Mary Magdalene

Seen at the beautiful Regent Cinema in Ballarat

Bea says: This film was striking in its simple beauty.  The lives of Jesus and the disciples were simple, with few if any possessions and little money.  Clothing was plain and serviceable, with few changes of garments, a blanket worn over the shoulder which doubled as something for sleeping, and the only decoration being beautiful embroidery.  Indeed, there is a special scene where Mary (Rooney Mara) gets a newly embroidered dress to wear when her intended husband comes for dinner, but when Mary leaves home to follow Jesus (Joaquin Phoenix) she takes nothing but her blanket.  Everyone looks exactly like they did in my copy of the Children’s Bible, but with beautiful cinematography.\

The pace was also simple – slow, with frequent long silences.  Afterwards, Cecil and I thought that it would have reflected the pace of life then, without so many things to distract.  Walking in the wilderness to get from place to place, hearing only the sound of birds, for example.  Very different from rushing out of the house, trying to remember everything, getting into a car or onto a train, checking email, etc etc.

I have some knowledge of the story, but not, it turned out, full knowledge.  I did not know that Mary was actually from Magdalene (hence her name; I had just thought it was her name); I did not actually know that she had travelled extensively with Jesus and the disciples, that she baptised people (particularly women), or that she was first to spread the news of Jesus’ resurrection.  I knew that her reputation as a fallen woman was disputed, and I was also aware of the various Dan Brown-esque ideas about her having Jesus’ child and so on.  This film aims to present Mary as a kind of 13^th disciple, or “apostle of apostles” which apparently the Vatican now recognises her as, and it is refreshing to see her life interpreted this way rather than the usual rather sexualised and misogynistic view of her that has been presented over the years.  The film also showcases the politics of religion that the disciples fell in to quite well.

The film tries to follow Mary’s experience so skips over some key events in the lead up to the crucifixion – Pontius Pilate doesn’t appear, Peter (or is it Paul?) doesn’t deny Jesus, we don’t see any conversions happening on the crosses and the 40 days in the wilderness is only vaguely alluded to, but as my knowledge of the story is primarily based on King of Kings, Ben Hur and the previously mentioned Children’s Bible, I can’t attest as to the accuracy of any of this.  Plenty of things do make it in – Judas, the thieves in the temple, for example.

The film’s beauty has stayed with me, and it was seasonally appropriate as well.  My only criticism would be that Mary had rather lovely pale skin for someone who lived a rough subsistence life in Judea at that time….Otherwise, recommended as an interesting take on a well-known story.

***1/2

Cecil says: Bea is right of course about Rooney Mara’s pale skin being rather unlikely in the harsh glare of constant sun and an outdoor life, as she would have had both before her time as the 13th apostle and even in the more sheltered home life before.

Having said that, there was something captivating about her face. We are briefly in the position of the sick or disabled to whom Mary comes to relieve of suffering and it did remind me of my own hospital visit 20 odd years ago when I woke from general anaesthetic to find the face of a nurse right next to my face, saying something like ‘hello’. That felt powerful enough, so it is easy to imagine the immensity of someone like Mary suddenly appearing in your life when you are someone society has given up on; I can imagine many a conversion happened on the back of that.

The producers of Mary Magdalene the film chose their set well. It wasn’t filmed anywhere near Jerusalem, but having been there and to Jordan and the Occupied Territories, I can attest to the fact that it did bring back memories of my momentous few weeks there over 30 years ago now (funnily enough, linking back to the nurse and surgery experience, since I injured my back trying to do a breaststroke kick in the salty Dead Sea, and that started the whole journey, which I feel I am still on today, really).

I don’t know the Biblical tales as well as Bea, but I did think Judas comes across as rather a sympathetic character in this film. A zealot, maybe, but if he was the one who betrayed Jesus, there was no sign in this film of payment to Judas, and we are left with the impression that he acted because he felt this might precipitate society’s move towards the Promised Land.

Mary Magdalene is certainly slow paced, but as Bea says, this felt right for the time and place it was depicting.

***

The Great Gatsby

Bea says:  A work colleague recently described Baz Luhrmann to me as "like Marmite - you either love him or hate him".  I am definitely in the former camp, and , atlhough I've actually never seen Moulin Rouge, I have seen all of Baz's other films and loved every one of them.  I love his quirky style and the visual spectacule they always are.  I was eager to see The Great Gatsby and from the very first minute I was spellbound.

It has been a long time since I read the book (I was 15), and although I really wanted to like it at the time, I kind of didn't get it.  Watchng the film now, I realise why - this story is about damage, regret, obsession, marriage, divorce and death.  At 15 I didn't know anything about these things, but now, much later in my life, they resonate and I want to return to the book and read it again.  Amongst the (many) criticisms I have heard of this film is that it doesn't remain very true to the book, but that doesn't always worry me in film - it is a very different way of telling a story after all.

Another criticism has been of the use of modern music - but I thought that worked really, really well (I thougtht that in Romeo + Juliet too).  The excess of the 1920s parties made to look both like 1920s parties but also like the excesses of the superclubs of Ibiza was just amazing - literally my jaw dropped.  It has I think been said before, but the similarities of this period to ours currently is striking - atlhough not something I had realised before seeing this. 

The costuming (in part the main reason I wanted to go) was fabulous, the sets surreal and beautiful, and with enough reference to the things I remembered from the book - Gatsby on the dock, staring across the water, and the Ziegfield Follies.  It was wonderful, a cinema experience I have rarely, if ever, had and what it must have been like to see Gone with the Wind or some such for the first time at a cimena.  I know that is what Luhrmann is usually trying to do, and he does it, so well.

Wonderful. Marvellous.  I haven't a bad word to say about any of it. DiCaprio is good. Mulligan is better than I thought she'd be.  See it - a life lived in fear is a life half lived, after all.
*****

Cecil says: Well, I hated Moulin Rouge so when I heard it had been made by the same director, I was a bit nervous of this film, especially with lots of the critics saying it was full of OTT scenes from the 1920s.

But then I did like Luhrmann's Australia, and one of my favourite films ever is Strictly Ballroom, and I hadn't realised Luhrmann had made that one.

If you're a fan of Strictly Ballroom, though, you'll remember that key line which Bea reminded us of at the end of her review. Well, right at the start of The Great Gatsby, as they open with a Metropolis-style screen-filler, you'll see the same life-message circling the initials JG, suggesting Luhrmann has found another character who can embody one of his favourite mottos.

We saw this film at the wonderful Regent Cinema on Redcar beach. As we left this rusting hulk of a cinema at sunset, the 21st century wind farm was filling the horizon in one direction, while the 19th century-looking industrial complex of Redcar's steel works belched its fumes out over the seaside views.

It felt like a continuation of the set of Luhrmann's film. Great choice of venue to see a great film.

I liked Mulligan more than diCaprio, actually. Not sure why they casted someone British to play an American role, but hey it's been done the other way round, so why not?

And it could just be that DiCaprio's Gatsby was supposed to be someone you couldn't warm to; someone fake. So maybe it's acted well. Not sure.

There's lots more to say about this film; we were still discussing it 12 hours after we left the cinema (granted, a night's sleep in between). But I think I'll stop here.

I wasn't quite to overwhelmed as Bea, but I'd definitely recommend it and go in Redcar, while you still have the chance.

****

The Hunger Games

Bea says: We could hardly have seen this in a more surreal environment - the beachfront cinema at Redcar is surrounded by a strange, industrial landscape, lit up at night, and with tankers and containers ships lit up out to sea. We felt as though we were in Blade Runner, and so it was a suitable scene set for The Hunger Games.

I don't know the book series, but had heard good things of this adaptation, but I only vaguely knew the storyline and had no real expectations. So I was pleasantly surprised by this post-armageddon tale of survival and a kind of reality TV game taken to the worst extreme - a kind of Lord of the Flies for a modern generation. I really, really enjoyed seeing a young woman as the hero of the story, and although she scrubbed up well in some scenes, in most she was strong, skilled and was suitably attired for what she was doing (I'm looking at you here, Angelina Jolie!).

Performances were competent, and it was nicely done overall, although as Cecil said after, it was an action story, without a whole lot of character development required. The story was engaging, although of course we knew all along who would "win" the Games. But the two and a half hours passed quickly, and I've even considered picking up or downloading the second book to catch up on the storyline - I doubt whether I'll get Cecil to Part 2!

A diverting film - take along some young people, or a sci-fi fan.

**1/2

Cecil says: Bea doesn't know me that well, clearly. I actually enjoyed this film and would be happy to attend any follow-up, if a Hunger Games II is indeed planned...

I had expected that this film would be full of crash-bang computer-generated animation, but apart from a ridiculous scene where the Games organisers suddenly conjure up a herd of wild beasts, the film actually felt quite realistic and fairly believable, in a futuristic kind of way.

Given its popularity among the late teens age-group - at least in the pre-publicity - I was half expecting a Twilight-type of plot and scenario. But there were no fantasy-based vampire kisses here; the romance was a bit predictable, but plausible, and of course in part II, we may find the romance is not what we think...Hey, you see, I can't wait for Part II...

Overall, the film felt like a mix between I'm a Celebrity, Get me Out of Here and Strictly Ballroom (but the latter may be down to the lead compere for the Games alone, though the outfits and make-up - on boys as much as girls - did feel a bit like the Ballroom glam scene).

In a way, this film couldn't go wrong, though. I was bewitched by the venue: the Regent Cinema in Redcar actually sits on the beach, and we hear that loos can occasionally flood - with sea water - during high tide! This cinema is a gem; it may not have been renovated for a few decades, but who cares? This kind of cinema is so rare in this country and long may it survive.

At £4 a seat, it's pretty good value and there was quite a good crowd there for this opening night of The Hunger Games. Hey, I hadn't queued to see a film since we waited outside the Byrd Theatre in Richmond, Virginia, where - by the way - ticket prices were about £2. Perhaps a lesson for those setting cinema ticket prices...

***