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.
***
Sunday, 17 October 2010
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.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)