard-man Bruce would return home and be reconciled with his father by touching his arm. He may have gone home, yes; but then he would have showed his acceptance in far less demonstrative ways: a silent presence; almost grumpy, but no touching - not in the 1970s.
And the same applies to the even more unlikely hug between the two men on the station platform. In Hull, certainly, men did not hug in 1974. And however much further South Reading (or Cemetery Junction) might be, I do not believe that men would hug on a station platform as happened towards the end of this film. I think Merchant/Gervais have forgotten what the 70s were really like for men!
Having said all this and done all my nit-picking, I have to say I actually enjoyed this film. It has a gritty fairy-tale feel to it, if that's possible; Felicity Jones is enchanting as Julie (and yes, of course, her face was familiar because she appeared in that Anglo-French film I saw a year or so ago - and didn't like very much! - Cheri); and it leaves you with that awareness of the battles life throws up between the head and the heart. Which should we follow??
***
A classic coming of age plotline, it's set in the early 70s, with somewhat questionable accuracy in terms of clothes and music, and follows the stories of three young men, and one young woman, who all live in Cemetery Junction, apparently a real place near Reading and near where Gervais grew up himself. Cemetery Junction is a dead end town, a place hard to get out of, and the film follows the four's attempts to do just that. Only two are successful.
As a woman myself I was most interested in the storyline revolving around the young woman, Julie, and her mother, Mrs Kendrick, a role that was incredibly well written and superbly played by Emily Watson - a complete show stealer for me, although it was not a main part. This particular storyline tapped into the changing times of the 70s more than any other, as Julie made strong, independent, positive choices about her life - an opportunity her mother didn't have.
It wasn't quite all as spot on as this - Cecil will tell you more - but I don't think it deserved the bad reviews it apparently got. It certainly made me think about life, choices, options, and reminded me of feeling hopeful and young, casting caution to the winds.
***
Cecil says: The opening scenes of Cemetery Junction show road traffic, with buses and cars making their way round a street corner. Ah, the 1960s, I thought to myself, only to be slightly troubled when I realised the film was supposed to be set in the 1970s. You could argue that most vehicles on the road in the early 70s were actually 60s vehicles; and my memory of those days is probably rather hazy anyway. But this was not the only thing that felt slightly out of kilter in this film.
The men's clothes bothered me too. Surely nobody in the early 1970s dressed as well as the main men did in the film - Bruce in particular had far too much style for 1974; and only the geeky Snork dressed vaguely in the way my contemporaries did. But maybe that says more about the dress-style of Hull than it does about Merchant/Gervais recollections of the time...
But the timing felt wrong on a deeper level too. I don't actually believe hard-man Bruce would return home and be reconciled with his father by touching his arm. He may have gone home, yes; but then he would have showed his acceptance in far less demonstrative ways: a silent presence; almost grumpy, but no touching - not in the 1970s.
And the same applies to the even more unlikely hug between the two men on the station platform. In Hull, certainly, men did not hug in 1974. And however much further South Reading (or Cemetery Junction) might be, I do not believe that men would hug on a station platform as happened towards the end of this film. I think Merchant/Gervais have forgotten what the 70s were really like for men!
Having said all this and done all my nit-picking, I have to say I actually enjoyed this film. It has a gritty fairy-tale feel to it, if that's possible; Felicity Jones is enchanting as Julie (and yes, of course, her face was familiar because she appeared in that Anglo-French film I saw a year or so ago - and didn't like very much! - Cheri); and it leaves you with that awareness of the battles life throws up between the head and the heart. Which should we follow??
***
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Baaria
Bea says: We were very surprised to find this Italian gem of a film showing on a Saturday night in a very mainstream cinema complex in Hull recently, and although neither of us had heard of it we decided to see it instead of The Karate Kid.
Going on, I was somewhat concerned about the length of the film (2 1/2 hours). Regular readers know I dislike the current vogue for unnecessarily long films (most just need better and tighter editing). However, every minute of the 2 1/2 hours was needed to tell the story of Pepe and several generations of his family, from the 1920s to the present day, in the village of Baaria in southern Italy.
The film required concentration, as it was postmodern in style with the plot presented out of chronological order, and many scenes involved symbolism, magical realism and dream sequences. In fact, both Cecil and myself felt we wanted to sit right down and watch it all again, to have another chance at getting all the references.
The film deals with universal topics which would strike a chord with most people watching - the choices we make in life, ambition, love and lust, settling down, money, home, what we leave for future generations, and, crucially, how things change around us, whilst as people, our concerns remain the same. Powerful stuff.
***
Cecil says: I actually love films like this - real epics you hardly ever see these days; and with so many characters interlinked you actually feel compelled just to go back in there and watch it all over again so that you can put together some of the connections you almost certainly missed at the first time of asking.
It's also a very reflective film, which made me philosophical on the way out, mulling over big issues, motivations for our actions and all sorts of questioning why we do things.
Sicilian culture is not something I'm familiar with, so even with subtitles for the impossible dialects (and the Romany? language), there are large chunks I'm sure I'll never get, however often I watch this film. But it didn't matter, somehow, because the storyline drew me in and held me for the whole 150 minutes.
Funnily enough I did meet a Sicilian Communist Party member on a holiday some 20 odd years ago. It would be good to meet him again now having seen this film. In the UK we tend to associate Sicily with the Mafia, and this guy I met on holiday made lots of jokes about Mafiosi to local shopkeepers in Scotland, just to get a reaction. They're not the main players in this film, but they are always there, always a threat, and it makes me wonder if my Communist holiday contact is still around today.
I didn't like what Bea calls the 'magical realism' stuff in the film, though. Never a great fan of dream-sequence type of scenes and the film tends to dip in and out of these without any Hollywood-style screen-flickering to tell you - yes, folks, you're back in dreamtime now. Funnily enough the dream bits reminded me of those ads for the olive spread at the moment where the family members fly through the air to catch falling olives.
No, but that apart, hard to fault this film. Though, I want to see it again before I give it star rating...
Going on, I was somewhat concerned about the length of the film (2 1/2 hours). Regular readers know I dislike the current vogue for unnecessarily long films (most just need better and tighter editing). However, every minute of the 2 1/2 hours was needed to tell the story of Pepe and several generations of his family, from the 1920s to the present day, in the village of Baaria in southern Italy.
The film required concentration, as it was postmodern in style with the plot presented out of chronological order, and many scenes involved symbolism, magical realism and dream sequences. In fact, both Cecil and myself felt we wanted to sit right down and watch it all again, to have another chance at getting all the references.
The film deals with universal topics which would strike a chord with most people watching - the choices we make in life, ambition, love and lust, settling down, money, home, what we leave for future generations, and, crucially, how things change around us, whilst as people, our concerns remain the same. Powerful stuff.
***
Cecil says: I actually love films like this - real epics you hardly ever see these days; and with so many characters interlinked you actually feel compelled just to go back in there and watch it all over again so that you can put together some of the connections you almost certainly missed at the first time of asking.
It's also a very reflective film, which made me philosophical on the way out, mulling over big issues, motivations for our actions and all sorts of questioning why we do things.
Sicilian culture is not something I'm familiar with, so even with subtitles for the impossible dialects (and the Romany? language), there are large chunks I'm sure I'll never get, however often I watch this film. But it didn't matter, somehow, because the storyline drew me in and held me for the whole 150 minutes.
Funnily enough I did meet a Sicilian Communist Party member on a holiday some 20 odd years ago. It would be good to meet him again now having seen this film. In the UK we tend to associate Sicily with the Mafia, and this guy I met on holiday made lots of jokes about Mafiosi to local shopkeepers in Scotland, just to get a reaction. They're not the main players in this film, but they are always there, always a threat, and it makes me wonder if my Communist holiday contact is still around today.
I didn't like what Bea calls the 'magical realism' stuff in the film, though. Never a great fan of dream-sequence type of scenes and the film tends to dip in and out of these without any Hollywood-style screen-flickering to tell you - yes, folks, you're back in dreamtime now. Funnily enough the dream bits reminded me of those ads for the olive spread at the moment where the family members fly through the air to catch falling olives.
No, but that apart, hard to fault this film. Though, I want to see it again before I give it star rating...
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Precious
Cecil says: We saw this film in one of those community-run cinemas every little market town should have, at The Witham in Barnard Castle, County Durham. The enthusiastic group run this cinema on a laptop, projector and sound system in a big, old hall which is also used for badminton and local theatre (though there's a bit of a dispute brewing over whether to develop the space, thereby losing the wonderful old music hall stage, but gaining cafes, a well-being centre and a modern cinema. Tough call, and not sure which side of the argument I'd be on).
For Saturday night in a small town with no mainstream cinema, we were delighted to have the chance to see a film as edgy and controversial as Precious, and we were joined by about 20 other locals, so not a bad audience compared to other films we've seen since we began this blog. A nice touch too was the interval half way through, which gave us the chance to chat to our neighbour and hear more about how the local cinema group works. If only other towns could follow suit...
But, what of the film? The first thing to say is that Precious is very hard to follow without subtitles. Not being a New Yorker, nor accustomed to the language of the ghetto, I wouldn't have been able to follow much of the dialogue. Though, to be honest, you didn't need to to be able to follow the plot: young, black girl raped by her father has two babies and is abused by her violent mother. The film charts her progress through a special educational programme and her fantasies about what she might become.
It's a tough, violent film, but actually very positive in its message: kind of a black female version of Dead Poets Society or The Browning Version, if you really want a parallel.
Are the characters realistic? Hard to say, not having had much contact thankfully with that kind of life myself. But very believable and horribly convincing. I'll let Bea say more on the content of the film, but I liked it, in spite of its apparently grim subject matter.
***
Bea says: I had read a few reviews of Precious over past months, but thought we had missed the boat in terms of seeing it at a cinema, so I was thrilled when we walked past this beautiful old music hall on our first day of holiday and randomly noticed they were showing it that evening. Yes - a film that depicts the central character's very tough life fairly uncompromisingly.
Unlike Cecil, my work does bring me into contact with this kind of life experience on occasion, and in fact the character of Precious reminded me of a girl from my youth who had two babies at a very young age indeed (food for thought); I felt it was pretty realistic. The "inspiring teacher" plot was quite well done - not too sugary, the social workers (one played by a very dressed-down Mariah Carey) portrayed in a sympathetic and real way, as were the family dynamics - the mother's role in the abuse and the grandmother's fear of stepping in.
The ending didn't tidy everything up - Precious still had a long, hard road to climb - but was sufficiently upbeat not to leave the audience reeling from the hard experience of watching parts of this film. Interestingly, a number of the audience were older, even elderly, and I wondered how they had found it, so took the opporunity to chat to a few at the end. "Terrible, but thought-provoking" was their verdict; "after all it does go on, doesn't it"? How many of us, like me, remember a quiet girl who had one or more babies at a very young age?
Noticing that the film is an adaptation of a novel, I thought I might look out for it - having always dismissed Sapphire as chick-lit previously.
My final comment is on the performance of the actess playing Precious; I understand that, like in a Ken Loach film, she had no acting experience and was pulled from the "ghetto" to play the part - she did well.
***
For Saturday night in a small town with no mainstream cinema, we were delighted to have the chance to see a film as edgy and controversial as Precious, and we were joined by about 20 other locals, so not a bad audience compared to other films we've seen since we began this blog. A nice touch too was the interval half way through, which gave us the chance to chat to our neighbour and hear more about how the local cinema group works. If only other towns could follow suit...
But, what of the film? The first thing to say is that Precious is very hard to follow without subtitles. Not being a New Yorker, nor accustomed to the language of the ghetto, I wouldn't have been able to follow much of the dialogue. Though, to be honest, you didn't need to to be able to follow the plot: young, black girl raped by her father has two babies and is abused by her violent mother. The film charts her progress through a special educational programme and her fantasies about what she might become.
It's a tough, violent film, but actually very positive in its message: kind of a black female version of Dead Poets Society or The Browning Version, if you really want a parallel.
Are the characters realistic? Hard to say, not having had much contact thankfully with that kind of life myself. But very believable and horribly convincing. I'll let Bea say more on the content of the film, but I liked it, in spite of its apparently grim subject matter.
***
Bea says: I had read a few reviews of Precious over past months, but thought we had missed the boat in terms of seeing it at a cinema, so I was thrilled when we walked past this beautiful old music hall on our first day of holiday and randomly noticed they were showing it that evening. Yes - a film that depicts the central character's very tough life fairly uncompromisingly.
Unlike Cecil, my work does bring me into contact with this kind of life experience on occasion, and in fact the character of Precious reminded me of a girl from my youth who had two babies at a very young age indeed (food for thought); I felt it was pretty realistic. The "inspiring teacher" plot was quite well done - not too sugary, the social workers (one played by a very dressed-down Mariah Carey) portrayed in a sympathetic and real way, as were the family dynamics - the mother's role in the abuse and the grandmother's fear of stepping in.
The ending didn't tidy everything up - Precious still had a long, hard road to climb - but was sufficiently upbeat not to leave the audience reeling from the hard experience of watching parts of this film. Interestingly, a number of the audience were older, even elderly, and I wondered how they had found it, so took the opporunity to chat to a few at the end. "Terrible, but thought-provoking" was their verdict; "after all it does go on, doesn't it"? How many of us, like me, remember a quiet girl who had one or more babies at a very young age?
Noticing that the film is an adaptation of a novel, I thought I might look out for it - having always dismissed Sapphire as chick-lit previously.
My final comment is on the performance of the actess playing Precious; I understand that, like in a Ken Loach film, she had no acting experience and was pulled from the "ghetto" to play the part - she did well.
***
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Partir (Leaving)
Bea says: A promising storyline and at least one big name (Kristen Scott-Thomas) - this could have been so much better. The first half to two-thirds was indeed quite good, the plot following Kristen Scott-Thomas as she began to try to break free from her stifling upper middle class life in provincial France (married to a doctor, two teenage kids, no life of her own etc).
When trying to return to her profession as a physiotherapist, she meets Spanish builderIvan, who is building treatment rooms for her at the family home, and they begin a passionate affair. Kristen Scott-Thomas' character gets in deeper and deeper, confessing all to her doctor husband (cue highly emotional scene between the two of them, which is realistic and well done), and leaving him for a life of squalor and poverty with Ivan.
So far so good - the stresses and strains this would have placed on their "love" would have been good to explore - what would she have done, faced with a life of council flats and fruit picking? Would her feelings have lasted, or would she have returned to her husband after all?.
However, the plot then loses it somewhat and the female character behaves in increasingly desperate and odd ways - selling her Cartier watch at a petrol station to pay for fuel, "robbing" her own home of expensive art and getting Ivan (who has a criminal record) to sell it on, with disastrous consequences, which ulitmately lead to her returning to her husband and the film's difficult to believe climax. The histrionics take away from what could have been a subtle and powerful exploration of a not commonly examined area of female life.
**1/2
Cecil says: Regular readers will know how important a film's opening scene is in my view for setting the tone and atmosphere. Here we had a still shot of a staircase at night with the only sound that of cicadas, so we knew it was somewhere hot, but then came the crisp crackling sound of...popcorn from the couple behind us in the cinema. I really do hate the noise of sweet wrappings, the crunch of popcorn and the slurp of fizzy drinks being sucked through a straw. So 'Leaving' made me feel like doing just that since the popcorn continued through most of the film...
The film should have grabbed me more easily, I thought. English person living in France (been there, though never in Nimes); professional reflexologist (done that, though not full-time); passionate affair (ahem, NOT done that, but it's always interesting to watch...).
But I felt little empathy for any of the three main characters. In fact, the person I could relate to most was the teenage son, dealing with his conflict of loyalties between two parents going in different directions. But his was very much a cameo role. The husband was odious; the Spanish builder was a Spanish builder, ex-con; and Kristen Scott-Thomas just kept doing unbelievable things, as Bea says.
So, how about the sex scenes? (I was talking recently to someone who judges a film on the quality of the sex scenes). They were passionate for sure, but they also made me feel like a voyeur; was this because I had little empathy for either of the main characters or was it intentional on the part of the director? The film focused mainly on the Scott-Thomas character, and the director was a woman, so you could expect the sex scenes to focus on the woman's view or perceptions of what was going on; but - maybe because of camera angles (pretty hard to film up from the bed??) - aside from close-ups of Kristen's face at key moments, they didn't feel terribly new or different from many other male-directed films.
And the ending. I shan't give it away, but is that REALLY a likely outcome for such an affair???
**.5
When trying to return to her profession as a physiotherapist, she meets Spanish builderIvan, who is building treatment rooms for her at the family home, and they begin a passionate affair. Kristen Scott-Thomas' character gets in deeper and deeper, confessing all to her doctor husband (cue highly emotional scene between the two of them, which is realistic and well done), and leaving him for a life of squalor and poverty with Ivan.
So far so good - the stresses and strains this would have placed on their "love" would have been good to explore - what would she have done, faced with a life of council flats and fruit picking? Would her feelings have lasted, or would she have returned to her husband after all?.
However, the plot then loses it somewhat and the female character behaves in increasingly desperate and odd ways - selling her Cartier watch at a petrol station to pay for fuel, "robbing" her own home of expensive art and getting Ivan (who has a criminal record) to sell it on, with disastrous consequences, which ulitmately lead to her returning to her husband and the film's difficult to believe climax. The histrionics take away from what could have been a subtle and powerful exploration of a not commonly examined area of female life.
**1/2
Cecil says: Regular readers will know how important a film's opening scene is in my view for setting the tone and atmosphere. Here we had a still shot of a staircase at night with the only sound that of cicadas, so we knew it was somewhere hot, but then came the crisp crackling sound of...popcorn from the couple behind us in the cinema. I really do hate the noise of sweet wrappings, the crunch of popcorn and the slurp of fizzy drinks being sucked through a straw. So 'Leaving' made me feel like doing just that since the popcorn continued through most of the film...
The film should have grabbed me more easily, I thought. English person living in France (been there, though never in Nimes); professional reflexologist (done that, though not full-time); passionate affair (ahem, NOT done that, but it's always interesting to watch...).
But I felt little empathy for any of the three main characters. In fact, the person I could relate to most was the teenage son, dealing with his conflict of loyalties between two parents going in different directions. But his was very much a cameo role. The husband was odious; the Spanish builder was a Spanish builder, ex-con; and Kristen Scott-Thomas just kept doing unbelievable things, as Bea says.
So, how about the sex scenes? (I was talking recently to someone who judges a film on the quality of the sex scenes). They were passionate for sure, but they also made me feel like a voyeur; was this because I had little empathy for either of the main characters or was it intentional on the part of the director? The film focused mainly on the Scott-Thomas character, and the director was a woman, so you could expect the sex scenes to focus on the woman's view or perceptions of what was going on; but - maybe because of camera angles (pretty hard to film up from the bed??) - aside from close-ups of Kristen's face at key moments, they didn't feel terribly new or different from many other male-directed films.
And the ending. I shan't give it away, but is that REALLY a likely outcome for such an affair???
**.5
Sunday, 25 April 2010
La Rafle (The Round-up)
Cecil says: The film is set in wartime France and deals with the fate of the Parisian Jewish community. It tells the story of the 'Vel d'hiver', the indoor cycling arena where 13,000 Jews were rounded up pending their transportation elsewhere. It's France's equivalent of the Chile football stadium in 1973, but not really talked about much and I only know of it because I studied contemporary French history.
The fact that I saw it with 40 others on a midweek evening in its 7th week of screening shows how popular the film is in France. That may be linked to the fact that Strasbourg (where I saw the film) has the 2nd biggest Jewish community in France; it may say something about the lack of French films that do really go into the nastier side of French 'collaboration' during the war. It may just be linked to the incredible popularity of cinema in France in general (I can think of no film that would run in Leeds - a comparable city in the UK - for 7 weeks and still get an audience of 40 on a midweek evening).
It's by no means a great film, however. There's a little too much of the Hollywood style, which surprised me in a French director: a bit too much at the beginning showing us how nice these families were, just normal, every day people leading their normal every day lives, setting the scene for when the Round-up happened (but this intro felt too like Apollo 13 where we spend half an hour getting to know the mundane, but normal lives of the American astronauts, before the "Houston problem" moment)...
We watch developments through the eyes of a young Red Cross nurse, free to come and go, but sent in to help the Jewish doctor who is also interned but is treating the sick among the 13,000. She stays with them as long as she can, from the Velodrome to their camps outside Paris and only loses touch when they are finally transported off to some other camp.
It's a shame Bea couldn't join me to see this film because she may have had different insights through the eyes of the Red Cross girl that were perhaps lost on me. It certainly felt strange not to have Bea around to swap thoughts with (and it makes for an unbalanced blog entry too, sadly).
There was a little bit too much focus on the cute little boys who were part of the two families we watch as the film starts. There's no plot twist as in Sophie's Choice; they are all separated from their parents, but somehow the dramatic moment didn't have the impact it was probably meant to have, and I felt the mournful hand waving just reminded me of Les 400 coups and felt cliched.
The only character I could relate to was the Trotskyist father, who feels responsible for his family but desperate that he can do nothing to save them.
There were some nice touches, like the kids who are too young to know their family name: "What was your father called?" "Papa"...And the heroic firemen who came in to turn on the taps in the Velodrome after they had been left for days without water.
But right at the end, as the credits rolled, and we read that "only 6 adults out of the 13,000 rounded up survived the war", I couldn't help thinking: surely that would have been a more interesting film: to show how these guys got through it, rather than doing some sentimental picture based on the fate of the nice little kids...
**.5
Bea says:
As Cecil said, I couldn't join him for this one, as he was in France alone until I joined him at the weekend. When he told me about it though, I was reminded that during the week I had been watching some TV one evening and had caught a repeat of Ray Mears' programme on Extreme Survival. I quite like this series, as I like to imagine how I would cope in a survival situation (not very well, probably).
This episode was set in Poland, and had been about a group of Jewish people who had escaped the ghettos in the nearby towns and had survived the war by living in the forest, using survival skills. By the end of the war, the group was over 1000 strong, and contained men, women and children. They had even taken on the Nazi troops locally, guerilla-style. What made Mears' programme so interesting was that not only did he explore the survival skills used (e.g. the first thing newcomers were taught was how to make a fire without matches or flint), but he included interviews with two remaining survivers about their experiences. It was fascinating.
I have been to the velodrome Cecil talks about - we once went to a cinema near there whilst in Paris and had lunch in a bistro opposite. Although seemingly a pleasant suburb, and there were lots of people in the bistro heading off to a sporting event at the velodrome, there was a sinister air about the place - which I felt before Cecil told me its history. Places remember, even if people don't want to.
The fact that I saw it with 40 others on a midweek evening in its 7th week of screening shows how popular the film is in France. That may be linked to the fact that Strasbourg (where I saw the film) has the 2nd biggest Jewish community in France; it may say something about the lack of French films that do really go into the nastier side of French 'collaboration' during the war. It may just be linked to the incredible popularity of cinema in France in general (I can think of no film that would run in Leeds - a comparable city in the UK - for 7 weeks and still get an audience of 40 on a midweek evening).
It's by no means a great film, however. There's a little too much of the Hollywood style, which surprised me in a French director: a bit too much at the beginning showing us how nice these families were, just normal, every day people leading their normal every day lives, setting the scene for when the Round-up happened (but this intro felt too like Apollo 13 where we spend half an hour getting to know the mundane, but normal lives of the American astronauts, before the "Houston problem" moment)...
We watch developments through the eyes of a young Red Cross nurse, free to come and go, but sent in to help the Jewish doctor who is also interned but is treating the sick among the 13,000. She stays with them as long as she can, from the Velodrome to their camps outside Paris and only loses touch when they are finally transported off to some other camp.
It's a shame Bea couldn't join me to see this film because she may have had different insights through the eyes of the Red Cross girl that were perhaps lost on me. It certainly felt strange not to have Bea around to swap thoughts with (and it makes for an unbalanced blog entry too, sadly).
There was a little bit too much focus on the cute little boys who were part of the two families we watch as the film starts. There's no plot twist as in Sophie's Choice; they are all separated from their parents, but somehow the dramatic moment didn't have the impact it was probably meant to have, and I felt the mournful hand waving just reminded me of Les 400 coups and felt cliched.
The only character I could relate to was the Trotskyist father, who feels responsible for his family but desperate that he can do nothing to save them.
There were some nice touches, like the kids who are too young to know their family name: "What was your father called?" "Papa"...And the heroic firemen who came in to turn on the taps in the Velodrome after they had been left for days without water.
But right at the end, as the credits rolled, and we read that "only 6 adults out of the 13,000 rounded up survived the war", I couldn't help thinking: surely that would have been a more interesting film: to show how these guys got through it, rather than doing some sentimental picture based on the fate of the nice little kids...
**.5
Bea says:
As Cecil said, I couldn't join him for this one, as he was in France alone until I joined him at the weekend. When he told me about it though, I was reminded that during the week I had been watching some TV one evening and had caught a repeat of Ray Mears' programme on Extreme Survival. I quite like this series, as I like to imagine how I would cope in a survival situation (not very well, probably).
This episode was set in Poland, and had been about a group of Jewish people who had escaped the ghettos in the nearby towns and had survived the war by living in the forest, using survival skills. By the end of the war, the group was over 1000 strong, and contained men, women and children. They had even taken on the Nazi troops locally, guerilla-style. What made Mears' programme so interesting was that not only did he explore the survival skills used (e.g. the first thing newcomers were taught was how to make a fire without matches or flint), but he included interviews with two remaining survivers about their experiences. It was fascinating.
I have been to the velodrome Cecil talks about - we once went to a cinema near there whilst in Paris and had lunch in a bistro opposite. Although seemingly a pleasant suburb, and there were lots of people in the bistro heading off to a sporting event at the velodrome, there was a sinister air about the place - which I felt before Cecil told me its history. Places remember, even if people don't want to.
Dear John
Bea says: Cecil and I toddled off to our local cinema to see this one - and it was a pretty forgettable experience. The film is taken from a fairly well-known book by Nicholas Sparkes, and the plot is relatively predictable: boy (wrong side of the tracks, serving in Iraq) meets girl (well off, at university) on spring break in their hometown. Whirlwind two week romance follows; he returns to Iraq planning to leave the army at the end of his tour, she goes back to college.
September 11 happens. He stays in army out of a sense of duty to his country, she marries someone else, sending him a "Dear John" letter. Fast forward several years. They meet again, instigated by him when he drives to her family's ranch on the evening following his father's funeral; and they spend an evening talking and rediscovering each other (not sexually), and at the end of the evening they part again - water under the bridge and all that.
I fully expected this to be the film's ending. Then a very weird final scene which seemed like it didn't belong at all - her in a cafe in what was possibly Paris and him locking up his bicycle outside to come in and meet her. Not sure what this was all about - perhaps the test audiences didn't like the non traditional ending so they slipped in an extra scene?? It didn't seem to fit at all well, and I would be interested to know if the book finishes that way.
This might have been a good film had there been any sense of connection or chemistry between the two main characters, but the supposed depth of their relationship was not really very believable. It also might have been deepened as a film if any of the side stories were followed more fully - the autism storyline which ran through the whole film for example, or some more exploration of how events can change who we are and the course of our lives in many ways. This was really the theme of the film, but it failed to be explored, giving way to a formulaic Hollywood romance instead.
*1/2
Cecil says: I have very little to say about this film. I have rarely felt so little connection with a series of characters. The rich American teenager scene has never been one I could really identify with, so no matter how much of a thinking person Savannah (I mean, honestly!) was, her family's big house with big garden parties and horses in the paddock out back belong to a world that I will never feel in touch with.
As for the Iraq veteran guy, I was equally disconnected, and this to such an extent that even the scenes with him at his dying father's bedside did nothing to move me, even though I went through the same experience less than a year ago.
No, the only guy I could vaguely see myself in was the clumsy idiot at the beginning who knocks his girlfriend's bag off the pier into the sea and then doesn't have the guts to jump in and fetch it (enter our soldier hero...).
You don't have to identify with characters to get involved in a movie. But if there is no connection, then the film has to be good to draw you in. And "Dear John" was simply not good enough...
*.5
September 11 happens. He stays in army out of a sense of duty to his country, she marries someone else, sending him a "Dear John" letter. Fast forward several years. They meet again, instigated by him when he drives to her family's ranch on the evening following his father's funeral; and they spend an evening talking and rediscovering each other (not sexually), and at the end of the evening they part again - water under the bridge and all that.
I fully expected this to be the film's ending. Then a very weird final scene which seemed like it didn't belong at all - her in a cafe in what was possibly Paris and him locking up his bicycle outside to come in and meet her. Not sure what this was all about - perhaps the test audiences didn't like the non traditional ending so they slipped in an extra scene?? It didn't seem to fit at all well, and I would be interested to know if the book finishes that way.
This might have been a good film had there been any sense of connection or chemistry between the two main characters, but the supposed depth of their relationship was not really very believable. It also might have been deepened as a film if any of the side stories were followed more fully - the autism storyline which ran through the whole film for example, or some more exploration of how events can change who we are and the course of our lives in many ways. This was really the theme of the film, but it failed to be explored, giving way to a formulaic Hollywood romance instead.
*1/2
Cecil says: I have very little to say about this film. I have rarely felt so little connection with a series of characters. The rich American teenager scene has never been one I could really identify with, so no matter how much of a thinking person Savannah (I mean, honestly!) was, her family's big house with big garden parties and horses in the paddock out back belong to a world that I will never feel in touch with.
As for the Iraq veteran guy, I was equally disconnected, and this to such an extent that even the scenes with him at his dying father's bedside did nothing to move me, even though I went through the same experience less than a year ago.
No, the only guy I could vaguely see myself in was the clumsy idiot at the beginning who knocks his girlfriend's bag off the pier into the sea and then doesn't have the guts to jump in and fetch it (enter our soldier hero...).
You don't have to identify with characters to get involved in a movie. But if there is no connection, then the film has to be good to draw you in. And "Dear John" was simply not good enough...
*.5
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Bea says: This Swedish thriller, adapted from a novel by Stieg Larsson, was previewed at the NFT last night, and Cecil and I were fortunate enough to get a pair of tickets, so went along. The plot follows a fairly troubled period in the life of Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative journalist, who has just been sentenced to a jail term following a set up. Awaiting this, he is hired by the elderly patriarch of a wealthy, and well-known, family to investigate the disappearance of his niece some 40 years previously. In one of many twists, the family also investigate Blomkvist to ensure he is bona fide - and the film's protagonist Lisbeth Salander is introduced.
Lisbeth is young, gothic, vulnerable but tough, with a disturbed past, and also very, very bright. Spying remotely on Blomkvist's laptop she quickly becomes intrigued by his investigation and sends him suggestions and solutions - and before too long she has joined him where he has holed up in a traditional Swedish cottage on the family's property.
The original Swedish title of this film is "Men Who Hate Women" and that in fact is a much more accurate description of much of the content of the film than the watered-down English title - the film tracks in-depth three rapists, two of whom are also serial killers. Lisbeth is the victim is one of these men, and through her character the film is also about women's hate towards men who are violent towards them, and about revenge, which Lisbeth takes, graphically, on three occasions.
Lisbeth is a strong and unusual female character in these post-feminist times and I certainly found her refreshing in comparison to the usual kind of female characters I see portrayed in film these days; in fact all of the female actresses in this film are refreshing for their lack of cosmetic enhancement, and comfortable with themselves and their age.
As Blomkvist and Lisbeth solve the disappearance of Harriet the film starts to take a more familiar turn - it reminded me of Se7en, and of The Da Vinci Code a bit, but it is fast paced and sufficiently concerned with relationships to keep me very interested. What I took from the film were complex thoughts about men and women, hate and revenge - I have not read any Larsson, but this film made me want to - a good thing.
***1/2
Cecil says: You don't see many Swedish films these days, do you? I mean, apart from the odd Bergman classic (and they're usually so depressing), the only Swedish film I can remember seeing in the last 20 odd years is My Life as a Dog. So, I guess the Swedes keep all their films for themselves, because surely people are making films up there?
Like Bea, I was struck by the film's title in Swedish; but also by the report that people were queuing round the block to see this film in Stockholm when it came out. Can you imagine Parisian film-goers waiting in line to see a film called "Men who hate women" (not when they have Truffaut's "The man who loved women" in their film heritage) - so I can guess the distributors went with the English title translated for French release...
This film certainly shows Swedish men in a scary light (apart from our hero Blomqvist, of course) - rapists, sadists, murderers and psychopaths, quite apart from the Nazi sympathisers. Jesus, it makes you wonder what goes on behind the usually calm exterior of most Swedes I know.
But, back to the film. It opens with a lovely scene: close up of old man slowly and carefully opening a package that has come in the post. So beautifully filmed, you know the rest of the film is going to be a gem.
And, as long as you can avoid getting mixed up with these awful Swedish men, the country does look stunningly beautiful: gorgeous lakes and islands, wonderful woods, all that ice and snow. Another must for future holidays list.
And as Bea says, the plot races along to keep you on the edge of your seat. There were moments two thirds through when I did begin to think it was getting a little like Scooby-Doo, or even like that American TV series Smallville, which has a young Superman fixing crimes along with his geeky female sidekick, who also, by the way, is a whizz-kid on computers...
There were also brief moments of incredulity. Can you really have access to the internet on your laptop in prison in Sweden? (Can you in the UK??). And as for those Australian sheep shearers towards the end (don't ask...), we KNEW they weren't genuine (and the credits at the end showed that this was filmed in Malaga with mostly Spanish farmhands - well it WAS a European co-production, and it would have cost the earth to fly over to Australia...).
Like Bea, I too have never read any Stieg Larsson before. I want to now. But also, reading that he died of a heart attack at the age of 50 before any of his books had even been published gave me pause for thought. Gulp: I'm 50 and I haven't even written my first book yet...but watch this space...
***
Lisbeth is young, gothic, vulnerable but tough, with a disturbed past, and also very, very bright. Spying remotely on Blomkvist's laptop she quickly becomes intrigued by his investigation and sends him suggestions and solutions - and before too long she has joined him where he has holed up in a traditional Swedish cottage on the family's property.
The original Swedish title of this film is "Men Who Hate Women" and that in fact is a much more accurate description of much of the content of the film than the watered-down English title - the film tracks in-depth three rapists, two of whom are also serial killers. Lisbeth is the victim is one of these men, and through her character the film is also about women's hate towards men who are violent towards them, and about revenge, which Lisbeth takes, graphically, on three occasions.
Lisbeth is a strong and unusual female character in these post-feminist times and I certainly found her refreshing in comparison to the usual kind of female characters I see portrayed in film these days; in fact all of the female actresses in this film are refreshing for their lack of cosmetic enhancement, and comfortable with themselves and their age.
As Blomkvist and Lisbeth solve the disappearance of Harriet the film starts to take a more familiar turn - it reminded me of Se7en, and of The Da Vinci Code a bit, but it is fast paced and sufficiently concerned with relationships to keep me very interested. What I took from the film were complex thoughts about men and women, hate and revenge - I have not read any Larsson, but this film made me want to - a good thing.
***1/2
Cecil says: You don't see many Swedish films these days, do you? I mean, apart from the odd Bergman classic (and they're usually so depressing), the only Swedish film I can remember seeing in the last 20 odd years is My Life as a Dog. So, I guess the Swedes keep all their films for themselves, because surely people are making films up there?
Like Bea, I was struck by the film's title in Swedish; but also by the report that people were queuing round the block to see this film in Stockholm when it came out. Can you imagine Parisian film-goers waiting in line to see a film called "Men who hate women" (not when they have Truffaut's "The man who loved women" in their film heritage) - so I can guess the distributors went with the English title translated for French release...
This film certainly shows Swedish men in a scary light (apart from our hero Blomqvist, of course) - rapists, sadists, murderers and psychopaths, quite apart from the Nazi sympathisers. Jesus, it makes you wonder what goes on behind the usually calm exterior of most Swedes I know.
But, back to the film. It opens with a lovely scene: close up of old man slowly and carefully opening a package that has come in the post. So beautifully filmed, you know the rest of the film is going to be a gem.
And, as long as you can avoid getting mixed up with these awful Swedish men, the country does look stunningly beautiful: gorgeous lakes and islands, wonderful woods, all that ice and snow. Another must for future holidays list.
And as Bea says, the plot races along to keep you on the edge of your seat. There were moments two thirds through when I did begin to think it was getting a little like Scooby-Doo, or even like that American TV series Smallville, which has a young Superman fixing crimes along with his geeky female sidekick, who also, by the way, is a whizz-kid on computers...
There were also brief moments of incredulity. Can you really have access to the internet on your laptop in prison in Sweden? (Can you in the UK??). And as for those Australian sheep shearers towards the end (don't ask...), we KNEW they weren't genuine (and the credits at the end showed that this was filmed in Malaga with mostly Spanish farmhands - well it WAS a European co-production, and it would have cost the earth to fly over to Australia...).
Like Bea, I too have never read any Stieg Larsson before. I want to now. But also, reading that he died of a heart attack at the age of 50 before any of his books had even been published gave me pause for thought. Gulp: I'm 50 and I haven't even written my first book yet...but watch this space...
***
Saturday, 27 February 2010
The last station
Bea says: Following a very pleasant afternoon tea with friends in Hampstead, Cecil and I took ourselves off to the Everyman Cinema, there to see this historical drama about the end of Tolstoy's life. Although aware of Tolstoy, I am not overly familiar with his work, or the story of his life, so it was all pretty much new to me: the Tolstoy-ian "religion", the commune, and the great man living with his family in a fine house nearby, where bitter feuds over the recipients of his will ensued.
The story followed Valentin (James McAvoy), an earnest young man recently employed as Tolstoy's personal secretary, and totally in awe of the great man. Valentin, a dedicated follower of the Tolstoy religion, resides in the commune and meets Mascha, a young, idealistic Tolstoy-ian who teaches him much about life. The other key character is Tolstoy's countess wife (a superb performance by Helen Mirren), who is driven near mad by the political wranglings surrounding her husband's legacy. Christopher Plummer turns in a sound performance as Tolstoy.
The film explores a number of big themes - the nature of marriage, death, faith/belief/religion, all against the backdrop of changing times in Russia, as the old aristocracy gave way to a new way of living, with perhaps neither offering any real answers to questions of life; in this film, personal relationships are the only things which are able to do that.
***
Cecil says: The most enjoyable film I have seen for months, which is strange since I nearly fell asleep in the opening scenes and I am usually someone who sets great store by a powerful start to a film.
There were many reasons why I loved this film. First off, Anna Karenina is one of the most beautiful books I have ever read; and the War on Peace TV series in the 1970s was one of the first costume dramas I ever saw. So a film about Tolstoy was bound to be appealing.
Then the characters: I totally identified with Valentin, his devotion to a cause, his succombing to the charms of the delightful Mascha, the dilemmas that arose when she challenged him to leave the commune and join her in a free life, the cautious, but loyal decision to stay with Tolstoy, and the key role he played in ensuring that family issues were at least partially resolved at the end.
Tolstoy himself was brilliantly played by Plummer. But difficult for me to separate his death in the final scenes from my own experience of watching my father fade over the last weeks of his life last summer. So I don't know if my tears in the cinema were down to a beautifully moving film or my own grieving process - but it doesn't matter, really. The film spoke to me very profoundly.
Bea is right that the film had a lot to say about marriage. But actually for me it had more to say about religion. Was there a religious significance to the choice of name for the film: "The Last Station". And were the followers of the Tolstoyian 'cause' not merely making their own interpretations of what Tolstoy himself stood for? Are we not led to think that Valentin and Mascha are actually the characters who live life as Tolstoy would have done? And if there is a religious parallel today, does it not raise a question about what choices Christ would make today and how he would view the modern-day Church. Difficult for me to say, as I am neither religious nor a churchgoer, but the film made me reflect on the issue.
This is a film I would love to see again - and soon...
Just a quick note also on the Everyman in Hampstead. They have completely revamped the interior since I was last there. There are hundreds of staff running round serving up coffee, tea and cakes in real crockery. You can choose to sit in a sofa for two and have a table for all your refreshments - it's the real cafe-cinema experience. Felt great at first, though I was somewhat put out that there was still the chink of tea pots and cups being served AFTER the film had started - no wonder it took me a while to get into the film! But once the final latecomers had settled down 10 minutes in, it was a genuinely pleasurable experience, so bravo to the Everyman for trying something new...
****
The story followed Valentin (James McAvoy), an earnest young man recently employed as Tolstoy's personal secretary, and totally in awe of the great man. Valentin, a dedicated follower of the Tolstoy religion, resides in the commune and meets Mascha, a young, idealistic Tolstoy-ian who teaches him much about life. The other key character is Tolstoy's countess wife (a superb performance by Helen Mirren), who is driven near mad by the political wranglings surrounding her husband's legacy. Christopher Plummer turns in a sound performance as Tolstoy.
The film explores a number of big themes - the nature of marriage, death, faith/belief/religion, all against the backdrop of changing times in Russia, as the old aristocracy gave way to a new way of living, with perhaps neither offering any real answers to questions of life; in this film, personal relationships are the only things which are able to do that.
***
Cecil says: The most enjoyable film I have seen for months, which is strange since I nearly fell asleep in the opening scenes and I am usually someone who sets great store by a powerful start to a film.
There were many reasons why I loved this film. First off, Anna Karenina is one of the most beautiful books I have ever read; and the War on Peace TV series in the 1970s was one of the first costume dramas I ever saw. So a film about Tolstoy was bound to be appealing.
Then the characters: I totally identified with Valentin, his devotion to a cause, his succombing to the charms of the delightful Mascha, the dilemmas that arose when she challenged him to leave the commune and join her in a free life, the cautious, but loyal decision to stay with Tolstoy, and the key role he played in ensuring that family issues were at least partially resolved at the end.
Tolstoy himself was brilliantly played by Plummer. But difficult for me to separate his death in the final scenes from my own experience of watching my father fade over the last weeks of his life last summer. So I don't know if my tears in the cinema were down to a beautifully moving film or my own grieving process - but it doesn't matter, really. The film spoke to me very profoundly.
Bea is right that the film had a lot to say about marriage. But actually for me it had more to say about religion. Was there a religious significance to the choice of name for the film: "The Last Station". And were the followers of the Tolstoyian 'cause' not merely making their own interpretations of what Tolstoy himself stood for? Are we not led to think that Valentin and Mascha are actually the characters who live life as Tolstoy would have done? And if there is a religious parallel today, does it not raise a question about what choices Christ would make today and how he would view the modern-day Church. Difficult for me to say, as I am neither religious nor a churchgoer, but the film made me reflect on the issue.
This is a film I would love to see again - and soon...
Just a quick note also on the Everyman in Hampstead. They have completely revamped the interior since I was last there. There are hundreds of staff running round serving up coffee, tea and cakes in real crockery. You can choose to sit in a sofa for two and have a table for all your refreshments - it's the real cafe-cinema experience. Felt great at first, though I was somewhat put out that there was still the chink of tea pots and cups being served AFTER the film had started - no wonder it took me a while to get into the film! But once the final latecomers had settled down 10 minutes in, it was a genuinely pleasurable experience, so bravo to the Everyman for trying something new...
****
Monday, 22 February 2010
Espion(s) - Spies
Cecil says: Our first film of 2010 took us to the French Institute for the UK premiere of a French film set mostly in London. This "Spooks"-style plot worked well on the big screen and the plot had us on the edge of our seats throughout. What I don't want to do is spoil the opening by describing the first scenes as, unfortunately, the blurb handed out at the Institut did!
Suffice it to say that the film is about a French baggage handler who gets caught up in a cross-Channel spy and anti-terrorism story; he's done a deal with the French secret services, but also has to work for MI5 AND he gets himself involved on all sorts of levels with a British businessman and his French wife. So, all in all, a study in Anglo-French relations, which is presumably why the Institut were keen to show the film some 12 months after it was released in France.
Guillaume Canet was fantastic as the hapless but canny criminal; his character and his dilemmas totally believable from start to finish. I found the other characters rather cardboard - wooden even - in comparison. Claire, the French lover/wife, seemed implausible, some of her reactions just unlikely; the Syrian businessman (terrorist??) a bit of a caricature; the senior MI5 agent just a little too olde-worlde for the modern-day (Spooks) secret service (and don't you get the feeling he meant to cast Bill Nighy in the role?); and the junior MI5 girl just a bit naive and reckless (and surely she would never have given Vincent her home address?).
The Q & A session with Nicolas Saada (director) afterwards was disappointing (though partly because Bea and I had to leave after 3 questions). Did it really matter that we couldn't see the bus numbers, or that Vincent asked for 'a beer' in the pub; and as for the question about whether the film was making a reference back to the 7/7 bombings...Please!!
***
Bea says: I really enjoyed this fast paced, well-written spy drama - a bit like watching a big screen, film version of an episode of Spooks. If you like Spooks, you'll like this. London was beautifully shot throughout in monochrome grey, with occasional dashes of colour - red of course, but also featuring less usually documented aspects of the city, such as a Bollywood cinema. The plot's central character, being an "ordinary person" was easy to relate to, and although I somewhat agree with Cecil's comment above regarding lack of character development, I could also imagine myself in Claire's shoes - what would I do? A couple of scenes were hard to watch and I had to turn away - not for the faint-hearted this, but a great story, the time flew by and as I was coming down with a cold that evening and really wanted to be tucked up in bed, that is saying something indeed.
***1/2
Suffice it to say that the film is about a French baggage handler who gets caught up in a cross-Channel spy and anti-terrorism story; he's done a deal with the French secret services, but also has to work for MI5 AND he gets himself involved on all sorts of levels with a British businessman and his French wife. So, all in all, a study in Anglo-French relations, which is presumably why the Institut were keen to show the film some 12 months after it was released in France.
Guillaume Canet was fantastic as the hapless but canny criminal; his character and his dilemmas totally believable from start to finish. I found the other characters rather cardboard - wooden even - in comparison. Claire, the French lover/wife, seemed implausible, some of her reactions just unlikely; the Syrian businessman (terrorist??) a bit of a caricature; the senior MI5 agent just a little too olde-worlde for the modern-day (Spooks) secret service (and don't you get the feeling he meant to cast Bill Nighy in the role?); and the junior MI5 girl just a bit naive and reckless (and surely she would never have given Vincent her home address?).
The Q & A session with Nicolas Saada (director) afterwards was disappointing (though partly because Bea and I had to leave after 3 questions). Did it really matter that we couldn't see the bus numbers, or that Vincent asked for 'a beer' in the pub; and as for the question about whether the film was making a reference back to the 7/7 bombings...Please!!
***
Bea says: I really enjoyed this fast paced, well-written spy drama - a bit like watching a big screen, film version of an episode of Spooks. If you like Spooks, you'll like this. London was beautifully shot throughout in monochrome grey, with occasional dashes of colour - red of course, but also featuring less usually documented aspects of the city, such as a Bollywood cinema. The plot's central character, being an "ordinary person" was easy to relate to, and although I somewhat agree with Cecil's comment above regarding lack of character development, I could also imagine myself in Claire's shoes - what would I do? A couple of scenes were hard to watch and I had to turn away - not for the faint-hearted this, but a great story, the time flew by and as I was coming down with a cold that evening and really wanted to be tucked up in bed, that is saying something indeed.
***1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)