Black Gold

Cecil says: We saw this with just four other people at the Stockton Arts Centre; great venue with lots of independent films, but obviously not what the people of Stockton fancy seeing on a Friday night.

I really enjoyed this film, which was a kind of mix of Lawrence of Arabia, if only for the epic, desert scenes and the war going on all around, and I, Claudius, for its depiction of the studious, but clumsy and nervous kid growing up to be a great leader. There was also a touch of Local Hero, which we had just re-seen the previous night on telly funnily enough.

On one level this was all about oil. Texans find oil in a disputed bit of desert and want to drill, baby, drill. Trouble is, the stretch of desert that covers the oil is a disputed territory that is supposed to be a no-man's-land according to a treaty signed between the warring factions some years earlier.

Like in Local Hero, there is a conundrum over which way to go: take the American money and feed/educate your people, or stick to your principles and maintain an old traditional lifestyle that has served your tribes for centuries?

There are so many big issues in this film. It's about life and death, brotherly love, loyalty, families, east v west, and probably a host more.

Best way to approach the film is just to sit back and let it flow over you. You can do all the analysis you like afterwards. Just enjoy the story and great location filming.

Casting was great: Funny that we only saw Riz Ahmed and Freida Pinto a few weeks ago in Trishna (he also playing a hip westernised guy, but in Trishna he was Indian of course); Mark Strong excellent as the Sultan. The only gripe I'd have is that they couldn't find any strong Arab actors for any of the lead roles. Antonio Banderas as an Arab? Hmmmm.

Anyway, great evening entertainment. People of Stockton, you missed out!

***.5

Bea says: As I have often said in this blog, it's good to see a film you know little or nothing about. Black Gold was a gem - the early days of oil in the desert, told through the story of two warring sheikhs and their sons and daughters, it was also a kind of Arabian Romeo and Juliet. It had not occurred to me that prior to oil the Arab sheikhs were poor - in our day and age that's hard to imagine, although the warring and infighting between the tribes is, sadly, very easy to. It's also about the universal theme of time passing, of progress, and how things change, and are lost, as that time passes.

It's beautifully shot, and well written and produced - although a quite slow-paced story the time doesn't drag at all - and the rich colours and fabrics of the Bedouins are a feast for the eyes, as are the old cities in the desert.

Made me want to leave for an oasis in the desert immediately.

***

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...

***

Trishna

Bea says: I was intrigued by the idea of this retelling of the classic Hardy novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles, set in contemporary India, so when Cecil proposed the choice of it or another film for a dreary Monday evening in Glasgow, I went for Trishna.

The Glasgow Film Theatre reminded me very much of our old favourite venue in London, the British Film Institute; hip, diverse clientele, and a short introduction to the film, delivered by someone who was clearly a fan of the director, Michael Winterbottom, and drinks and discussion in the café afterwards.

Despite being a film blogger I am afraid I have not seen any other Winterbottom films, although I remember the stir that 24 Hour Party People caused. It has also been a long, long time since I read Tess, and since I watched the Polanski version starring Nastassia Kinski, which is a fairly faithful period adaptation, but thinking the story over I could see how it might work in contemporary times in India – and indeed it did.

The story follows Trishna, the oldest daughter of a poor rural man living in village in Rajasthan. Her beauty catches the eye of young Anglo-Indian heir, Jay, who arranges for her to work at his father’s hotel empire when her own father is injured in a road accident and the family desperately need money.

When Tess subsequently returns home in trouble, an abortion is arranged, and she is packed off to work in her uncle’s factory and cook and keep house for him and his invalid wife. Jay crosses her path once again, and this time she goes to live with him in Bombay – a life of ease and leisure, and with her family well supplied with cash, but also a life of shame.

However, once Trishna tells Jay about the abortion, their relationship changes. He leaves for some time, and once returned, they leave Bombay for the hotel again, in a chilling reprise of their former roles as master and servant that surely can only end badly.

The end of Tess has fascinated me since I discovered at my local book club that two different versions of the book exist – one with a tragic end and one with a happier outcome. I won’t say any more about which one this is.

But it was a beautifully done, thought-provoking film which shows just how universal and enduring Hardy’s themes are – and how well he wrote about the lives of women.

***

Cecil says: I haven’t read Tess of the d’Urbevilles, so I could sit back and enjoy this film just for its storyline and filming on set in India, without needing to make any comparisons with the text of the book.

Actually, the guy who introduced the film on the stage of the GFT almost put me off staying to see the film. As Bea says, he was clearly an old fan of director Winterbottom, but the more he spoke of Winterbottom’s past films, the less I wanted to see this one…

It’s quite a nice touch to have these personal introductions to films, but somehow, rather like professional film reviewers, this kind of intro can tend to try too hard to impress an audience. Even if we’d had time to go to the bar afterwards to talk about the film, I don’t think I’d have dared to go along because I wouldn’t be well enough read or know enough big words to feel at ease in such company.

So, what of the film?

Well, actually, it’s an interesting plot; not often you see films about Anglo-Indians returning to the homes of their ancestors, with all the connections – but also disconnections – that involves. But in fact, we enter much more closely into the heart and mind of Trishna than we do of Jay. Our hearts sink – as probably hers would have – when Jay says, after reading the Kama Sutra, that all women are either ‘maids, courtesans or single ladies’ – “which are you?”

You sense that her big chance of escape from the dependence on others might be through her dancing, but then that way out also closes off. Was that her decision or would she have been doomed whatever she chose?

It all sounds rather depressing and hopeless, I know, but actually the setting of the film in India made it a colourful spectacle that was a pleasure to watch, from the beauty of the rural village to the chaos of Mumbai (though I’m sure someone at some point called it Bombay…).

I have only a vague memory of my brief trip to Bombay when I was 7, but what I’ll never forget is the heat. Colourful and exciting it might be, but I couldn’t help reminding myself at each scene change in Trishna that everything that was taking place, from bus journeys to hotel rooms, from dance studios to desert drives would be happening in intense heat. Not something that would affect the characters in a Thomas Hardy novel. But then I shouldn’t be referring to Hardy: this film is worth seeing whether or not you know his books.

****

The Woman in Black

Bea says: I was keen to see this after hearing a radio interview with the author of the book it was adapted from (Susan Hill, The Woman in Black). On the radio, Susan Hill was engaging and interesting, and I decided to see the upcoming film on the basis of the interview, and the anticipated thrill of a good, old fashioned ghost story, so I dragged Cecil down to our local cinema for the afternoon show.

The book is now on either the GSCE or A level syllabus, which perhaps explains its popularity and the amount of young people in the audience (or perhaps that is more to do with Daniel Radcliffe!) Radcliffe does a good turn as Arthur Kipps, a grieving and poorly performing young lawyer who takes a make-or-break case to settle the affairs of a widow in the north east of England. Arriving in town, he is greeted with suspicion and before long the eerie events begin. It is indeed a good old-fashioned ghost story (and actually not very original - but I am sure Cecil will say more about that!) with all the requirements of such a story: mist, derelict houses, Victoriana, strange children etc etc. The ending rather caught me by surprise; and I am still not sure whether I think it was an interesting departure from the usual ghost story formula or just a cop-out. I am a wimp and easy to scare, but I certainly got the chills and jumped out of my skin a few times (so much so that the young woman next to me laughed more at my reactions than got scared herself!).

The film is beautifully shot and worth seeing just for the scenery, costumes and Victoriana of the widow's house. Although set in the north east of England, a little bit of internet research has told me that the house and causeway scenes were shot in Essex, and the railway scenes on the Bluebell steam railway.
**1/2

Cecil says: To get really scared by a ghost story, I need to be immersed in the plot and for the surprises to work on me I need no distraction around me...

What were those eerie whispering voices all around us? Oh damn yes, it was the kids from Richmond High School lower sixth...

And those shady figures moving around the auditorium? Yep, same kids - and some younger - heading off to the loo (I thought it was older men who had incontinence problems??)

But hey that rustling and crackling noise is scary. Where does it come from? Oh darn, it's the kids behind us munching on popcorn...

I'll barely mention the flashing lights as Facebook pinged up on mobile phones all round the place every 5 minutes.

So, without total immersion in the atmosphere, I'm afraid this film did nothing for me. It just came across as silly and soooo like any other cheap horror, mystery film over the years (and yes, there WAS the usual Scoobie-Doo plot to it)...

In the evening after the film, we decided to watch an old DVD in the absence of anything good on telly. Herzog's Nosferatu was our choice. And blow me down if I didn't get the impression that the maker of The Woman in Black had nicked (no, sorry, been inspired by) idea after idea from Nosferatu: from tentative search room by room of a mysterious house; through tombs that have a convenient diagonal opening through the middle so you can open it; hell, Nosferatu even had a woman in black for god's sake. But Nosferatu was a great film...

*.5

War Horse

Bea says: I was a little reluctant to go and see this as I was worried I would require industrial quantities of tissues to get through it. As it happened, I didn't, as although this film certainly did tug at my heartstrings it was in a Hollywood/Spielberg kind of way and I held out on the tears.

I would describe the story as Black Beauty set in WW1 - a beautiful foal is born in pleasant Devon countryside, and after an idyllic few months is sold at market for the first time to a foolhardy farmer with an idealistic son who is Joey's first and most important and enduring owner/trainer; however a series of owners and trials follows as we see Joey go from farm to war.

Like Black Beauty, Joey forms a bond with another horse who shares in many of his trials, and whose story is more tragic, as we learn just how badly horses were treated during the dark days of the Somme - as well as being reminded just how badly humans were treated too.

The film is long, but didn't drag and the second half moves at a particularly fast clip. The story is engaging (Black Beauty was itself a bestseller, and indeed the stage run of War Horse was a massive success in the West End, so this kind of story is a winner, obviously), and although the war was somewhat toned down a bit for a family audience, it did communicate the horrors pretty well - as well as classics like Gallipoli, say, or Birdsong, which has just been screened on the BBC.

This is Spielberg, so the cinematography is fantastic, the score exactly right, and the effects as good as they could be. I didn't like the sunset scene in Devon at the end - admittedly I don't live in Devon but sunsets don't really look like that in the UK, it looked more like a ranch in the Mid West of America, but I suspect it might have been referencing the stage play at that point as well (which I haven't seen).

I did like experiencing the war from the point of view of a horse - many animals were of course involved in WW1, and that story is rarely told. That brought something different to the usual animal story, and the usual war story.

A good way to spend a very cold, dreary, and icy afternoon, and suitable for the whole family.

***

Cecil says: I didn't like the beginning or the ending, but the middle two hours were OK.

At first, I couldn't help thinking it looked a bit like a combination of Lark Rise to Candleford and Jurassic Park. Might seem an odd combination, but look at how clean everything was, how computer-generated the animals and landscape looked (though the credits at the end did give thanks to the Dartmoor National Park, so I guess Spielberg did actually film there).

And, as Bea says, the ending felt very trite. A bit too glossy, too romantic; a bit like all those classic American sit-coms and films in the 1950s that had to end with happy, smiling families.

Actually, the soundtrack did annoy me, too: a few too many violins right from the opening scenes; it's like Spielberg knew that everyone was supposed to bring hankies and he wanted them used up in the first few minutes.

But, I complain too much. The rest of the film was fairly gripping stuff. Nice casting of all sorts of nationalities, but wow, those Germans, Belgians, French and Danes sure spoke good English!

The British actors were mostly familiar faces: how many films have Emily Watson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddleston and Eddie Marsan been in over the last 12 months? They're in everything, it seems.

As Bea says, a good way to spend a cold winter's afternoon, but surely not an Oscar-winning film?

***

The Iron Lady

Bea says: I was a schoolgirl in the 1980s, and quite politically aware, so despite not living in this country I remember seeing on the news, and hearing heated discussion of, some of the key scenes portrayed in this film (the Falklands war, riots, the miners strike, the poll tax). I remember what a hated (or loved) figure Thatcher was then, and when I arrived in the UK in 1995, not long after she stepped down. So I wasn't sure how I'd feel about this film.

Early on, I had the strange sensation of feeling inspired by someone whose politics I dislike - from the film's portrayal it is certainly true that young Margaret Roberts' attempts to stand for political office are inspiring to women, who generally have an easier time of making their way in the world now. Although I knew she was a grocer's daughter I had not realised how that had hampered her attempts to rise within the Conservative party, and I did relate to her sense of always feeling slightly on the outside due to not coming from the same background as most other people.

The film told the story of her years in power mostly in flashback, as her character is now elderly, and confused. It is a very good portrayal of dementia, in fact - of living in past memories and being bewildered by current life. It attempted, and achieved in my view, a balanced portrayal. As Margaret achieves more power, she becomes more and more single minded and less and less able to suffer fools gladly. One of the final scenes of her prime minister-ship is cringe-worthy - and perhaps suggesting that she was no longer functioning on form at the end.

The film also offers insights into her marriage and to a limited degree her family life, although much has been said before on these, and again strove to portray a balanced view. The portrait of her marriage to Dennis is interesting and touching - and showed his importance as the support behind her power.

It will be said by every reviewer - but Meryl Streep is absolutely pitch perfect and never misses a beat. She is totally believable in mannerisms, and voice. If she doesn't get an Oscar for this, it will be daylight robbery. I have read rumours that she is planning this to be her swansong - she will be missed; perhaps the greatest actor of our generation. There are overall good performances in this film, but Streep acts everyone else off the screen.
****1/2

Cecil says: This film is more to do with dementia and grief than it is about the so-called Thatcher Years. Given that most of the preview clips ARE from her flashback memories of her days in power, I can imagine many cinemagoers being a little disappointed if they have been led to believe that this film would transport them back to the glory days (or nightmare years, depending on your perspective).

Sure, we get reminders of certain key moments in her premiership, as Bea says, but this is much more about the Thatcher dealing with the grief of losing Dennis, and coping with old age.

When I first heard about this film being made, I wasn't sure I would want to see it, especially as I was one of those who detested the woman when she was in power. Did I want reminders of those bad old days which scarred my youth (all my 20s were lived under Thatcher)?

I was convinced by the interview with Streep as she went into the premiere showing in London last week. She came across so thoughtfully and was careful with how she expressed herself on a subject which she recognises still evokes strong passions in this country two decades on.

As Bea says, Streep was utterly brilliant. The tone of voice, the small mannerisms all captured perfectly. Rather like in Thatcher's governments, the other actors just faded into insignificance alongside.

What surprised me, and I couldn't tell whether this was the focus of the film or whether it was just a reflection of my own mellowing over the years, was that I felt little surge of blood or passion at any of the scenes. They all felt really very distant, almost as historical as the civil rights movement scenes we had watched in The Help only last month. I guess this is a good thing, since for me the society Thatcher created in the 1980s must have been about the most divided this nation has seen since the Civil War, and the country feels a lot healthier now: even the 2011 riots pale into relative insignificance next to the 1981 equivalents...

Swansong or not, this film really is about Meryl Streep, and is a must-see for all film-lovers.

***.5

The Deep Blue Sea

Cecil says: Why?

Why was this film called The Deep Blue Sea?

Why have such slow-moving scenes that we spend up to 20 seconds watching a briefcase being shut? Or a pair of leather shoes being handed over from one person to the other, with no soundtrack except the faint creaking of the polished leather?

You kind of sense that Terence Davies must have had some deep, significant message to get across to us through this film. But buggered if I know what it was...

On the face of it, this was a lovely Friday night out: bit of romance (classic love triangle with the lovely Rachel Weisz - Hester - opposite Tom Hiddleston - Freddie, the RAF ace - and Simon Russell Beale - William, the ageing judge); a period piece (set in post-war England); and some good-old hearty singing throughout (ah, haven't pubs changed these days?).

But with an opening scene that has Weisz's voiceover reading out her own suicide note, you kind of sense that this might not be a joyfest; and two minutes in I leant over to Bea to comment on the slow pace. The funny thing is that the preview just prior to the film was of the new Sherlock Holmes movie, which looked more like a Harry Potter set with an old storyline, ie fast-paced, all-action and special effects.

Davies's story plods. And I couldn't help thinking all the way through that his dialogue didn't have enough of the cutting nastiness of Harold Pinter characters that make his films cope with silence so well.

That's not to say that the story didn't appeal to me and challenge me. These relationship dilemma plots are always thought-provoking, and Rachel Weisz is always a pleasure to watch, but no, I must make a commitment to myself: never go to see another Terence Davies film (remember Of Time and the City in 2008???), unless you really have nothing better to do, or you don't mind a glum ending to an evening out.

No, it wasn't that bad. But I can't give it more than **.5

Bea says:
This was a beautiful film to watch (the sets, the clothes, the hair), but like Cecil I found it rather slow for a Friday night - it might have better suited a languid Sunday afternoon perhaps... As it was, I was tired from a busy working week, and had just had a bowl of pasta at the Italian opposite, so had to wriggle and stretch to stay awake.

The story should have been more interesting, but it rather felt that too much was left out (why had Hester married the judge, who she did not love? Or did she love him once? Why was she so convinced that Freddie did not love her in the all-consuming way she loved him - they burnt up the screen whenever on it together. Had she tried suicide before?) Perhaps this was deliberate, to leave us wondering and having to fill in the gaps ourselves, but there was certainly time to flesh the characters out a bit.

Talking about the film this morning, Cecil and I both commented on how beautiful the war/postwar period looked in this film - the scene in Aldwych station for example during a bombing raid. Rather than overcrowding, stink and rats (which is what I imagine it was probably really like), there were candles, children nestled in bedding, and on the remarkably uncrowded platform, tables, bunting, and the lovely singing of a young man (Molly Malone - no accident I am sure as the chorus refrain is "Alive, alive-oh"). Similarly the supposedly austere flat of Freddie.

Lovely to look at, so if you go to see it savour its beauty, but have a good cup of coffee beforehand.
**1/2