Bea says: Although the title of this film makes me snigger it's actually a very respectable 1950s film noir seen at the NFT, London South Bank last night. It was rather a late night for Cecil and me - the warm NFT theatre was pleasantly soporific after a walk through the cold from Victoria Station, and dinner on the way there. However, although I drifted off a bit in the first half hour I was soon gripped by the somewhat convoluted but always clear storyline: former valet to nobility is currently working as British ambassador's valet in Turkey during WW2. An impoverished and slightly shady past means he values money above all things, so photographs documents and sells them to the (bumbling) Nazis, until things heat up. There is a love interest of sorts too (his former employer's wife, the countess). Great performances, fantastic on-location cinematography, sharp humour. Very enjoyable.
Cecil says: Ah, the golden age of cinema: when dialogue ruled and lighting meant more than special effects. But check out the on-screen kisses: James Mason kisses the Countess with pursed lips, rather like I did with Debbie Kavanagh on my first date in Hull aged 14 (probably the censors wouldn't have allowed full-on tongues back in those early 1950s years). And some of the new technology was fantastic: the vacuum cleaner, for example, was key to the villain's undoing (and amazingly it looked like it was the very same model as the one used by both Bea's and my parents in the 1960s). Crucial to the denoument, however, was the money. Now, for those readers who don't know '5 Fingers' and don't want the end of the film to be ruined, I'd suggest you read no further...
Ah yes, the money: having seen the Counterfeiters only a few weeks earlier (and having typed our blog only the night before), the first thing I thought when I saw the large Sterling notes being paid by the Nazis to James Mason, was that they could be counterfeit. And that, my dear friends, was the final nail in the coffin of our villain's grand plan. But, if we hadn't seen the Counterfeiters we would never have thought of that as a possible outcome; and presumably to film goers in 1952 it also came as a great surprise (unless, of course, the Nazi counterfeiting in the War was more well known than we realise - but I'll leave other readers of this blog to post their thoughts on this...)
Rating: ***
Wednesday 19 December 2007
Sunday 16 December 2007
Counterfeiters
Bea says: We have been very remiss and not blogged sooner about this film, which we saw in October, in the Odeon Mezzanine, Leicester Square. This film tells the (true) story of a gifted and celebrated Russian Jewish counterfeiter, operating in Berlin prior to and during the early years of WW2. Inevitably, he is transported to concentration camps, and in one he is drafted to lead a special project - counterfeiting US and UK currency for the German war effort. The counterfeiters get special privileges (more food, beds, a somewhat more humane environment in comparison to what they can hear going on outside their space). Those in the counterfeiting team have different moral grounds - one wants to sabotage the project to prevent Germany being able to continue to finance the war. The central character does not have these strong feelings, but does engage in some delaying tactics. This rather harrowing film is about identity and survival in a terrible situation. It brought a few things I've heard and read about, the experience of being in a concentration camp alive - being deadened to the horror all around, and feeling absolutely nothing other than an incredible sense of fear every time a guard entered. I was wriggling anxiously in my seat and closing my eyes whenever this happened; but when characters were callously shot I felt very little.
Cecil says: very good film, but 2 months after seeing it, I struggle to remember much of the story. My overriding memory is of feeling nothing all the way through: no fear, no wincing at the violence, no disgust, no sadness, just nothing. And I was able to watch all the horrific scenes without emotion. Now, Cecil is an emotional young man so this must have been a very effective technique of the film-makers in depicting the survival techniques of those camp inmates.
Rating: ***.5
Cecil says: very good film, but 2 months after seeing it, I struggle to remember much of the story. My overriding memory is of feeling nothing all the way through: no fear, no wincing at the violence, no disgust, no sadness, just nothing. And I was able to watch all the horrific scenes without emotion. Now, Cecil is an emotional young man so this must have been a very effective technique of the film-makers in depicting the survival techniques of those camp inmates.
Rating: ***.5
Lions for Lambs
Bea says: Our last film seen on the film marathon in Paris at a small cinema in the Montparnasse area. We were tossing up between a Fassbinder and this one, and went for this one on the basis that we'd seen two fairly heavy films the previous day (see previous two posts for details). This wasn't a bad film, it's just that American mainstream stuff doesn't hold up well against high-quality low-budget European cinema. In my opinion. Again a story of 6 characters, 3 storylines (told by switching between stories), with some very big names and expensive digital effects. It was good to see Meryl Streep again (seems to have been a long time) but the role didn't stretch her, and both she and Robert Redford have done too much to their faces. This has really become a big bugbear for me in mainstream cinema - actors with "youthful", frozen faces. How can you act if you can't form a facial expression!? Tom Cruise was also limited by his role, and he is someone I generally think is hugely underrated and rarely given the opportunity to display his acting ability. I have thought this about him ever since I saw his performance in "Born on the Fourth of July", although maybe the credit there was due to Stone's direction. But I digress. A bit preachy (I was already converted), stretches credibility a bit, not bad.
Cecil says: Bea got herself so upset by the botox that she forgot the plot: what should we do about Iraq ?(we Americans, that is); should we commit ?(here it's personal and political and militarily); are journalists/politicians/teachers ethical? All good questions, but why does the American way of filming this sort of stuff just not speak to a European audience? I think the problem is that the film tries to convey a message rather than let the characters develop. And for all that the message was equivocal and challenging, to be honest, I'm more interested in the characters and how they approach things. For me, the Robert Redford (tutor) dialogue with his (almost drop-out, but privileged) student was most interesting; the former Redford students, now committed and out in Afghanistan fighting, the least plausible and least interesting (why should I care that one of them is faster at hand-slapping game??); the journalist/senator dialogue was way too long (and, of course, the one with the biggest questions - and message) but even there, the characters didn't really shine through. For all my criticism, it wasn't a bad film - botox or not, I think Redford ages well (and still acts well); Bea is right: Streep is not challenged by this role. But the acting was good and the story-line gripping enough to keep me interested throughout.
Rating: ***
Cecil says: Bea got herself so upset by the botox that she forgot the plot: what should we do about Iraq ?(we Americans, that is); should we commit ?(here it's personal and political and militarily); are journalists/politicians/teachers ethical? All good questions, but why does the American way of filming this sort of stuff just not speak to a European audience? I think the problem is that the film tries to convey a message rather than let the characters develop. And for all that the message was equivocal and challenging, to be honest, I'm more interested in the characters and how they approach things. For me, the Robert Redford (tutor) dialogue with his (almost drop-out, but privileged) student was most interesting; the former Redford students, now committed and out in Afghanistan fighting, the least plausible and least interesting (why should I care that one of them is faster at hand-slapping game??); the journalist/senator dialogue was way too long (and, of course, the one with the biggest questions - and message) but even there, the characters didn't really shine through. For all my criticism, it wasn't a bad film - botox or not, I think Redford ages well (and still acts well); Bea is right: Streep is not challenged by this role. But the acting was good and the story-line gripping enough to keep me interested throughout.
Rating: ***
Auf der anderen Seite (The Edge of Heaven)
Cecil says: The best film I have seen in years. Wonderful characterisation, thought-provoking, atmospheric - so reminiscent of those 1980s movies you don't see anymore: you know, the road movie, the films that make you really assess where you are in life...
Six main characters; 3 main relationships: elderly Turkish man living in Germany and his young academic son, Turkish/German, who needs to go back to Turkey and reconnect; young Turkish woman and young German woman; same young German woman and her mother (the fantastic Hanna Schygulla - though it was Bea, not me, who recognised her). The 6th person is the mother of the young Turkish woman and she hitches up for a while with old Turkish man.
All about inter-connections, cross-cultural replationships, self-discovery. Same old, same old, you might say, but it does not feel the same as other films of that genre. Totally engrossing, moving. So many scenes were evocative of personal experience: chance encounters that can change your life, the safe haven of a familiar bookshop in a foreign land, staring out to sea and contemplating life, grief, remorse, the befriending of political activists from another country. Oh, and another big question raised by this film: where CAN you buy those very handy cherry stone extractors???
Bea says: Quite by accident Cecil and I have in common that we both love German cinema circa 1970s and 80s. Neither of us knew that this film would be so evocative of this era (although completely set in the present day), and the film's big themes and the inclusion of Schygulla is surely a conscious nod to Germany's relatively recent film-making past, with an interesting cultural twist as the film is also about concepts like the meaning of home, migration, language and cultural belonging/not belonging.
During this weekend in Paris, Cecil and I began to wonder if 6 is a magic number for characters in films; but out of all the films we saw, this one was most interested in character and character development. Much, much more than just a "finding yourself" film, it explored how the self changes at any age during key turning points in life. Told in the triptych format it explored similar events from different perspectives, a narrative device that really worked for this film, and for me. Hanna Schygulla's performance was outstanding, and really put every other piece of acting I saw this weekend in the shade. A master at work.
Much much more to say - these are just a few of my highlights of this film.
Rating *****
Six main characters; 3 main relationships: elderly Turkish man living in Germany and his young academic son, Turkish/German, who needs to go back to Turkey and reconnect; young Turkish woman and young German woman; same young German woman and her mother (the fantastic Hanna Schygulla - though it was Bea, not me, who recognised her). The 6th person is the mother of the young Turkish woman and she hitches up for a while with old Turkish man.
All about inter-connections, cross-cultural replationships, self-discovery. Same old, same old, you might say, but it does not feel the same as other films of that genre. Totally engrossing, moving. So many scenes were evocative of personal experience: chance encounters that can change your life, the safe haven of a familiar bookshop in a foreign land, staring out to sea and contemplating life, grief, remorse, the befriending of political activists from another country. Oh, and another big question raised by this film: where CAN you buy those very handy cherry stone extractors???
Bea says: Quite by accident Cecil and I have in common that we both love German cinema circa 1970s and 80s. Neither of us knew that this film would be so evocative of this era (although completely set in the present day), and the film's big themes and the inclusion of Schygulla is surely a conscious nod to Germany's relatively recent film-making past, with an interesting cultural twist as the film is also about concepts like the meaning of home, migration, language and cultural belonging/not belonging.
During this weekend in Paris, Cecil and I began to wonder if 6 is a magic number for characters in films; but out of all the films we saw, this one was most interested in character and character development. Much, much more than just a "finding yourself" film, it explored how the self changes at any age during key turning points in life. Told in the triptych format it explored similar events from different perspectives, a narrative device that really worked for this film, and for me. Hanna Schygulla's performance was outstanding, and really put every other piece of acting I saw this weekend in the shade. A master at work.
Much much more to say - these are just a few of my highlights of this film.
Rating *****
Boarding Gate
Bea says: Seen during a marathon movie weekend in Paris, at a cinema near Chateau d'Eau. Entering the cinema, I noticed that the back few rows consisted of men in macs. Hmmm. 10 minutes into the film the lead female was engaged in some interesting self massage, for want of a better expression. Cecil and I exchanged glances. Had we wandered into a porn film by mistake? It hadn't sounded like it in Pariscope! After that though the film picked up its thriller genre. A strong, well constructed plot kept my attention throughout, despite some slightly cardboard-y acting from the male lead in particular. Always a good change to watch a film with a female lead, particuarly a thriller/action film - it rarely happens, and certainly rarely happens well. Particularly liked the scenes of the flight to Hong Kong, and action in Hong Kong; so well done I felt like I was there.
Cecil says: About 10 of us in the cinema and, until 10 minutes into the film, Bea was the only woman in the room. It was really a thriller (in the dramatic sense rather than sexual - though there were some very sensual moments, mixed with weird power games - you were never quite sure who was playing a game with who) - but a very European thriller: no special effects, hand-held camera throughout giving you the feeling of chaos, turbulence; very little soundtrack, the atmosphere created by the engine noise, machinery noise, crowd noise. The plot: over-the-hill businessman/fraudster wants to end his underworld life and go straight; he'd also like to hook up again with his ex-girlfriend, who is the central character we follow around the world as she tries to get away from 'events'. The end leaves the viewer with a lot of questions and, as we walked out into the Chateau d'Eau streets, an uneasy feeling that this part of Paris could very well be the scene of similar plots as we had just witnessed on the screen...If you're in Paris, best seen in a seedy area rather than the Champs Elysees.
Rating: ***.5
Cecil says: About 10 of us in the cinema and, until 10 minutes into the film, Bea was the only woman in the room. It was really a thriller (in the dramatic sense rather than sexual - though there were some very sensual moments, mixed with weird power games - you were never quite sure who was playing a game with who) - but a very European thriller: no special effects, hand-held camera throughout giving you the feeling of chaos, turbulence; very little soundtrack, the atmosphere created by the engine noise, machinery noise, crowd noise. The plot: over-the-hill businessman/fraudster wants to end his underworld life and go straight; he'd also like to hook up again with his ex-girlfriend, who is the central character we follow around the world as she tries to get away from 'events'. The end leaves the viewer with a lot of questions and, as we walked out into the Chateau d'Eau streets, an uneasy feeling that this part of Paris could very well be the scene of similar plots as we had just witnessed on the screen...If you're in Paris, best seen in a seedy area rather than the Champs Elysees.
Rating: ***.5
Sunday 9 September 2007
Mr Brooks
Bea says: Also seen in Copenhagen. We knew nothing about it beforehand; we saw it on a whim. Predictable American murder drama starring Demi Moore, Kevin Costner and William Hurt (looking like he's had too much surgery). The only vaguely different thing about this film is William Hurt's character as a voice in Kevn Costner's head. Other than that - forgettable but watchable.
*.5
Cecil says: 5 minutes into this film, I whispered to Bea: "Oh my God, I've brought you to an American serial-killer detective story". Nuff said. Only interesting thing for me was that I'd not realised before how similar in facial appearance Hurt and Costner are, so good casting I guess. But not much more to it...
*
*.5
Cecil says: 5 minutes into this film, I whispered to Bea: "Oh my God, I've brought you to an American serial-killer detective story". Nuff said. Only interesting thing for me was that I'd not realised before how similar in facial appearance Hurt and Costner are, so good casting I guess. But not much more to it...
*
This is England
Cecil says: We saw this film about skinheads and fascists in early 1980s England while holidaying in Copenhagen (and by the way, a quick tip for anyone going to the pictures in Denmark: don't arrive late because they won't let you in).
Having grown up in the 1970s and often encountered pretty nasty gangs of skinheads on the streets of Hull, this film felt all too real to me - I had a dull ache of remembered fears most of the way through it. And the film did feel as much like a description of 1970s England as 1980s. In fact, the whole issue of time and context within the film was a slight annoyance throughout. It claimed to be set in 1983, but was all to do with the Falklands and there were clips of our boys in Port Stanley shown every now and then through the film. Why declare it as 1983 if the rest of the footage so clearly wasn't. And given that it could just as easily have been the 1970s, why define its time so exactly?
The film grabbed the attention from the off. Two types of skinheads come across: the National Front fascists and the rather nice, caring types (not sure I ever met them in the 1970s, but they did feel believable in This is England). The battle for psychological and physical dominance between the two strands is fascinating and at times disgustingly violent. I can't actually remember the end of the film - what remains is the pervasive sense of violence, of racism, and of constant threat. Felt very odd walking out into the sunny streets of peaceful Copenhagen afterwards...
***.5
Bea Says: Copenhagen was warm and relaxed. Beautiful blondes cycled past, we drank coffee and ate lots. We swam in the sound, and hung out at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art. Seeing "This is England" in this environment was surreal, to say the least. When I am in England, the gritty grimness of film like this, like Ken Loach's or Mike Leigh's makes sense. It is what you see around you - grey 60s build estates, desolate grey beaches. In Copenhagen it was utterly, utterly bleak, and although very good, "This is England" is probably the most depressing film I've seen all year. That's not a reason not to see it though - but you might want a comforting cup of hot chocolate afterwards. We did.
***.5
Having grown up in the 1970s and often encountered pretty nasty gangs of skinheads on the streets of Hull, this film felt all too real to me - I had a dull ache of remembered fears most of the way through it. And the film did feel as much like a description of 1970s England as 1980s. In fact, the whole issue of time and context within the film was a slight annoyance throughout. It claimed to be set in 1983, but was all to do with the Falklands and there were clips of our boys in Port Stanley shown every now and then through the film. Why declare it as 1983 if the rest of the footage so clearly wasn't. And given that it could just as easily have been the 1970s, why define its time so exactly?
The film grabbed the attention from the off. Two types of skinheads come across: the National Front fascists and the rather nice, caring types (not sure I ever met them in the 1970s, but they did feel believable in This is England). The battle for psychological and physical dominance between the two strands is fascinating and at times disgustingly violent. I can't actually remember the end of the film - what remains is the pervasive sense of violence, of racism, and of constant threat. Felt very odd walking out into the sunny streets of peaceful Copenhagen afterwards...
***.5
Bea Says: Copenhagen was warm and relaxed. Beautiful blondes cycled past, we drank coffee and ate lots. We swam in the sound, and hung out at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art. Seeing "This is England" in this environment was surreal, to say the least. When I am in England, the gritty grimness of film like this, like Ken Loach's or Mike Leigh's makes sense. It is what you see around you - grey 60s build estates, desolate grey beaches. In Copenhagen it was utterly, utterly bleak, and although very good, "This is England" is probably the most depressing film I've seen all year. That's not a reason not to see it though - but you might want a comforting cup of hot chocolate afterwards. We did.
***.5
Atonement
Bea says: I've always been a great one for costume drama and "Atonement" didn't disappoint. Floaty dresses, authentic WW2 nurses uniforms, 1930s swimming costumes. I've read "Atonement" (although quite a while ago") and the screenplay seemed relatively faithful to the main events of the story; although there seemed to be a slightly different emphasis placed on certain events (the scene at the end - I don't remember that at all in the book) and characters (Lola was the character that stayed with me long after I finished reading the book). Mostly, the acting was fairly ordinary - with the exception of Vanessa Redgrave, but Cecil will tell you more about that. Enjoyably moving escapism to a different time and a different world; quite sensual too.
***.5
Cecil says: Wonderful story that kept my attention throughout, but I didn't really care about the main characters. Was that Keira Knightly and James McEvoy's acting or the characterisation through the film's way of telling the story: through the eyes of Briony? Briony certainly seemed more real to me than the others and especially when she suddenly becomes transformed into Vanessa Redgrave at the end of the film. And Vanessa? Her few minutes at the end of the film were more powerful than the previous 90 minutes of Keira and James. That voice, that tone, that face: just MADE you listen, transfixed. Whatever you do with this film, don't leave early...
***.5
***.5
Cecil says: Wonderful story that kept my attention throughout, but I didn't really care about the main characters. Was that Keira Knightly and James McEvoy's acting or the characterisation through the film's way of telling the story: through the eyes of Briony? Briony certainly seemed more real to me than the others and especially when she suddenly becomes transformed into Vanessa Redgrave at the end of the film. And Vanessa? Her few minutes at the end of the film were more powerful than the previous 90 minutes of Keira and James. That voice, that tone, that face: just MADE you listen, transfixed. Whatever you do with this film, don't leave early...
***.5
Wednesday 4 July 2007
The Good German
Bea says:
We nearly didn't make it to this film due to freak rainstorm just as we were about to leave; when we arrived the opening credits were rolling. I had vaguely read a few reviews of this film previously - but couldn't remember much except that it was sort of film noir. I only remembered that George Clooney was in it when I saw him on screen, although frankly he's always left me cold. The plot was somewhat predictable - Clooney plays an American reporter who was posted to Berlin prior to WW2 during which time he had a passionate affair with Blanchett's character, after the war he returns to Berlin to find her. He does find her and uncovers a secret about her life. However there are no great surprises, and the ending is a rip off of Casablanca, with seemingly no irony. Clooney is passable but wooden - Cate Blanchett steals the show as Lena. I did enjoy the cinematography, the light and shade of black and white film on a big screen, and I also enjoyed the rare treat of being told the story of a woman's experience of war. It could've been much, much better than it was.
Cecil says:
The Good German was disappointing. Not only was the ending Casablanca Mark II, but the whole film was trying to create a Casablanca feel and failing to do so. If anyone has seen von Trier's Europa, the idea of black and white to portray end-of-the-war Berlin is also borrowed - nice footage of Churchill, Stalin & co outside crumbling Berlin buildings, but I kept wondering if we were not going to see George Clooney doing a Woody Allen in Zelig and appearing alongside Joe or Winston at the Potsdam talks. It all seemed so second-hand and, dare I say it, formulaic...
And why oh why do so many American thriller/murder/spy films have such complicated storylines (verging on the Usual Suspects) constantly out to surprise us with yet another twist - it just isn't necessary if you have a damn good story and a gripping dialogue. To be quite honest, I was bored and found myself shuffling around in the not very good seats at the Beckenham Odeon (I'm being unfair on Beckenham Odeon, though, because they do have one magnificent art-deco room which is a delight to sit in - they just didn't show The Good German in it!).
Marks out of five? ** from Cecil
**.5 from Bea
We nearly didn't make it to this film due to freak rainstorm just as we were about to leave; when we arrived the opening credits were rolling. I had vaguely read a few reviews of this film previously - but couldn't remember much except that it was sort of film noir. I only remembered that George Clooney was in it when I saw him on screen, although frankly he's always left me cold. The plot was somewhat predictable - Clooney plays an American reporter who was posted to Berlin prior to WW2 during which time he had a passionate affair with Blanchett's character, after the war he returns to Berlin to find her. He does find her and uncovers a secret about her life. However there are no great surprises, and the ending is a rip off of Casablanca, with seemingly no irony. Clooney is passable but wooden - Cate Blanchett steals the show as Lena. I did enjoy the cinematography, the light and shade of black and white film on a big screen, and I also enjoyed the rare treat of being told the story of a woman's experience of war. It could've been much, much better than it was.
Cecil says:
The Good German was disappointing. Not only was the ending Casablanca Mark II, but the whole film was trying to create a Casablanca feel and failing to do so. If anyone has seen von Trier's Europa, the idea of black and white to portray end-of-the-war Berlin is also borrowed - nice footage of Churchill, Stalin & co outside crumbling Berlin buildings, but I kept wondering if we were not going to see George Clooney doing a Woody Allen in Zelig and appearing alongside Joe or Winston at the Potsdam talks. It all seemed so second-hand and, dare I say it, formulaic...
And why oh why do so many American thriller/murder/spy films have such complicated storylines (verging on the Usual Suspects) constantly out to surprise us with yet another twist - it just isn't necessary if you have a damn good story and a gripping dialogue. To be quite honest, I was bored and found myself shuffling around in the not very good seats at the Beckenham Odeon (I'm being unfair on Beckenham Odeon, though, because they do have one magnificent art-deco room which is a delight to sit in - they just didn't show The Good German in it!).
Marks out of five? ** from Cecil
**.5 from Bea
Tuesday 12 June 2007
Les Lip - l'imagination au pouvoir
Cecil says:
I have to declare an interest: I studied this industrial dispute for my undergraduate degree at Sussex Uni when I lived not far from Besancon in eastern France in the 1970s. So the archive footage and the present-day interviews with people who had been involved seemed fantastic to me (I'm not sure how Bea felt about sitting through 2 hours of largely face to camera interviews in French!)
In a nutshell, Lip was an old family watch-making firm which sold out to a big Swiss conglomerate in 1973; when the new owners tried to close the factory, the workers took over and for a few years it was a great success-story of the left in France. The film takes us back through the early years of the dispute and talks to the main participants (workers, management and government of the day) about how they view the whole conflict 33 years on.
What I didn't know before seeing this film: that when Jacques Chirac became Prime Minister in 1975, he nationalised Renault (!!) but then immediately cancelled the contract Renault had with Lip. As this was the main source of orders for Lip by 1975, the factory closed. The manager of the day says in the film that, in the wake of the oil crisis of 1973, the new government knew that other companies like Lip would also be getting into trouble, and if workers elsewhere saw that a take-over could succeed, they might follow suit. Lip could not be allowed to work, he says...
Sitting here in 2007, it is easy both to marvel at the creativity of the workers (in hiding their stash of watches - and money) and to cringe at the oh-so-typical battles on the left over what is the right path to follow in any dispute.
The film stops in 1975 when the factory has once again closed, but those of us who followed the dispute know that there was a follow-up: the workers then created a co-operative, which continued to make and sell L.I.P watches (they weren't allowed to call them Lip anymore). I bought one of their watches in 1979 and then lost it on the Sydney underground in 1986 (yes, somewhere out there is a lucky Aussie who has a beautiful watch they probably have no idea of the historical significance of).
On our way out of the cinema in Paris, Bea and I stopped to chat to a couple of the other cinema-goers about the film. One of them had been involved himself back in the 1970s and when I told him the story of my watch, he told me he would write to the strike organiser and see if he could track down a new watch for me. The very next day, this man emailed me with his draft letter to Charles Piaget and we await the response with excitement...
Bea says:
Yes it was difficult for me, as I have very little French, to follow this film, particularly as there were a lot of face-to-camera talking head shots. I did enjoy the archive footage of the factory and the strikes, however, and as one of the French cinemagoers said to me afterwards "You can see the emotion of those involved, even if you can't understand the words".
I have to declare an interest: I studied this industrial dispute for my undergraduate degree at Sussex Uni when I lived not far from Besancon in eastern France in the 1970s. So the archive footage and the present-day interviews with people who had been involved seemed fantastic to me (I'm not sure how Bea felt about sitting through 2 hours of largely face to camera interviews in French!)
In a nutshell, Lip was an old family watch-making firm which sold out to a big Swiss conglomerate in 1973; when the new owners tried to close the factory, the workers took over and for a few years it was a great success-story of the left in France. The film takes us back through the early years of the dispute and talks to the main participants (workers, management and government of the day) about how they view the whole conflict 33 years on.
What I didn't know before seeing this film: that when Jacques Chirac became Prime Minister in 1975, he nationalised Renault (!!) but then immediately cancelled the contract Renault had with Lip. As this was the main source of orders for Lip by 1975, the factory closed. The manager of the day says in the film that, in the wake of the oil crisis of 1973, the new government knew that other companies like Lip would also be getting into trouble, and if workers elsewhere saw that a take-over could succeed, they might follow suit. Lip could not be allowed to work, he says...
Sitting here in 2007, it is easy both to marvel at the creativity of the workers (in hiding their stash of watches - and money) and to cringe at the oh-so-typical battles on the left over what is the right path to follow in any dispute.
The film stops in 1975 when the factory has once again closed, but those of us who followed the dispute know that there was a follow-up: the workers then created a co-operative, which continued to make and sell L.I.P watches (they weren't allowed to call them Lip anymore). I bought one of their watches in 1979 and then lost it on the Sydney underground in 1986 (yes, somewhere out there is a lucky Aussie who has a beautiful watch they probably have no idea of the historical significance of).
On our way out of the cinema in Paris, Bea and I stopped to chat to a couple of the other cinema-goers about the film. One of them had been involved himself back in the 1970s and when I told him the story of my watch, he told me he would write to the strike organiser and see if he could track down a new watch for me. The very next day, this man emailed me with his draft letter to Charles Piaget and we await the response with excitement...
Bea says:
Yes it was difficult for me, as I have very little French, to follow this film, particularly as there were a lot of face-to-camera talking head shots. I did enjoy the archive footage of the factory and the strikes, however, and as one of the French cinemagoers said to me afterwards "You can see the emotion of those involved, even if you can't understand the words".
Sunday 27 May 2007
10 Canoes
Bea says...
Yet another film that seems to have escaped all notice here in London. Cecil and I saw it in Paris on our recent Movie Marathon there ( 3 films in 24 hours). Despite being made in partnership with the South Australian Film Corporation and Adelaide Festival I'd never heard of it - and although I don't spend a whole lot of time in Adelaide these days I thought I had my finger on the pulse enough to know when a new South Australian film was knocking about. Guess it goes to show I don't.
10 Canoes is narrated by David Gulpilil, well known to Australian people of my age for roles in films like "Storm Boy", and well known to the world for a part in "Crocodile Dundee". I wish I knew more about how this film came to be made (I'd be glad of any enlightenment) as it felt like something Gulpilil may have taken a lead in creating.
A story within a story, the 10 Canoes refer to a group of traditional Aboriginal men who are making canoes and hunting magpie geese and eggs, and during this event, taking place over a number of days, an older man tells a younger man an ancient story of longing, law, and getting the thing you most desire.
Beautiful cinematography and the strong narration of Gulpilil make this film an excursion into another world entirely. Time slows down in both stories. Many chuckles were heard in the cinema when the younger man complained "all I've learnt so far is that you take a long time to tell a story!"
***1/2
Cecil says...
I never thought I'd go to a film in Paris where half the spoken word is in an Aboriginal language so I was darting to the French subtitles to follow what was going on. David Gulpilil's voice (in English, as he narrates the story) is mesmerising - I could listen to his stories for hours, however long they are and however slowly they get to their point! Interesting switch from colour to black & white as the stories switched from the present to the time long-since past. Interesting also to look at the cinema audience in Paris: a total of 13 people, apart from us and a teenage boy, all over 60 - not sure whether this says something about Parisians and their taste for cinema from far-off places telling ancient stories or whether all the young people saw it when it first came out....
***
Yet another film that seems to have escaped all notice here in London. Cecil and I saw it in Paris on our recent Movie Marathon there ( 3 films in 24 hours). Despite being made in partnership with the South Australian Film Corporation and Adelaide Festival I'd never heard of it - and although I don't spend a whole lot of time in Adelaide these days I thought I had my finger on the pulse enough to know when a new South Australian film was knocking about. Guess it goes to show I don't.
10 Canoes is narrated by David Gulpilil, well known to Australian people of my age for roles in films like "Storm Boy", and well known to the world for a part in "Crocodile Dundee". I wish I knew more about how this film came to be made (I'd be glad of any enlightenment) as it felt like something Gulpilil may have taken a lead in creating.
A story within a story, the 10 Canoes refer to a group of traditional Aboriginal men who are making canoes and hunting magpie geese and eggs, and during this event, taking place over a number of days, an older man tells a younger man an ancient story of longing, law, and getting the thing you most desire.
Beautiful cinematography and the strong narration of Gulpilil make this film an excursion into another world entirely. Time slows down in both stories. Many chuckles were heard in the cinema when the younger man complained "all I've learnt so far is that you take a long time to tell a story!"
***1/2
Cecil says...
I never thought I'd go to a film in Paris where half the spoken word is in an Aboriginal language so I was darting to the French subtitles to follow what was going on. David Gulpilil's voice (in English, as he narrates the story) is mesmerising - I could listen to his stories for hours, however long they are and however slowly they get to their point! Interesting switch from colour to black & white as the stories switched from the present to the time long-since past. Interesting also to look at the cinema audience in Paris: a total of 13 people, apart from us and a teenage boy, all over 60 - not sure whether this says something about Parisians and their taste for cinema from far-off places telling ancient stories or whether all the young people saw it when it first came out....
***
Netto
Cecil says...
Social realism from East Berlin, focusing on a man in his 30s struggling in the 'new' Germany since the wall came down, and his son, a 15 year-old who suddenly reappears in his father's life after a couple of years' estrangement. Kind of Wim Wenders meet Lars von Trier style. Good story-line as the son teaches his father how to get on in life, while being cringingly hopeless himself in matters of love (scenes with the prospective girlfriend in the park, in the flat, in the attic bring back awful memories of nervous moments with girls so many teenage boys must go through). East Berlin man's ex-wife is a sweetie but she's gone off with Bernd, the flashy Westerner with money, job and fast car. What does the ending mean? God knows, but it's a good film...
***
Bea says...
Cecil wondered if this film would be too much about the lives of men to interest me, but it did. And it made me want to go out and buy the back catalogue of Peter Tersching, East Berlin's answer to Johnny Cash (apparently).
***1/2
Social realism from East Berlin, focusing on a man in his 30s struggling in the 'new' Germany since the wall came down, and his son, a 15 year-old who suddenly reappears in his father's life after a couple of years' estrangement. Kind of Wim Wenders meet Lars von Trier style. Good story-line as the son teaches his father how to get on in life, while being cringingly hopeless himself in matters of love (scenes with the prospective girlfriend in the park, in the flat, in the attic bring back awful memories of nervous moments with girls so many teenage boys must go through). East Berlin man's ex-wife is a sweetie but she's gone off with Bernd, the flashy Westerner with money, job and fast car. What does the ending mean? God knows, but it's a good film...
***
Bea says...
Cecil wondered if this film would be too much about the lives of men to interest me, but it did. And it made me want to go out and buy the back catalogue of Peter Tersching, East Berlin's answer to Johnny Cash (apparently).
***1/2
Irina Palm
Bea says...
Seen in Strasbourg, France, neither Cecil or myself had ever heard of this film, despite it being set in the UK, with a mainly UK cast. Marianne Faithful plays the lead role of Irina Palm, alias Maggie, a middle aged, widowed housewife who raises the money for a life-saving operation for her grandson by getting a job as a "hostess" in a Soho nightclub. Despite this rather cliched plot, Maggie's transformation from someone "not the least bit interesting", who "doesn't do anything", to someone famed in certain circles for the softness of her hands and her "delicate touch" - someone who does indeed "do something" - is very engaging. The dialogue is well crafted and understated, and well supported by the frugality of the sets and cinematography, leaving the simpleness of the story to shine.
****
Cecil says...
Do men really queue up for these services? I mean, I have never ever seen a queue outside one of those joints in Soho. And how do they make so much money when the men are putting a coin (ie max £2) into a slot for the services rendered? Anyway, apart from these reality checks, a gripping film (!!) and definitely recommended if it ever hits UK cinemas - or go to France and see it now...
****
Seen in Strasbourg, France, neither Cecil or myself had ever heard of this film, despite it being set in the UK, with a mainly UK cast. Marianne Faithful plays the lead role of Irina Palm, alias Maggie, a middle aged, widowed housewife who raises the money for a life-saving operation for her grandson by getting a job as a "hostess" in a Soho nightclub. Despite this rather cliched plot, Maggie's transformation from someone "not the least bit interesting", who "doesn't do anything", to someone famed in certain circles for the softness of her hands and her "delicate touch" - someone who does indeed "do something" - is very engaging. The dialogue is well crafted and understated, and well supported by the frugality of the sets and cinematography, leaving the simpleness of the story to shine.
****
Cecil says...
Do men really queue up for these services? I mean, I have never ever seen a queue outside one of those joints in Soho. And how do they make so much money when the men are putting a coin (ie max £2) into a slot for the services rendered? Anyway, apart from these reality checks, a gripping film (!!) and definitely recommended if it ever hits UK cinemas - or go to France and see it now...
****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)