Bea says: The second of two films seen in Paris (on route to North Eastern France), we saw this at the equivalent of London's National Film Theatre (i.e. arty films, earnest, and sometimes downright odd, clientele). We knew nothing about it at all, so it was a surprise to see Wim Wenders was involved, and as we are both keen on Wenders we usually know most of his stuff. We were also pleased to note Jeanne Moroeau, who has featured in this blog before, had a role. We (or at least I) was less pleasantly surprised to find the film was mostly in French, as I speak little French. However, suffice to say that I followed the plot without a problem! This film specialised in long, languid shots of the four protagonists walking through forests and mountains, ducking through surreal doorways - council estate type flats in the middle of a forest etc - making a simple meal in a log cabin, having a feast in an old winery, searching, and driving a bus, celebrating on a beach.... It was kind of religious (a leader and his disciples, in the wilderness, last supper, leader vanishes, others search but do not find him, and I guess instead find stronger faith or part of themselves. I think in fact it was beneficial not to understand the dialogue (what there was of it) as instead I just watched the story the visuals gave me. I quite enjoyed it, in a chilled out, different kind of way.
** 1/2
Cecil says: The worst film I have seen in years. I almost joined the steady trickle of people who left before the end, but stuck it out partly because I hate to miss the end of a story, even if I haven't got a clue what is going on.
Fantastic cast with two of my favourite actors of the 70s/80s in Jeanne Moreau and Bruno Ganz. But, oh my God, what was it all about? Reminded me of my first experience of a Robert Bresson film: slow, no apparent continuity, surreal to the point of ridicule and utterly, utterly boring. Bea reckoned there may have been some biblical references in it: last supper, days in the wilderness etc etc, but for an old atheist like me with a comprehensive education in Hull where religious education was to learn about other religions rather than Christianity, any biblical references were totally lost on me. Honestly, I had not got a clue. I hate surrealism at the best of times, but when it's combined with pompous soliloquy, it is a recipe for a dire Sunday afternoon.
Maybe my observations of the audience before the film started should have been a warning. 25 people there, but all sitting alone apart from Bea and me; utter silence in the room (probably no surprise given that they were all sitting on their own) - the silence felt weird, but actually, given the film's content, maybe it was a sign...But then again, since half of them left before the end, maybe they also didn't like the sign...
One thing I have to say about Paris, though: you can see far more varied films in a weekend than you can in London, and at only €9 each for 2 films, tremendous value. Bea and I walked back into the Bercy streets and mingled with the rowdy basketball final fans, all waving their flags and banners for Cholet, wherever that may be in France. A bizarre day...
A star rating??? I can't even give it half a star, sorry.
Monday 26 May 2008
Am Ende kommen Touristen...
Cecil say: A young German man is sent to Auschwitz for his national service (the civilian option, not the military!). It is present-day Poland, and the old concentration camp has been rebuilt as a museum and memorial - coach loads of Germans pass through every day and are encouraged to reflect on what the place means for them today. Our protagonist's main task is to look after an old inmate, Polish, who still gives talks to the visitor groups and repairs the old suitcases left behind by those who perished in the camp.
Bea and I had different views on what the point of the film was. I'm not actually sure the film had a point to make. It had an underlying feel of a road movie, but the movement was more through the camp (German tourists passing through in coaches; young German national service guy spending a few months there; the Polish tour guide he falls for is about to set off to a new career in Brussels...) - was that a reflection of the gruesome movement through the camp of the prisoners 60 years earlier?
The static character was the old Polish gent: so static that his methods of repairing suitcases were no longer up-to-scratch for the new museum curators; his talks about life in the camp apparently too static also for the entrepreneurial woman who sets up a new memorial in the next village. He even lives on the campsite still, but by the end of the film, it looks as though this too cannot continue.
But our young German protagonist, although despised by the locals, does come to some understanding and empathy for the old Polish guy. True, he dithers over commitment to the Polish woman, and she also appears uncertain of whether she wants to be involved with him - she must at all costs get out of the place... But, at the end of the film, our German national service character seems set on seeing out his time in Auschwitz. As with any person in the early 20s, life is a series of steps forward accompanied by dithering and uncertainty, and even some steps back to safety zones: I found his character very believable.
What was slightly annoying was the lack of research into just how an interpreter (or translator) goes about getting a job in Brussels. The Polish woman is called for interview 'at the Agriculture Commission in Brussels' and we learn that she is offered a job on-the-spot and should start almost immediately. If only it were so simple! The recruitment procedure for any EU officials is a good deal more convoluted and even if we allow for poetic (or cinematographic) licence with the timescales, why on earth refer to an 'Agriculture Commission' when no such thing exists in Brussels?
***
Bea says: Cecil makes some good points - there was certainly something about movement/arrival/departure in this film that seemed eerily reminiscent of the footage I have seen about the arrival and departure of people to and from Auschwitz during its darkest hour. This film had thought provoking moments; such as when the (local) young Polish woman who becomes involved with our protagonist talks about growing up and living in Auschwitz (the town) - "its just the place where I live"; and there were also interesting moments around language - what it means to locals to use the German language, although the elderly Polish survivor spoke German almost exclusively, and the young Polish woman enthused about the beauty of the German language. But after this film Cecil and I had a lively discussion about whether the purpose of narrative and story is to describe a transformation of some kind, and if so what kind of transformation occurred in "Am Ende kommen Touristen..." The answer is not clear to me.
***
Bea and I had different views on what the point of the film was. I'm not actually sure the film had a point to make. It had an underlying feel of a road movie, but the movement was more through the camp (German tourists passing through in coaches; young German national service guy spending a few months there; the Polish tour guide he falls for is about to set off to a new career in Brussels...) - was that a reflection of the gruesome movement through the camp of the prisoners 60 years earlier?
The static character was the old Polish gent: so static that his methods of repairing suitcases were no longer up-to-scratch for the new museum curators; his talks about life in the camp apparently too static also for the entrepreneurial woman who sets up a new memorial in the next village. He even lives on the campsite still, but by the end of the film, it looks as though this too cannot continue.
But our young German protagonist, although despised by the locals, does come to some understanding and empathy for the old Polish guy. True, he dithers over commitment to the Polish woman, and she also appears uncertain of whether she wants to be involved with him - she must at all costs get out of the place... But, at the end of the film, our German national service character seems set on seeing out his time in Auschwitz. As with any person in the early 20s, life is a series of steps forward accompanied by dithering and uncertainty, and even some steps back to safety zones: I found his character very believable.
What was slightly annoying was the lack of research into just how an interpreter (or translator) goes about getting a job in Brussels. The Polish woman is called for interview 'at the Agriculture Commission in Brussels' and we learn that she is offered a job on-the-spot and should start almost immediately. If only it were so simple! The recruitment procedure for any EU officials is a good deal more convoluted and even if we allow for poetic (or cinematographic) licence with the timescales, why on earth refer to an 'Agriculture Commission' when no such thing exists in Brussels?
***
Bea says: Cecil makes some good points - there was certainly something about movement/arrival/departure in this film that seemed eerily reminiscent of the footage I have seen about the arrival and departure of people to and from Auschwitz during its darkest hour. This film had thought provoking moments; such as when the (local) young Polish woman who becomes involved with our protagonist talks about growing up and living in Auschwitz (the town) - "its just the place where I live"; and there were also interesting moments around language - what it means to locals to use the German language, although the elderly Polish survivor spoke German almost exclusively, and the young Polish woman enthused about the beauty of the German language. But after this film Cecil and I had a lively discussion about whether the purpose of narrative and story is to describe a transformation of some kind, and if so what kind of transformation occurred in "Am Ende kommen Touristen..." The answer is not clear to me.
***
Monday 5 May 2008
Happy-Go-Lucky
Bea says: Seen in Hull, always an appropriate setting for a Mike Leigh film. I've seen quite a bit of Mike Leigh over the years and don't actually find him as bleak as many say he is, although he is always thought-provoking, and Happy-Go-Lucky was no exception. I mulled it over for quite a while afterwards. I'd read a couple of reviews along the lines of "Mike Leigh does happy" etc etc, and afterwards wondered if the reviewers and I had actually watched the same film - I didn't think it was particularly "happy". The main character was fully drawn - there were many things I liked about her; I could imagine being her friend, meeting her for drinks or coffee, but she also got on my nerves. Her character mellows and deepens through the film as a series of events puts her "happy-go-lucky" nature to the test. However, it also felt like there was more than this to the character and film, something about a life we either do or don't face up to, and what that does to us.
***1/2
Cecil says: 15 minutes into this film, I was bored. I hadn't seen a Mike Leigh film for years and had forgotten how mind-numbingly mundane the setting of his films can be. Did I really want to sit through over two hours of the sort of conversation I might have had 25 years ago and with a main character who had the most annoying, nervous giggle. Funnily enough, the Hull cinema advertised this film as 2h20 long, whereas the newspaper reviews say it's 1h58 (did the Hull cinema get a special un-cut version??) - no matter: by 30 minutes in, I was riveted and the time flew by for the rest of the film.
As Bea says, the characters slowly grew - on us as film-goers and in themselves. There was a strange scene with a tramp which left me rather non-plussed (and actually made me wonder if the Hull cinema had received a 'cut' version, with the bit taken out which would have made sense of the tramp episode); I can't believe anybody would stay with such a mad driving instructor as long as she did; and the poor, pregnant and boringly suburban sister seemed a bit of a cartoon character (I mean, not everybody in the suburbs spends all their time looking after their hydrangeas, and just because Bea and I have done this Bank Holiday does NOT make us a boring, suburban couple...or does it? - answers on a postcard, please to Mike Leigh...)
***
***1/2
Cecil says: 15 minutes into this film, I was bored. I hadn't seen a Mike Leigh film for years and had forgotten how mind-numbingly mundane the setting of his films can be. Did I really want to sit through over two hours of the sort of conversation I might have had 25 years ago and with a main character who had the most annoying, nervous giggle. Funnily enough, the Hull cinema advertised this film as 2h20 long, whereas the newspaper reviews say it's 1h58 (did the Hull cinema get a special un-cut version??) - no matter: by 30 minutes in, I was riveted and the time flew by for the rest of the film.
As Bea says, the characters slowly grew - on us as film-goers and in themselves. There was a strange scene with a tramp which left me rather non-plussed (and actually made me wonder if the Hull cinema had received a 'cut' version, with the bit taken out which would have made sense of the tramp episode); I can't believe anybody would stay with such a mad driving instructor as long as she did; and the poor, pregnant and boringly suburban sister seemed a bit of a cartoon character (I mean, not everybody in the suburbs spends all their time looking after their hydrangeas, and just because Bea and I have done this Bank Holiday does NOT make us a boring, suburban couple...or does it? - answers on a postcard, please to Mike Leigh...)
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)