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

Surviving Life (Prezít svuj zivot)

Bea says: Went to see this completely on spec, as we had a couple of hours to kill in Newcastle and were charmed by this lovely Art Deco arthouse cinema. The film was starting as we arrived, and an appointment later in the day meant we needed to see something right then and there, or not at all, so we bought tickets (half price on Tuesdays) and ran up three flights of stairs to catch the opening credits.

That it was going to be a surreal experience was obvious from the outset - a kind of semi-real animation, lots of symbolism (apples, snakes etc), but there is a story to follow: in a city I assumed was Prague, office worker Evzen (Vaclav Helsus) experiences a kind of mid-life crisis when he dreams of a beautiful young woman, who at first is known to him as Eva (Klara Issova). So entranced is he by this experience that he searches for ways to control his dreams, via a psychoanalyst and a second hand book dealer, in order to repeatedly return to his dream life with her. Slowly, the true identity of Eva is revealed (although I had already guessed who she might be - no contemporary young woman would wear an outfit like her red one!)

Although the symbolism was at times baffling and at times heavy handed, the animation is quite wonderful, and the story engaging. Some 15 years ago or more I spent some time in Prague in the deep midwinter, and the grey streets, basic living accommodation and curt service in shops and restaurants really rang true - for that time anyway (although Prague seems to be nothing like that anymore). Watch out for the crone (Emilia Dosekova), who, just like in Greek tragedy, will give an interpretation of what's happening...

Not a bad way to spend a dull winter's afternoon.
***

Cecil says: Well, we walked into the cinema just as the opening shots were on screen, and I thought for a minute I'd walked into an old Monty Python showing, with Terry Gilliam's animations. But no, this was the basis of the whole film: Monty Python meets Bunuel.

Those Python cartoons were good because they were filled with humour. Some members of our Tyneside audience tried the odd cheerful chuckle, but this film was not a barrel of laughs (though, funnily enough, the last Czech 'comedy' I saw had a similarly surreal theme, so maybe it's the way they tell 'em over there...).

Surreal is usually lost on me, mainly because I resent spending a couple of hours of my life trying to guess just what allegory or irony the director is trying to get across.

I guess this way of combining animation with real actors is just a bit better than the Jurassic Park, Cowboys & Aliens genre, so I wasn't exactly bored but I can't say this is a film I would have chosen, had we sat down and studied the listings for Newcastle yesterday afternoon...

And films about dreams? They're almost as boring as hearing other people recount their previous night's dreams. Unless you're a psychoanalyst, maybe?

*.5

The Help

Cecil says: The best film I've seen in 2011. In fact I've now seen it twice (once on my travels in America and now this weekend in Stockton's great little art centre) and I haven't seen any film twice since The King's Speech about this time last year.

This is the story of the black women who worked as domestic helps for the white middle classes in early 1960s Mississippi. Actually, it's also a portrayal of the imposed conformity hanging over the Stepford Wives types on the white side of the fence. But there are also great observations on individual relationships that develop within and across these two main stories.

I guess I'm biased because I have just come back from a visit to Mississippi and Alabama. In Mississippi, I had the good fortune to meet a woman who was herself a 'help' until just a few years ago, but is now living her dream by running her own restaurant in Aberdeen, just a few miles from where this film is set.

In Alabama, I visited Montgomery, where the civil rights movement was born, where the white bus drivers in the 1950s and 60s were really as bad as they come across in this film; and where some white people's views are just as discriminatory as they were portrayed in The Help.

So the film had a very real resonance for me, even though it's set almost 50 years ago.

It's wonderfully well acted all the way through. There aren't many familiar faces, either (Allison Janney - who played CJ in West Wing - and Sissy Spacek really being the only actors I recognised), but the performances across the board are fantastic, from Viola Davis (playing Aibileen), through Emma Stone (Skeeter) and Octavia Spencer (Minny) to little Eleanor Henry, who plays the poor, unloved 3-year-old Mae.

The story lines are strong, the dialogue quick-witted and complex enough (with the accents) for me actually to want to see this film a 3rd time (and I haven't done that since Jules et Jim), and enough social comment to leave you thinking about things on many many levels: relationships, society, race, gender...I could go on, but I'd just say: go and see it for yourself...

*****

Bea says: I had heard so much about this film, not only from Cecil (as he saw it alone, before I did), but also had heard part of the book serialised on Woman's Hour, and many reviews and discussions. So I was prepared for the story, and the topic and it did not sweep me away with emotion quite as it did Cecil, who came to it completely unprepared.

Like Cecil, I mostly appreciated the aspect of the film that is about telling the stories of people whose stories are less told, and indeed whose lives and thoughts are rarely enquired into - a very powerful part of this story and film indeed. The transformative nature of this kind of storytelling is clearly rendered in the film, and the scenes just preceding the closing credits are incredibly moving because of this.

The film made me - now nearly 6 months back from DC - feel nostalgic and almost homesick for the USA, although the USA I lived in is nothing like the South of the 1960s. After the film, Cecil and I mused on the iconic nature of bus travel in the USA; an important part of the civil rights movement, and a big part of our US experience too (athough perhaps not so much for most middle Americans these days). The growing sense of change of the 1960s is almost palpable in the film, and even though I wasn't born the era is so well known through film and literature that it felt recognisable to me too.

There were things I didn't like as much about this film too - it felt a little cliched at times, all the maids were good, hearty people, all the white employers were unfulfilled, repressed and unhappy. I am not sure if the book deals more in the shades of grey of human life than the film did - but I will find out, as I plan to read it now I have finally seen the film.
***