Cecil says: This was billed as a portrayal of Liverpool on film through the ages, with a personal commentary from Terence Davies. I was thoroughly disappointed.
First the film footage: you'd have to know some of the back-streets of Liverpool pretty well (before they were pulled down) to actually recognise this as being a film about Liverpool, rather than any other northern city; OK Liverpool Catholic cathedral is pretty iconic, but for the rest, I didn't really get any feel from the film footage of the city we were supposed to be viewing. Being from the other great port across the Pennines, I kept thinking: this could just as easily be a film about Hull - why couldn't we have had lots more people being interviewed or extracts from people's conversations? Then, we might have got more of a feel of the unique place we all know Liverpool is.
Then there's the Terence Davies monologue. Dear oh deary-me. This felt more like social egotism than social realism. After a while, his suppressed anger just seeps through in every sentence he utters. OK, it must have been tough to be gay and Catholic and cultured in a rough, tough working class town, but I'm sorry Terence, I resented paying my £10 to sit through your ramblings, which said everything about you and very little about Liverpool.
I know it was Terence Davies's film, so he can choose to do with it what he wants, but there are soooooo many more interesting characters from Liverpool who could have provided us with insights and historical anecdotes about the place, which could so easily have matched the footage he had chosen. No, really, a waste of time and money
*
Bea says: We saw this after Hunger (see previous post), so in a way I found it soothing to have the images, music and sounds of this - film? documentary? montage? wash over me. I was however, like Cecil, disappointed. It was clearly a personal representation of what Liverpool means to Terence Davies. Unfortunately, if you're not Terence Davies, it's unlikely to speak to you and it didn't really to me. I kind of felt it missed a trick; liberal use was made of the romantic poets and classical music - but when the film really worked the music and the spoken word behind the images were about the city itself - "Dirty Old Town", and the narrative of a 14 year old left to take sole charge of her younger siblings in the 1930s. I appreciate that Davies may have wanted to leave behind the working class image Liverpool has, but isn't that its reality to some degree (and I speak as the granddaughter of Liverpudlians). I did enjoy the images - the glamorous 1950s cinema opening nights, the holidays on the shore, and the footage of the cathedral (for which my grandfather did the electrics), but probably because this is the Liverpool I know from stories told to me when I was young.
* 1/2
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Hunger
Bea says: Although this film was on our list, Cecil and I ended up seeing it off the cuff, as the session time for a different film we had planned to see had changed. The film is a deeply, deeply disturbing portrayal of the regime of the Maze prison in Northern Ireland in 1981, and recounts the hunger strike of Bobby Sands in that prison. I was prepared for the images of the hunger strike - what I wasn't prepared for was the sheer brutality of life in the Maze prison. It was at times unbearable to watch, and I am neither particularly squeamish or naive. It was however an extremely compelling film - possibly in part because I was a still a child at the time the events took place, although I remember Bobby Sands' name well from hearing it on the 6 o clock news, and the film filled in some detail for me, although perhaps detail I would rather not have known. I came away feeling shellshocked and traumatised (and that was just watching the events, not living them - how people, and those close to them, survived it I cannot imagine). The horrific events have stayed with me, as have the interspersed speeches of Thatcher from the era, and a sense of despair at what humans are capable of.
***
Cecil says: I am kind of glad my work trip to Belfast was a few days BEFORE I saw this film rather than after. As it is, it's very hard not to make some sort of mistake in apparently favouring one side of the sectarian divide rather than the other as soon as you do anything organised in Northern Ireland. But, if I had gone there with this film still clouding my vision, I don't think I could have chatted to the taxi driver, or the librarian or the hotel manager without wondering what they were doing during the worst of the Troubles.
What this film did for me was to transport me back to those horrible days of the early 1980s. The music may have been great then but the politics of the UK was descending into the nasty, divisive state epitomised by events in Northern Ireland. The thing I disliked most about what Thatcher did for me was the way she instilled such deep hatred in me - I have never before or after felt that constant anger and hatred I lived with throughout her time in power; she managed to divide this country into the minority who loved her and constantly voted her back in, and the - sadly smaller - minority who hated her with as much passion as I did.
And this film somehow epitomised the divided society we lived in then. In the rest of the UK, the divide was political; in Northern Ireland it was sectarian, but the emotions felt the same, watching this film.
I don't know how accurate the portrayal of events in Hunger is (I tried afterwards to find blogs by Unionists who may have had a different take on events, but didn't really find any); but in a sense, it doesn't matter how true to reality they were, because what the film did succeed in doing was to depict that divided society and the hostility that was felt across that divide.
By the way: we actually went to this film because we were intrigued that Steve McQueen had turned his Hollywood dollars to a film about the IRA. I got home and tried to find out more about when McQueen might have become interested in Northern Irish politics only to remember that the Hollywood great died in 1980 (before this film's events even took place) and this particular Steve McQueen was making his film debut with Hunger. I'm not sure I'm desperate to see his 2nd film...
**
***
Cecil says: I am kind of glad my work trip to Belfast was a few days BEFORE I saw this film rather than after. As it is, it's very hard not to make some sort of mistake in apparently favouring one side of the sectarian divide rather than the other as soon as you do anything organised in Northern Ireland. But, if I had gone there with this film still clouding my vision, I don't think I could have chatted to the taxi driver, or the librarian or the hotel manager without wondering what they were doing during the worst of the Troubles.
What this film did for me was to transport me back to those horrible days of the early 1980s. The music may have been great then but the politics of the UK was descending into the nasty, divisive state epitomised by events in Northern Ireland. The thing I disliked most about what Thatcher did for me was the way she instilled such deep hatred in me - I have never before or after felt that constant anger and hatred I lived with throughout her time in power; she managed to divide this country into the minority who loved her and constantly voted her back in, and the - sadly smaller - minority who hated her with as much passion as I did.
And this film somehow epitomised the divided society we lived in then. In the rest of the UK, the divide was political; in Northern Ireland it was sectarian, but the emotions felt the same, watching this film.
I don't know how accurate the portrayal of events in Hunger is (I tried afterwards to find blogs by Unionists who may have had a different take on events, but didn't really find any); but in a sense, it doesn't matter how true to reality they were, because what the film did succeed in doing was to depict that divided society and the hostility that was felt across that divide.
By the way: we actually went to this film because we were intrigued that Steve McQueen had turned his Hollywood dollars to a film about the IRA. I got home and tried to find out more about when McQueen might have become interested in Northern Irish politics only to remember that the Hollywood great died in 1980 (before this film's events even took place) and this particular Steve McQueen was making his film debut with Hunger. I'm not sure I'm desperate to see his 2nd film...
**
Monday, 17 November 2008
W.
Bea says: I really, really like Oliver Stone, so I knew even before I went in that I would like this. And I did. With a light touch and Stone's impeccable attention to detail, the film tells the story behind the man who until very recently has held one of the highest offices in the world via the docudrama format. Oddly, when his rise to presidency is considered, W. comes across as a failure. Perhaps there's nothing odd about that really - he has been spoofed and mocked so often I haven't been able to take him seriously for years - but somehow the film managed to remind me what a powerful position he has been in, arguably the most powerful, and yet he remains a failure. And that's kind of the key to the film; casting my mind way, way back to A levels the word "pathos" comes to mind, although it perhaps too strong a word... W. is almost likeable, and much more understandable after watching this, and although Stone does not spare him he doesn't go in for the kill either.
The actor playing W. is just a little too attractive (being attracted to W. felt strangely disturbing!) to be quite believable, although this is possibly on purpose. Thandie Newton does an interesting turn as Condaleeza Rice, who unlike W. is spared nothing and comes off very badly in the film. Intelligent librarian Laura Bush is the most interesting character portrayed - I just kept thinking "why"?
A must see.
****1/2
Cecil says: What is it about George W. Bush speeches that makes them so incomprehensible? It's surely something to do with how he delivers the words; something to do with the complete lack of emphasis on any particular word; or is it the speed of each sentence he utters, with a pause in between; or maybe it's his eyes never looking like they mean it; or because you always get the feeling he is just reading out the words somebody else has written? I ask all these questions because that's what I've been wondering for the last 8 years, and the problem with the actor playing W. was that he was too understandable, too clear in his speech-making. Yes, the way W. apparently scoffs his food seemed believable, but as Bea says the actor is too good-looking and too articulate to be the man we have had to watch for the 2 presidential terms...
Now, I've never met either George W. or Condoleeze Rice, so I can't say for sure how accurately they were portrayed, but surely nobody who has been Secretary of State for so many years can possibly really have been so puppet-like? I mean, her mannerisms on the screen became so annoying by the end that all I could think of was some sort of character from Thunderbirds; and her contribution to solving the world's problems was portrayed as little more than picking up the phone to put in a call for W. to Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac. I'm not SUCH an admirer of Oliver Stone to believe that this has not been exaggerated a little. Surely??
What was missing for me, since so much of the film was about family relationships, was some sort of treatment of the 'hanging chad' affair in Florida in 2000 and the way this affected or was affected by W.'s relationship with his brother Jeb.
And in a funny way, this film reminded me of how I felt about "The Queen" when I saw it a couple of years ago: I had assumed "The Queen" would be some sort of portrayal of her life or at least her reign; I was rather disappointed that it basically dealt with a few days in her life around the time of Diana's death. So with W., there seemed to be so much missing: I don't mind that the actual reaction to 9/11 was missing from the film, but there were so many relationships I felt could have been delved further into throughout his life that I left the cinema feeling a little bit cheated.
** 1/2
The actor playing W. is just a little too attractive (being attracted to W. felt strangely disturbing!) to be quite believable, although this is possibly on purpose. Thandie Newton does an interesting turn as Condaleeza Rice, who unlike W. is spared nothing and comes off very badly in the film. Intelligent librarian Laura Bush is the most interesting character portrayed - I just kept thinking "why"?
A must see.
****1/2
Cecil says: What is it about George W. Bush speeches that makes them so incomprehensible? It's surely something to do with how he delivers the words; something to do with the complete lack of emphasis on any particular word; or is it the speed of each sentence he utters, with a pause in between; or maybe it's his eyes never looking like they mean it; or because you always get the feeling he is just reading out the words somebody else has written? I ask all these questions because that's what I've been wondering for the last 8 years, and the problem with the actor playing W. was that he was too understandable, too clear in his speech-making. Yes, the way W. apparently scoffs his food seemed believable, but as Bea says the actor is too good-looking and too articulate to be the man we have had to watch for the 2 presidential terms...
Now, I've never met either George W. or Condoleeze Rice, so I can't say for sure how accurately they were portrayed, but surely nobody who has been Secretary of State for so many years can possibly really have been so puppet-like? I mean, her mannerisms on the screen became so annoying by the end that all I could think of was some sort of character from Thunderbirds; and her contribution to solving the world's problems was portrayed as little more than picking up the phone to put in a call for W. to Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac. I'm not SUCH an admirer of Oliver Stone to believe that this has not been exaggerated a little. Surely??
What was missing for me, since so much of the film was about family relationships, was some sort of treatment of the 'hanging chad' affair in Florida in 2000 and the way this affected or was affected by W.'s relationship with his brother Jeb.
And in a funny way, this film reminded me of how I felt about "The Queen" when I saw it a couple of years ago: I had assumed "The Queen" would be some sort of portrayal of her life or at least her reign; I was rather disappointed that it basically dealt with a few days in her life around the time of Diana's death. So with W., there seemed to be so much missing: I don't mind that the actual reaction to 9/11 was missing from the film, but there were so many relationships I felt could have been delved further into throughout his life that I left the cinema feeling a little bit cheated.
** 1/2
Saturday, 18 October 2008
Flame and Citron
Bea says: Another seen as part of the London Film Festival, with the added bonus of a Q & A session with director, lead actor and producer afterwards. A super film, the likes of which are rarely seen these days. Strong, true-story plot of two WW2 Danish Undergroud heroes, beautifully written and characterised, great cinemaphotography. Film Noir with a modern twist; perhaps a little violent for some tastes, but it was how it was I guess. My favourite character: Ketty (can't remember her last name); double, triple, quadruple agent who died in Marjorca only ten years ago, never discussed the war and was clearly the informer on her lover and our hero Flame. The lead characters are portrayed with understanding but are frightening nevertheless, both in single minded determination and when in doubt and betrayal. If I can borrow a quote from the director to finish: "a tale of extraordinary people in extraordinary times".
*****
Cecil says: By a long way the best film I've seen this year. And I knew it would be from the opening scene (again, what is it about the power of opening scenes?). "Can you remember when they arrived? Can you remember April the 9th?" asked the voice as film footage showed German soldiers marching into Copenhagen all those years ago. And immediately, I was filled with that sense of foreboding and unease in my stomach, even though I was just sitting in the front row of a cinema and had only five minutes earlier been sipping a cup of tea...
There's something that always disturbs me in stories about the resistance during the war - it's close enough to feel like something I might have been confronted with in my lifetime and am only thankful I haven't been. But it makes me ask myself: How would I react to an invading force in my country? Would I hide away, suppress my thoughts and opinions to survive or would I feel compelled to resist as these guys did (whatever their motives)? They are questions I have asked myself ever since reading Simone de Beauvoir's 'Le sang des autres' where the protagonist ultimately doesn't have the courage to resist. All of us in our generation have the good fortune (at least - in our cases - in Western Europe or Australia) never to have been confronted with this dilemma and so none of us knows for sure how we would react if that situation ever arose.
But what was so powerful about this film? The characterisation; the doubts; never knowing who you can trust; not knowing who is going to betray you: people you think are friends or lovers actually being the ones who are deceiving you; the ones who appear to be the enemy (in this case Hoffmann, the Gestapo chief, and Gilbert, another prominent Nazi) actually being the most articulate and the ones who are able to sow the most doubt. And the slow switch in character between Flame and Citron, so that the Flame we see at the start (determined, more fiery, more able to kill) has by the end become the more uncertain of the two, while Citron (at first unable to kill anyone and clearly sweating with nerves constantly) slowly becomes the more determined killer.
The director told us at the end that Hitler had sent Hoffmann (a nice guy, by Gestapo standards) to Denmark, because he basically liked the Danes. And Hoffmann apparently mixed well with the Danish middle-classes, being a cultured and articulate guy. In the UK, we don't often think about Denmark in terms of the 2nd World War - or of neutral Sweden, for that matter. In our collective memory, we know about The Netherlands (A Bridge too Far), Italy (Ancona), Poland (ghetto) and for neutrality we think of Switzerland (and we conveniently seem also to forget Irish neutrality), but this film gives us an insight into the relationships between Sweden, Denmark and Germany during the war, revealing a whole new triangle most of us in the UK have not given much thought to.
This is a film I can imagine seeing again and again (something I haven't done since my real film-buff days in the 1980s)
*****
*****
Cecil says: By a long way the best film I've seen this year. And I knew it would be from the opening scene (again, what is it about the power of opening scenes?). "Can you remember when they arrived? Can you remember April the 9th?" asked the voice as film footage showed German soldiers marching into Copenhagen all those years ago. And immediately, I was filled with that sense of foreboding and unease in my stomach, even though I was just sitting in the front row of a cinema and had only five minutes earlier been sipping a cup of tea...
There's something that always disturbs me in stories about the resistance during the war - it's close enough to feel like something I might have been confronted with in my lifetime and am only thankful I haven't been. But it makes me ask myself: How would I react to an invading force in my country? Would I hide away, suppress my thoughts and opinions to survive or would I feel compelled to resist as these guys did (whatever their motives)? They are questions I have asked myself ever since reading Simone de Beauvoir's 'Le sang des autres' where the protagonist ultimately doesn't have the courage to resist. All of us in our generation have the good fortune (at least - in our cases - in Western Europe or Australia) never to have been confronted with this dilemma and so none of us knows for sure how we would react if that situation ever arose.
But what was so powerful about this film? The characterisation; the doubts; never knowing who you can trust; not knowing who is going to betray you: people you think are friends or lovers actually being the ones who are deceiving you; the ones who appear to be the enemy (in this case Hoffmann, the Gestapo chief, and Gilbert, another prominent Nazi) actually being the most articulate and the ones who are able to sow the most doubt. And the slow switch in character between Flame and Citron, so that the Flame we see at the start (determined, more fiery, more able to kill) has by the end become the more uncertain of the two, while Citron (at first unable to kill anyone and clearly sweating with nerves constantly) slowly becomes the more determined killer.
The director told us at the end that Hitler had sent Hoffmann (a nice guy, by Gestapo standards) to Denmark, because he basically liked the Danes. And Hoffmann apparently mixed well with the Danish middle-classes, being a cultured and articulate guy. In the UK, we don't often think about Denmark in terms of the 2nd World War - or of neutral Sweden, for that matter. In our collective memory, we know about The Netherlands (A Bridge too Far), Italy (Ancona), Poland (ghetto) and for neutrality we think of Switzerland (and we conveniently seem also to forget Irish neutrality), but this film gives us an insight into the relationships between Sweden, Denmark and Germany during the war, revealing a whole new triangle most of us in the UK have not given much thought to.
This is a film I can imagine seeing again and again (something I haven't done since my real film-buff days in the 1980s)
*****
Wolke 9 (Cloud 9)
Cecil says: I'm starting to realise that the opening scene of a film is as important as the opening line of a novel - it sets the tone of the whole film. So why are there more quiz questions about closing scenes than opening scenes??
OK, having opened this entry with that question, I have to mention the opening scene of Wolke 9: it's actually the sound we notice first and only as the camera pulls back from the shot that we see the scene is a woman in her 60s sitting at a sewing machine. Almost immediately, you know that this is going to be one of those social-realist style of films and actually there is no music soundtrack through the whole film (sounds are important, though, like steam trains, yapping dogs, orgasms...). Within two minutes of the opening, we are also involved in an intense and passionate sex scene which sets the tone of the film, also: the story is all about love and passion between a woman in her 60s and a 76 year old man...
Actually, the film deals with all the usual issues around a classic love-triangle, with the key difference between the geriatric characters involved. How they resolve their issues, how they talk about them, how their uncertainties (or certainties) come to the surface could be the stuff of any Holywood drama we see every week. But this film WAS different: and the age of the characters is significant beyond just the fact that we don't normally see pensioners on film having sex. This is a generation of people who have not learnt the language of feelings, not had the emotional awareness people today gain either through actual therapy or through Cosmo magazine; so we hear Inge telling her husband she had hoped they could have a reasonable conversation about the situation; we have the husband suddenly accusing her of always having been naive - their inability to express their feelings or ask about the others' feelings, or even have any notion of feelings somehow comes across as something that would be less likely in a more contemporary (or youthful couple).
It is an intensely emotional film to watch, however, even if the characters aren't able to verbalise their own feelings. We have probably all at some point in our lives left someone or been the one who is abandoned - so for me the most powerful moment was the final touch of Inge's hand on Werner's hand as she leaves for the last time...but to say more would give away the plot, so I'll hand over to Bea...
***
Bea says: Well, Cecil said a lot about this one, so I will just give my impressions. The film is very physical in its exploration of pleasure; sex, singing, skinny dipping, cycling, bathing; to my own surprise at first I was unsure of how I felt about the abundance of older bodies naked and the realities of an older body, but before long this hesitation fell away, perhaps because of the simple, and hardly new, storyline, but also because it was good to see sensuality between ordinary people, without airbrushing, soundtracks and Hollywood-style manipulation. No Botox here! It was a story that I could completely relate to; it seems that all the relationship joys and traumas of my twenties and thirties will be continuing into my old age.
***
OK, having opened this entry with that question, I have to mention the opening scene of Wolke 9: it's actually the sound we notice first and only as the camera pulls back from the shot that we see the scene is a woman in her 60s sitting at a sewing machine. Almost immediately, you know that this is going to be one of those social-realist style of films and actually there is no music soundtrack through the whole film (sounds are important, though, like steam trains, yapping dogs, orgasms...). Within two minutes of the opening, we are also involved in an intense and passionate sex scene which sets the tone of the film, also: the story is all about love and passion between a woman in her 60s and a 76 year old man...
Actually, the film deals with all the usual issues around a classic love-triangle, with the key difference between the geriatric characters involved. How they resolve their issues, how they talk about them, how their uncertainties (or certainties) come to the surface could be the stuff of any Holywood drama we see every week. But this film WAS different: and the age of the characters is significant beyond just the fact that we don't normally see pensioners on film having sex. This is a generation of people who have not learnt the language of feelings, not had the emotional awareness people today gain either through actual therapy or through Cosmo magazine; so we hear Inge telling her husband she had hoped they could have a reasonable conversation about the situation; we have the husband suddenly accusing her of always having been naive - their inability to express their feelings or ask about the others' feelings, or even have any notion of feelings somehow comes across as something that would be less likely in a more contemporary (or youthful couple).
It is an intensely emotional film to watch, however, even if the characters aren't able to verbalise their own feelings. We have probably all at some point in our lives left someone or been the one who is abandoned - so for me the most powerful moment was the final touch of Inge's hand on Werner's hand as she leaves for the last time...but to say more would give away the plot, so I'll hand over to Bea...
***
Bea says: Well, Cecil said a lot about this one, so I will just give my impressions. The film is very physical in its exploration of pleasure; sex, singing, skinny dipping, cycling, bathing; to my own surprise at first I was unsure of how I felt about the abundance of older bodies naked and the realities of an older body, but before long this hesitation fell away, perhaps because of the simple, and hardly new, storyline, but also because it was good to see sensuality between ordinary people, without airbrushing, soundtracks and Hollywood-style manipulation. No Botox here! It was a story that I could completely relate to; it seems that all the relationship joys and traumas of my twenties and thirties will be continuing into my old age.
***
Friday, 1 August 2008
Children of the Silk Road
Bea says: Seen at the beautiful old cinema at Collaroy Beach in Sydney, we sat in the shelter of the surf lifesaving pavilion, drinking tea and watching the waves crash onto the beach in the rain of a Sydney winter before going in to see this film - but sadly the film was a bit of a disappointment, and sitting on the beach beforehand was easily the best part of this evening. Children of the Silk Road was Indiana Jones crossed with Dead Poets Society, with bad dialogue and wooden performances from the majority of the cast (excepting Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yuan who do their best to salvage things). A great idea that just went so wrong - jump cut, cliche-ridden and anodyne.
*1/2
Cecil says: Bea and I have often dreamt of travelling along the Silk Road - in fact just before we found this film listed, we had been discussing whether it would be possible to travel by train all along the Silk Route into South-East Asia. So the film, based on a true story of orphan kids and an English journalist in 1930s China seemed perfect for our mood and our future direction in life. Asd Bea says, though, it was very disappointing. For me, it was trying to be Lawrence of Arabia in its epic story and dramatic landscapes, but it only managed to be Jumanji, with its dreadful dialogue, wooden acting and special effects.
We had been led to believe by the Australian film reviewers that this was an Asian-Australian production. But the credits rolling as the film opened showed that it had a European connection and even had MEDIA programme funding from the EU. I'm not sure what the European input was: the end credits seemed to suggest the digital post-production was done in Germany - not a great advert for EU funding since the special effects and airbrushing of the main characters' looks (far too pretty and clean for such a gruelling and isolated experience) added nothing.
The incredible thing about this film is that it is based on a true story but it came across as so unreal. A morphine-addicted lead actress would never look that good; as Bea says, the dialogue was so unnatural, it became comical. It really made me wonder what makes a good screenplay? How do some films like Lawrence of Arabia, Year of Living Dangerously manage it, and this film so clearly not manage it.
In short: beautifully filmed, but very very disappointing in every other aspect.
*1/2
*1/2
Cecil says: Bea and I have often dreamt of travelling along the Silk Road - in fact just before we found this film listed, we had been discussing whether it would be possible to travel by train all along the Silk Route into South-East Asia. So the film, based on a true story of orphan kids and an English journalist in 1930s China seemed perfect for our mood and our future direction in life. Asd Bea says, though, it was very disappointing. For me, it was trying to be Lawrence of Arabia in its epic story and dramatic landscapes, but it only managed to be Jumanji, with its dreadful dialogue, wooden acting and special effects.
We had been led to believe by the Australian film reviewers that this was an Asian-Australian production. But the credits rolling as the film opened showed that it had a European connection and even had MEDIA programme funding from the EU. I'm not sure what the European input was: the end credits seemed to suggest the digital post-production was done in Germany - not a great advert for EU funding since the special effects and airbrushing of the main characters' looks (far too pretty and clean for such a gruelling and isolated experience) added nothing.
The incredible thing about this film is that it is based on a true story but it came across as so unreal. A morphine-addicted lead actress would never look that good; as Bea says, the dialogue was so unnatural, it became comical. It really made me wonder what makes a good screenplay? How do some films like Lawrence of Arabia, Year of Living Dangerously manage it, and this film so clearly not manage it.
In short: beautifully filmed, but very very disappointing in every other aspect.
*1/2
Thursday, 24 July 2008
Couscous
Cecil says: Couscous is a film about an old North African guy in southern France who loses his job repairing boats and decides to set up a couscous restaurant. It takes us through the highs and lows of this man and his family as they go through the various loops of French bureaucracy and the covert (and sometimes overt) racism of officialdom in this small coastal town; they also have to deal with their own naivety about what it means to set up a business from scratch and with the internal family affairs going on among the different siblings as well as the intricacies of keeping both his kids and ex-wife happy while not alienating his new woman and her daughter.
A complex tale, but gripping all the same. The film is produced by Claude Berry, who made Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources in the 1990s. There is something quintessentially French about a film which can observe family mannerisms and banal conversation in such detail over a long family lunch. This style drags a little for an English observer, but it does give a wonderful insight into personality and the goings on underneath the apparent harmony and intimacy of such family gatherings.
There is something ominous and scary about the small-town hierarchy, where the mayor, the bank manager, the authorising officer for business permits and the official giving out permits for berths in the port all know each other. And if you don't get on with one of them, you're in trouble. But if you can convince them of your worth, then you have a chance to get what you want. The trouble is that being North African, our protagonist can't afford to make a single mistake or everything will be lost. And there is the constant feeling through the film that something is bound to go wrong soon...
I was never a great fan of belly dancing while eating my dinner (but hey, I am from Hull), and the long, long scene of the step-daughter trying to save the evening by captivating the audience with an extended belly dance seemed never ending: surely some of the diners would have walked out in reality?? But for all that some scenes did seem inordinately long, the film overall gave me a tremendous yearning for a really good couscous...
***
Bea says: Complex is the best way to describe this film - it left me with many different emotions. The big family gatherings struck a chord with me and as they reminded me of my own family get togethers they made me feel cheerful in a nostalgic, wistful way. There was however something very tragic in the cut of the film's hero, and like Cecil I had a sense of impending doom throughout, which almost made me want to stop watching. I knew it was all going to go wrong. In many ways this seemed a story about women - the old wife, the new woman, the daughters and stepdaughters had key roles to play, indeed key roles in 'saving' the situation created by the men in the film. The final images of the film - the final image of the hero - left me feeling bereft, and made me want to phone my dad.
**1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)