Cecil says: This has got to be the film of the year, and surely an Oscar for Robert Duvall.
But before I go further into the film itself, let me tell you about the place we saw it: the Capitol Cinema in York, Pennsylvania. One of those old 1920s movie theaters that made it into the modern era with hardly a change in its decor or its fittings. Fantastic venue and a credit to the local community in York who apparently campaigned from 1980 onwards to keep the place open. And they managed to keep it as a single-screen, 500 seater sitting alongside the 1,000 seater Strand next door, which is used mainly for stage plays but does also show the occasional film. Hats off to them and may many other towns around the world follow suit. The audience of 100 on a Saturday night paid credit to their efforts for community cinema.
Now to the film: what a classic. Great opening scene: a house on fire, but fixed camera for about 20 seconds just watching the flames, until suddenly you see a body running away from the house towards the camera. But it's not until well into the story that you begin to realise what the house fire was all about...
Get Low is all about story-telling. Old man Felix is feared by the local community; rumours abound of what he has done and what he is capable of, and slowly, as the film develops, we learn more and more about the man himself; he wants his own story to come out, but he feels almost incapable of telling it himself. So he comes up with a great wheeze for how to get everyone together to hear him tell his tale...
It's wonderful stuff. Set in Georgia (USA, not eastern Europe), its tone and atmosphere reminds me of Coen Brothers films. Bill Murray is fantastic. And if they did an Oscar for animal parts, I'd nominate Gracie the donkey for her lips and her smile.
Only one slight jarring, right at the end: what was the point of the final scene, with young Dad holding little baby in his arms, AND little baby smiling like that? Was it some bow to the needs of Hollywood or did it to have some subtle significance like the rest of the film?
Final tip: unless you come from down Georgia way, make time to see the film twice. The story is worth it, and you might need at least two viewings before you catch all the dialogue in that southern twang...
****.5
Bea says:
Cecil and I are agreed on this one - this is easily the best film I've seen this year, and is probably one of the best films I've ever seen, certainly one of the best American films. Duvall is riveting as Felix, Sissy Spacek (so good to see her on screen again) excellent as his old flame, of sorts, and the rather underrated Bill Murray brilliantly cast as the funeral director. Look out for the band playing at the funeral party - is that Alison Krauss? It certainly is her singing as the credits roll. I don't want to say too much and spoil the experience - go and see this film. Suffice to say that I loved the way the story(ies) played out, and the fine balance between tragedy and comedy.
*****
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Secretariat
Cecil says: We saw this American film about a star race horse in the 1970s just the day before we went to the races ourselves in Virginia. Secretariat seems to have had a place in the heart of the American people in the same way Red Rum or Desert Orchid did for the UK in the 1970s and 1990s.
This film is actually about his owner on the stud farm, which has got into difficulties after her father has a stroke and is no longer able to run the business. It's one of those typical feel-good American movies about family, about personal development, about resilience and fighting for what you believe in, while running the risk of losing all.
In the background of it all is the horse - we have lots of lovely views of the horse being groomed, being fed, being exercised on the gallops; and some lovely red-eye ball close-ups as the horse is about to race.
It's not great cinema but it was an easy watch and, so we thought, a good introduction to American horse racing, just a day before we went ourselves to a race track.
After our day at the races next day, where no betting was allowed (apparently it is illegal to gamble in the state of Virginia), we realised that throughout the film only one reference was made to someone who wished they'd had a bet on Secretariat. Obviously a bow to the moral stance on gambling in some US states: makes me wonder what else was kept from the great American audience in the storyline of this film to make sure that it had the moral message the director wanted to get across.
Maybe I'm being unfair, though. It was a fun evening and definitely a feel-good movie.
**.5
Bea says: When Cecil suggested this film I thought it was going to be about politics! I had not heard of Secretariat, but quickly got the idea that he was a famous horse in American history - the Phar Lap of the USA, if you like (thought I'd throw that in for my Australian readers!).
This was an enjoyable film, which did at least try to take a serious look at life in the late 60s/early 70s for women - Secretariat's owner had many difficult experiences trying to establish herself as a race horse owner; not least extricating herself from her expected role of wife and mother, and being taken seriously by other owners and the press. It did however have a lot of rather hackneyed Disney hallmarks - the sudden and rather unlikely scenario of Penny's husband being won over to the idea of his wife being a race horse owner in Virginia, when he and the kids lived in Colorado, and of course absolutely no mention of the situation of black people in the state of Virginia in the 1960s/70s, despite the plot featuring a black man as a key character. There was the inevitable tension build up in the final minutes - will Secretariat win the triple crown?? Of course, neither Cecil or I knew if he actually did, until we got to those final moments...
The real saving grace of this film is of course John Malkovich, as the nearly-washed-up trainer - his performance is funny, poignant and eminently watchable. A pleasant evening out, suitable for all the family, as any good Disney film should be.
***
This film is actually about his owner on the stud farm, which has got into difficulties after her father has a stroke and is no longer able to run the business. It's one of those typical feel-good American movies about family, about personal development, about resilience and fighting for what you believe in, while running the risk of losing all.
In the background of it all is the horse - we have lots of lovely views of the horse being groomed, being fed, being exercised on the gallops; and some lovely red-eye ball close-ups as the horse is about to race.
It's not great cinema but it was an easy watch and, so we thought, a good introduction to American horse racing, just a day before we went ourselves to a race track.
After our day at the races next day, where no betting was allowed (apparently it is illegal to gamble in the state of Virginia), we realised that throughout the film only one reference was made to someone who wished they'd had a bet on Secretariat. Obviously a bow to the moral stance on gambling in some US states: makes me wonder what else was kept from the great American audience in the storyline of this film to make sure that it had the moral message the director wanted to get across.
Maybe I'm being unfair, though. It was a fun evening and definitely a feel-good movie.
**.5
Bea says: When Cecil suggested this film I thought it was going to be about politics! I had not heard of Secretariat, but quickly got the idea that he was a famous horse in American history - the Phar Lap of the USA, if you like (thought I'd throw that in for my Australian readers!).
This was an enjoyable film, which did at least try to take a serious look at life in the late 60s/early 70s for women - Secretariat's owner had many difficult experiences trying to establish herself as a race horse owner; not least extricating herself from her expected role of wife and mother, and being taken seriously by other owners and the press. It did however have a lot of rather hackneyed Disney hallmarks - the sudden and rather unlikely scenario of Penny's husband being won over to the idea of his wife being a race horse owner in Virginia, when he and the kids lived in Colorado, and of course absolutely no mention of the situation of black people in the state of Virginia in the 1960s/70s, despite the plot featuring a black man as a key character. There was the inevitable tension build up in the final minutes - will Secretariat win the triple crown?? Of course, neither Cecil or I knew if he actually did, until we got to those final moments...
The real saving grace of this film is of course John Malkovich, as the nearly-washed-up trainer - his performance is funny, poignant and eminently watchable. A pleasant evening out, suitable for all the family, as any good Disney film should be.
***
Never Let Me Go
Bea says: This was our first outing to see a film in our new city of residence, Washington DC, and we walked across town from M St, past the White House to E St, to an art house cinema to catch it.
I had noticed it was running on the day's film listings in the Washington Post, and as Ishiguru is one of my favourite novelists and I had loved the book of the same name, I talked Cecil into going, although I wasn't sure it would be his bag. Despite a big name cast (Kiera Knightley), and Ishiguru's popularity, neither of us had been aware of this film before arriving in DC, so we were in the rather surreal situation of watching a film about the UK having newly arrived in another country entirely.
The film is faithful to the book, and I noticed on the credits that Ishiguru was quite involved in the adaptation. It did not however have the impact that The Remains of the Day had on screen, and I wondered if that was due to direction - it was missing, perhaps, the light yet masterful touch of someone like Ang Lee.
In fact different things came out for me in the film that I felt hadn't been as strongly emphasised in the book; one of the final scenes - of Tommy getting out of the car and screaming in anguish as he realises that there is no escaping his destiny - really affected me, but I only have a vague memory of it in the book.
The film felt a much sadder experience for me than the read had, although the overall mix of science fiction, human relationships, and themes of boundaries and questioning (at what will we stop? what does it mean to be human?) is untampered with. Perhaps this was because one of the film's core questions chimed with both Cecil and me that evening, or perhaps in the five or so years since I read the book the way I look at life and humanity has changed.
Thought provoking. Reading the book may be a better experience. I didn't rate Keira Knightley, but rarely do.
**1/2
Cecil says: I hadn't read the book, so unlike for Bea, the plot - or the basic 'thing' going on with the kids in the film - was only gradually revealed over the opening half hour or so of the film. That worked quite well, I thought.
Although I enjoyed the experience - and shared with Bea the sense of the surreal as we watched Bexhill sea front only a day or so after leaving England and flying over to the States - I actually left the cinema feeling rather empty emotionally. But maybe that was the aim of the director, since the existence of a 'soul' was the kind of existential theme running through the storyline and, 48 hours in to our 12 months over in the States, I was seriously wondering what on earth I was doing over here, and why I had come...
Given the familiarity of so many in the cast, it is rather amazing that we had not even heard of this film being made, let alone screened in the UK. I'll never quite understand film distributors across the world: we noticed also that a film we saw almost a year ago about John Lennon's life, was just coming out over here.
***
I had noticed it was running on the day's film listings in the Washington Post, and as Ishiguru is one of my favourite novelists and I had loved the book of the same name, I talked Cecil into going, although I wasn't sure it would be his bag. Despite a big name cast (Kiera Knightley), and Ishiguru's popularity, neither of us had been aware of this film before arriving in DC, so we were in the rather surreal situation of watching a film about the UK having newly arrived in another country entirely.
The film is faithful to the book, and I noticed on the credits that Ishiguru was quite involved in the adaptation. It did not however have the impact that The Remains of the Day had on screen, and I wondered if that was due to direction - it was missing, perhaps, the light yet masterful touch of someone like Ang Lee.
In fact different things came out for me in the film that I felt hadn't been as strongly emphasised in the book; one of the final scenes - of Tommy getting out of the car and screaming in anguish as he realises that there is no escaping his destiny - really affected me, but I only have a vague memory of it in the book.
The film felt a much sadder experience for me than the read had, although the overall mix of science fiction, human relationships, and themes of boundaries and questioning (at what will we stop? what does it mean to be human?) is untampered with. Perhaps this was because one of the film's core questions chimed with both Cecil and me that evening, or perhaps in the five or so years since I read the book the way I look at life and humanity has changed.
Thought provoking. Reading the book may be a better experience. I didn't rate Keira Knightley, but rarely do.
**1/2
Cecil says: I hadn't read the book, so unlike for Bea, the plot - or the basic 'thing' going on with the kids in the film - was only gradually revealed over the opening half hour or so of the film. That worked quite well, I thought.
Although I enjoyed the experience - and shared with Bea the sense of the surreal as we watched Bexhill sea front only a day or so after leaving England and flying over to the States - I actually left the cinema feeling rather empty emotionally. But maybe that was the aim of the director, since the existence of a 'soul' was the kind of existential theme running through the storyline and, 48 hours in to our 12 months over in the States, I was seriously wondering what on earth I was doing over here, and why I had come...
Given the familiarity of so many in the cast, it is rather amazing that we had not even heard of this film being made, let alone screened in the UK. I'll never quite understand film distributors across the world: we noticed also that a film we saw almost a year ago about John Lennon's life, was just coming out over here.
***
Monday, 13 September 2010
Cemetery Junction
Bea says: I knew nothing about this film when we saw it advertised at our new favourite cinema (the Witham film club in Barnard Castle, County Durham); in fact I thought it was about vampires. I was kind of right as there is a vampire link, but it's very minor. The film is actually an outing from Ricky Gervais, which I vaguely remember being reviewed, and not very kindly.
A classic coming of age plotline, it's set in the early 70s, with somewhat questionable accuracy in terms of clothes and music, and follows the stories of three young men, and one young woman, who all live in Cemetery Junction, apparently a real place near Reading and near where Gervais grew up himself. Cemetery Junction is a dead end town, a place hard to get out of, and the film follows the four's attempts to do just that. Only two are successful.
As a woman myself I was most interested in the storyline revolving around the young woman, Julie, and her mother, Mrs Kendrick, a role that was incredibly well written and superbly played by Emily Watson - a complete show stealer for me, although it was not a main part. This particular storyline tapped into the changing times of the 70s more than any other, as Julie made strong, independent, positive choices about her life - an opportunity her mother didn't have.
It wasn't quite all as spot on as this - Cecil will tell you more - but I don't think it deserved the bad reviews it apparently got. It certainly made me think about life, choices, options, and reminded me of feeling hopeful and young, casting caution to the winds.
***
Cecil says: The opening scenes of Cemetery Junction show road traffic, with buses and cars making their way round a street corner. Ah, the 1960s, I thought to myself, only to be slightly troubled when I realised the film was supposed to be set in the 1970s. You could argue that most vehicles on the road in the early 70s were actually 60s vehicles; and my memory of those days is probably rather hazy anyway. But this was not the only thing that felt slightly out of kilter in this film.
The men's clothes bothered me too. Surely nobody in the early 1970s dressed as well as the main men did in the film - Bruce in particular had far too much style for 1974; and only the geeky Snork dressed vaguely in the way my contemporaries did. But maybe that says more about the dress-style of Hull than it does about Merchant/Gervais recollections of the time...
But the timing felt wrong on a deeper level too. I don't actually believe hard-man Bruce would return home and be reconciled with his father by touching his arm. He may have gone home, yes; but then he would have showed his acceptance in far less demonstrative ways: a silent presence; almost grumpy, but no touching - not in the 1970s.
And the same applies to the even more unlikely hug between the two men on the station platform. In Hull, certainly, men did not hug in 1974. And however much further South Reading (or Cemetery Junction) might be, I do not believe that men would hug on a station platform as happened towards the end of this film. I think Merchant/Gervais have forgotten what the 70s were really like for men!
Having said all this and done all my nit-picking, I have to say I actually enjoyed this film. It has a gritty fairy-tale feel to it, if that's possible; Felicity Jones is enchanting as Julie (and yes, of course, her face was familiar because she appeared in that Anglo-French film I saw a year or so ago - and didn't like very much! - Cheri); and it leaves you with that awareness of the battles life throws up between the head and the heart. Which should we follow??
***
A classic coming of age plotline, it's set in the early 70s, with somewhat questionable accuracy in terms of clothes and music, and follows the stories of three young men, and one young woman, who all live in Cemetery Junction, apparently a real place near Reading and near where Gervais grew up himself. Cemetery Junction is a dead end town, a place hard to get out of, and the film follows the four's attempts to do just that. Only two are successful.
As a woman myself I was most interested in the storyline revolving around the young woman, Julie, and her mother, Mrs Kendrick, a role that was incredibly well written and superbly played by Emily Watson - a complete show stealer for me, although it was not a main part. This particular storyline tapped into the changing times of the 70s more than any other, as Julie made strong, independent, positive choices about her life - an opportunity her mother didn't have.
It wasn't quite all as spot on as this - Cecil will tell you more - but I don't think it deserved the bad reviews it apparently got. It certainly made me think about life, choices, options, and reminded me of feeling hopeful and young, casting caution to the winds.
***
Cecil says: The opening scenes of Cemetery Junction show road traffic, with buses and cars making their way round a street corner. Ah, the 1960s, I thought to myself, only to be slightly troubled when I realised the film was supposed to be set in the 1970s. You could argue that most vehicles on the road in the early 70s were actually 60s vehicles; and my memory of those days is probably rather hazy anyway. But this was not the only thing that felt slightly out of kilter in this film.
The men's clothes bothered me too. Surely nobody in the early 1970s dressed as well as the main men did in the film - Bruce in particular had far too much style for 1974; and only the geeky Snork dressed vaguely in the way my contemporaries did. But maybe that says more about the dress-style of Hull than it does about Merchant/Gervais recollections of the time...
But the timing felt wrong on a deeper level too. I don't actually believe hard-man Bruce would return home and be reconciled with his father by touching his arm. He may have gone home, yes; but then he would have showed his acceptance in far less demonstrative ways: a silent presence; almost grumpy, but no touching - not in the 1970s.
And the same applies to the even more unlikely hug between the two men on the station platform. In Hull, certainly, men did not hug in 1974. And however much further South Reading (or Cemetery Junction) might be, I do not believe that men would hug on a station platform as happened towards the end of this film. I think Merchant/Gervais have forgotten what the 70s were really like for men!
Having said all this and done all my nit-picking, I have to say I actually enjoyed this film. It has a gritty fairy-tale feel to it, if that's possible; Felicity Jones is enchanting as Julie (and yes, of course, her face was familiar because she appeared in that Anglo-French film I saw a year or so ago - and didn't like very much! - Cheri); and it leaves you with that awareness of the battles life throws up between the head and the heart. Which should we follow??
***
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Baaria
Bea says: We were very surprised to find this Italian gem of a film showing on a Saturday night in a very mainstream cinema complex in Hull recently, and although neither of us had heard of it we decided to see it instead of The Karate Kid.
Going on, I was somewhat concerned about the length of the film (2 1/2 hours). Regular readers know I dislike the current vogue for unnecessarily long films (most just need better and tighter editing). However, every minute of the 2 1/2 hours was needed to tell the story of Pepe and several generations of his family, from the 1920s to the present day, in the village of Baaria in southern Italy.
The film required concentration, as it was postmodern in style with the plot presented out of chronological order, and many scenes involved symbolism, magical realism and dream sequences. In fact, both Cecil and myself felt we wanted to sit right down and watch it all again, to have another chance at getting all the references.
The film deals with universal topics which would strike a chord with most people watching - the choices we make in life, ambition, love and lust, settling down, money, home, what we leave for future generations, and, crucially, how things change around us, whilst as people, our concerns remain the same. Powerful stuff.
***
Cecil says: I actually love films like this - real epics you hardly ever see these days; and with so many characters interlinked you actually feel compelled just to go back in there and watch it all over again so that you can put together some of the connections you almost certainly missed at the first time of asking.
It's also a very reflective film, which made me philosophical on the way out, mulling over big issues, motivations for our actions and all sorts of questioning why we do things.
Sicilian culture is not something I'm familiar with, so even with subtitles for the impossible dialects (and the Romany? language), there are large chunks I'm sure I'll never get, however often I watch this film. But it didn't matter, somehow, because the storyline drew me in and held me for the whole 150 minutes.
Funnily enough I did meet a Sicilian Communist Party member on a holiday some 20 odd years ago. It would be good to meet him again now having seen this film. In the UK we tend to associate Sicily with the Mafia, and this guy I met on holiday made lots of jokes about Mafiosi to local shopkeepers in Scotland, just to get a reaction. They're not the main players in this film, but they are always there, always a threat, and it makes me wonder if my Communist holiday contact is still around today.
I didn't like what Bea calls the 'magical realism' stuff in the film, though. Never a great fan of dream-sequence type of scenes and the film tends to dip in and out of these without any Hollywood-style screen-flickering to tell you - yes, folks, you're back in dreamtime now. Funnily enough the dream bits reminded me of those ads for the olive spread at the moment where the family members fly through the air to catch falling olives.
No, but that apart, hard to fault this film. Though, I want to see it again before I give it star rating...
Going on, I was somewhat concerned about the length of the film (2 1/2 hours). Regular readers know I dislike the current vogue for unnecessarily long films (most just need better and tighter editing). However, every minute of the 2 1/2 hours was needed to tell the story of Pepe and several generations of his family, from the 1920s to the present day, in the village of Baaria in southern Italy.
The film required concentration, as it was postmodern in style with the plot presented out of chronological order, and many scenes involved symbolism, magical realism and dream sequences. In fact, both Cecil and myself felt we wanted to sit right down and watch it all again, to have another chance at getting all the references.
The film deals with universal topics which would strike a chord with most people watching - the choices we make in life, ambition, love and lust, settling down, money, home, what we leave for future generations, and, crucially, how things change around us, whilst as people, our concerns remain the same. Powerful stuff.
***
Cecil says: I actually love films like this - real epics you hardly ever see these days; and with so many characters interlinked you actually feel compelled just to go back in there and watch it all over again so that you can put together some of the connections you almost certainly missed at the first time of asking.
It's also a very reflective film, which made me philosophical on the way out, mulling over big issues, motivations for our actions and all sorts of questioning why we do things.
Sicilian culture is not something I'm familiar with, so even with subtitles for the impossible dialects (and the Romany? language), there are large chunks I'm sure I'll never get, however often I watch this film. But it didn't matter, somehow, because the storyline drew me in and held me for the whole 150 minutes.
Funnily enough I did meet a Sicilian Communist Party member on a holiday some 20 odd years ago. It would be good to meet him again now having seen this film. In the UK we tend to associate Sicily with the Mafia, and this guy I met on holiday made lots of jokes about Mafiosi to local shopkeepers in Scotland, just to get a reaction. They're not the main players in this film, but they are always there, always a threat, and it makes me wonder if my Communist holiday contact is still around today.
I didn't like what Bea calls the 'magical realism' stuff in the film, though. Never a great fan of dream-sequence type of scenes and the film tends to dip in and out of these without any Hollywood-style screen-flickering to tell you - yes, folks, you're back in dreamtime now. Funnily enough the dream bits reminded me of those ads for the olive spread at the moment where the family members fly through the air to catch falling olives.
No, but that apart, hard to fault this film. Though, I want to see it again before I give it star rating...
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Precious
Cecil says: We saw this film in one of those community-run cinemas every little market town should have, at The Witham in Barnard Castle, County Durham. The enthusiastic group run this cinema on a laptop, projector and sound system in a big, old hall which is also used for badminton and local theatre (though there's a bit of a dispute brewing over whether to develop the space, thereby losing the wonderful old music hall stage, but gaining cafes, a well-being centre and a modern cinema. Tough call, and not sure which side of the argument I'd be on).
For Saturday night in a small town with no mainstream cinema, we were delighted to have the chance to see a film as edgy and controversial as Precious, and we were joined by about 20 other locals, so not a bad audience compared to other films we've seen since we began this blog. A nice touch too was the interval half way through, which gave us the chance to chat to our neighbour and hear more about how the local cinema group works. If only other towns could follow suit...
But, what of the film? The first thing to say is that Precious is very hard to follow without subtitles. Not being a New Yorker, nor accustomed to the language of the ghetto, I wouldn't have been able to follow much of the dialogue. Though, to be honest, you didn't need to to be able to follow the plot: young, black girl raped by her father has two babies and is abused by her violent mother. The film charts her progress through a special educational programme and her fantasies about what she might become.
It's a tough, violent film, but actually very positive in its message: kind of a black female version of Dead Poets Society or The Browning Version, if you really want a parallel.
Are the characters realistic? Hard to say, not having had much contact thankfully with that kind of life myself. But very believable and horribly convincing. I'll let Bea say more on the content of the film, but I liked it, in spite of its apparently grim subject matter.
***
Bea says: I had read a few reviews of Precious over past months, but thought we had missed the boat in terms of seeing it at a cinema, so I was thrilled when we walked past this beautiful old music hall on our first day of holiday and randomly noticed they were showing it that evening. Yes - a film that depicts the central character's very tough life fairly uncompromisingly.
Unlike Cecil, my work does bring me into contact with this kind of life experience on occasion, and in fact the character of Precious reminded me of a girl from my youth who had two babies at a very young age indeed (food for thought); I felt it was pretty realistic. The "inspiring teacher" plot was quite well done - not too sugary, the social workers (one played by a very dressed-down Mariah Carey) portrayed in a sympathetic and real way, as were the family dynamics - the mother's role in the abuse and the grandmother's fear of stepping in.
The ending didn't tidy everything up - Precious still had a long, hard road to climb - but was sufficiently upbeat not to leave the audience reeling from the hard experience of watching parts of this film. Interestingly, a number of the audience were older, even elderly, and I wondered how they had found it, so took the opporunity to chat to a few at the end. "Terrible, but thought-provoking" was their verdict; "after all it does go on, doesn't it"? How many of us, like me, remember a quiet girl who had one or more babies at a very young age?
Noticing that the film is an adaptation of a novel, I thought I might look out for it - having always dismissed Sapphire as chick-lit previously.
My final comment is on the performance of the actess playing Precious; I understand that, like in a Ken Loach film, she had no acting experience and was pulled from the "ghetto" to play the part - she did well.
***
For Saturday night in a small town with no mainstream cinema, we were delighted to have the chance to see a film as edgy and controversial as Precious, and we were joined by about 20 other locals, so not a bad audience compared to other films we've seen since we began this blog. A nice touch too was the interval half way through, which gave us the chance to chat to our neighbour and hear more about how the local cinema group works. If only other towns could follow suit...
But, what of the film? The first thing to say is that Precious is very hard to follow without subtitles. Not being a New Yorker, nor accustomed to the language of the ghetto, I wouldn't have been able to follow much of the dialogue. Though, to be honest, you didn't need to to be able to follow the plot: young, black girl raped by her father has two babies and is abused by her violent mother. The film charts her progress through a special educational programme and her fantasies about what she might become.
It's a tough, violent film, but actually very positive in its message: kind of a black female version of Dead Poets Society or The Browning Version, if you really want a parallel.
Are the characters realistic? Hard to say, not having had much contact thankfully with that kind of life myself. But very believable and horribly convincing. I'll let Bea say more on the content of the film, but I liked it, in spite of its apparently grim subject matter.
***
Bea says: I had read a few reviews of Precious over past months, but thought we had missed the boat in terms of seeing it at a cinema, so I was thrilled when we walked past this beautiful old music hall on our first day of holiday and randomly noticed they were showing it that evening. Yes - a film that depicts the central character's very tough life fairly uncompromisingly.
Unlike Cecil, my work does bring me into contact with this kind of life experience on occasion, and in fact the character of Precious reminded me of a girl from my youth who had two babies at a very young age indeed (food for thought); I felt it was pretty realistic. The "inspiring teacher" plot was quite well done - not too sugary, the social workers (one played by a very dressed-down Mariah Carey) portrayed in a sympathetic and real way, as were the family dynamics - the mother's role in the abuse and the grandmother's fear of stepping in.
The ending didn't tidy everything up - Precious still had a long, hard road to climb - but was sufficiently upbeat not to leave the audience reeling from the hard experience of watching parts of this film. Interestingly, a number of the audience were older, even elderly, and I wondered how they had found it, so took the opporunity to chat to a few at the end. "Terrible, but thought-provoking" was their verdict; "after all it does go on, doesn't it"? How many of us, like me, remember a quiet girl who had one or more babies at a very young age?
Noticing that the film is an adaptation of a novel, I thought I might look out for it - having always dismissed Sapphire as chick-lit previously.
My final comment is on the performance of the actess playing Precious; I understand that, like in a Ken Loach film, she had no acting experience and was pulled from the "ghetto" to play the part - she did well.
***
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Partir (Leaving)
Bea says: A promising storyline and at least one big name (Kristen Scott-Thomas) - this could have been so much better. The first half to two-thirds was indeed quite good, the plot following Kristen Scott-Thomas as she began to try to break free from her stifling upper middle class life in provincial France (married to a doctor, two teenage kids, no life of her own etc).
When trying to return to her profession as a physiotherapist, she meets Spanish builderIvan, who is building treatment rooms for her at the family home, and they begin a passionate affair. Kristen Scott-Thomas' character gets in deeper and deeper, confessing all to her doctor husband (cue highly emotional scene between the two of them, which is realistic and well done), and leaving him for a life of squalor and poverty with Ivan.
So far so good - the stresses and strains this would have placed on their "love" would have been good to explore - what would she have done, faced with a life of council flats and fruit picking? Would her feelings have lasted, or would she have returned to her husband after all?.
However, the plot then loses it somewhat and the female character behaves in increasingly desperate and odd ways - selling her Cartier watch at a petrol station to pay for fuel, "robbing" her own home of expensive art and getting Ivan (who has a criminal record) to sell it on, with disastrous consequences, which ulitmately lead to her returning to her husband and the film's difficult to believe climax. The histrionics take away from what could have been a subtle and powerful exploration of a not commonly examined area of female life.
**1/2
Cecil says: Regular readers will know how important a film's opening scene is in my view for setting the tone and atmosphere. Here we had a still shot of a staircase at night with the only sound that of cicadas, so we knew it was somewhere hot, but then came the crisp crackling sound of...popcorn from the couple behind us in the cinema. I really do hate the noise of sweet wrappings, the crunch of popcorn and the slurp of fizzy drinks being sucked through a straw. So 'Leaving' made me feel like doing just that since the popcorn continued through most of the film...
The film should have grabbed me more easily, I thought. English person living in France (been there, though never in Nimes); professional reflexologist (done that, though not full-time); passionate affair (ahem, NOT done that, but it's always interesting to watch...).
But I felt little empathy for any of the three main characters. In fact, the person I could relate to most was the teenage son, dealing with his conflict of loyalties between two parents going in different directions. But his was very much a cameo role. The husband was odious; the Spanish builder was a Spanish builder, ex-con; and Kristen Scott-Thomas just kept doing unbelievable things, as Bea says.
So, how about the sex scenes? (I was talking recently to someone who judges a film on the quality of the sex scenes). They were passionate for sure, but they also made me feel like a voyeur; was this because I had little empathy for either of the main characters or was it intentional on the part of the director? The film focused mainly on the Scott-Thomas character, and the director was a woman, so you could expect the sex scenes to focus on the woman's view or perceptions of what was going on; but - maybe because of camera angles (pretty hard to film up from the bed??) - aside from close-ups of Kristen's face at key moments, they didn't feel terribly new or different from many other male-directed films.
And the ending. I shan't give it away, but is that REALLY a likely outcome for such an affair???
**.5
When trying to return to her profession as a physiotherapist, she meets Spanish builderIvan, who is building treatment rooms for her at the family home, and they begin a passionate affair. Kristen Scott-Thomas' character gets in deeper and deeper, confessing all to her doctor husband (cue highly emotional scene between the two of them, which is realistic and well done), and leaving him for a life of squalor and poverty with Ivan.
So far so good - the stresses and strains this would have placed on their "love" would have been good to explore - what would she have done, faced with a life of council flats and fruit picking? Would her feelings have lasted, or would she have returned to her husband after all?.
However, the plot then loses it somewhat and the female character behaves in increasingly desperate and odd ways - selling her Cartier watch at a petrol station to pay for fuel, "robbing" her own home of expensive art and getting Ivan (who has a criminal record) to sell it on, with disastrous consequences, which ulitmately lead to her returning to her husband and the film's difficult to believe climax. The histrionics take away from what could have been a subtle and powerful exploration of a not commonly examined area of female life.
**1/2
Cecil says: Regular readers will know how important a film's opening scene is in my view for setting the tone and atmosphere. Here we had a still shot of a staircase at night with the only sound that of cicadas, so we knew it was somewhere hot, but then came the crisp crackling sound of...popcorn from the couple behind us in the cinema. I really do hate the noise of sweet wrappings, the crunch of popcorn and the slurp of fizzy drinks being sucked through a straw. So 'Leaving' made me feel like doing just that since the popcorn continued through most of the film...
The film should have grabbed me more easily, I thought. English person living in France (been there, though never in Nimes); professional reflexologist (done that, though not full-time); passionate affair (ahem, NOT done that, but it's always interesting to watch...).
But I felt little empathy for any of the three main characters. In fact, the person I could relate to most was the teenage son, dealing with his conflict of loyalties between two parents going in different directions. But his was very much a cameo role. The husband was odious; the Spanish builder was a Spanish builder, ex-con; and Kristen Scott-Thomas just kept doing unbelievable things, as Bea says.
So, how about the sex scenes? (I was talking recently to someone who judges a film on the quality of the sex scenes). They were passionate for sure, but they also made me feel like a voyeur; was this because I had little empathy for either of the main characters or was it intentional on the part of the director? The film focused mainly on the Scott-Thomas character, and the director was a woman, so you could expect the sex scenes to focus on the woman's view or perceptions of what was going on; but - maybe because of camera angles (pretty hard to film up from the bed??) - aside from close-ups of Kristen's face at key moments, they didn't feel terribly new or different from many other male-directed films.
And the ending. I shan't give it away, but is that REALLY a likely outcome for such an affair???
**.5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)