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...
****
Saturday, 27 February 2010
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)