Jackie

Another solo viewing for Cecil, this time in a fairly busy Glasgow Film Theatre

Cecil says: I have to say I thought Natalie Portman was excellent in the role of Jackie Kennedy in Jackie. I haven’t really enjoyed her acting or her parts in other films I’ve seen, but for me she captured the mood perfectly of the former First Lady through her first week or so of grieving after JFK’s death.

This film is all about bereavement, especially when your loved one was in the public eye, so it won’t be a barrel of laughs you’ll get when you see it.

I chose to go to see Jackie on a gloomy afternoon in Glasgow at the exact moment Trump was being inaugurated as the next President of the USA. It seemed a poignant moment to see a film like this, and while the Kennedy Beautiful People were potentially the start of everything (the ‘swamp’) Trumps says he wants to get rid of in Washington, there’s something about the values JFK stood for that feel a million miles away from what we have in America today (and I mean today 20 January 2017, not 19 January and the eight years previous to this day).

It was also an appropriate time to watch Jackie, as the added burden of being the widow of the head of state meant she had to vacate the White House pretty damn quickly, with no period of grace the Obamas have just had. So we watch how the removal guys move in and Jackie lives with fears of being destitute in the future (as, we are told, happened to Lincoln’s wife after he was shot). It’s all very well knowing that she would end up with a multi-millionaire, but at the time, that would have been a major concern for her personally and for her kids.

The film cuts constantly between the journalist who has been sent to write a feature on Jackie and his interview with her, the flashbacks of her memories from the fateful day (plus a rather interesting TV broadcast she did to show the American people the inside of the White House back in 1961), and the practicalities of organising the funeral, what form it should take and how to protect the kids.

Billy Crudup was good as The Journalist (Theodore White, though he is never named), but this film is all about Natalie Portman, and she is surely in line for an Oscar nomination for this performance.

Apart from the horrific moment of JFK being shot in the head, though, this is not a tear-jerker or heartstring puller. Maybe that is the numbness of grief, or maybe it is because the whole story is really the telling of the tale for the journalist, who inevitably takes away the emotion from the copy.

Whichever it is, Portman is good; LBJ comes across as heartless and power-hungry, and Bobby Kennedy as a protective brother-in-law who is all too conscious of how things will look in public. “They’re blaming me for getting LBJ sworn in in Dallas”.

To go home from this to watching Trump getting sworn in, I felt more grief sitting in front of my telly than I had in the cinema. Hats off to Portman, though, for this one.

Oh, and final shout out for John Hurt, who played the Irish priest admirably. So good to see him back on the big screen. Great to see there are roles for him still, and long may that continue.

***.5

Silence

Cecil saw this one solo at the Waterfront Cinema in Greenock

Cecil says: Looking at Martin Scorsese’s filmography, I realise I haven’t been to one of his movies for over 30 years. He’s not a prolific director, but he’s just not my type, usually, so After Hours was the last Scorsese I had seen before Silence.

I have to say Silence is beautifully filmed (in Taiwan, by the way, not Japan, where the story is set) and the storyline reaches epic proportions, with its nod to films like The Mission or The Piano in telling of Europeans heading to far off shores in various spiritual quests.

The film opens in 1633, with young Jesuit zealots wanting to head off from the sanctuary of their friary in Macau to try to find Ferreira, who has gone AWOL over in the Far East, where the Japs are cracking down on Christians.

I suppose we are meant to empathise with the two young protagonists and to share their hopes of saving souls over there and finding their lost brother. But I found it hard to care really what happened to them, and rather hoped that the Japanese would find them out in order to preserve their own local culture. I found myself wondering how the film might have been shot by a Japanese director, looking at how locals felt about these foreign invaders trying to influence their society.

It’s only about an hour into the story when we first hear a little of what the Japanese authorities’ thinking is on the Jesuits. But when Rodrigues finds himself face to face with the Inquisitor, the Japanese head honcho is portrayed more like a sort of mediaeval Joker character out of a Batman film. I guess Scorsese needed to do that for his American audience.

A scene shortly after that, when the Rodrigues is paraded through the town as a prisoner felt like a 21^st century version of a 1950s western, when the Injuns have captured the film’s hero and he is being prepared for the pot or the scalping stake. Made me wonder how American audiences – especially the Trump supporters – would view a scene like this?

Of course, this is Portugal (well Portuguese Macau), not America, but these are Christian heroes trying to spread the Truth to the far east, so surely they are the goodies?

Well, I’m not sure that really was Scorsese’s message.

The character who comes out of Silence the strongest is Ferreira himself – played by Liam Neeson. He is more grounded as the new Buddhist monk he has become; he is a pragmatist, and has bought his survival with a virtually normal life in compensation for sacrificing his ‘faith’.

I had to wonder also if someone forced on Scorsese the very last scene of what lay in Rodrigues’ hand as his body was laid to rest. No spoiler here, either, but it felt trite to me, and not very believable.

I’m not really sure why the film is called Silence. It’s true, there are many scenes with no soundtrack and the protagonists need to stay silent in order not to be found, though the opening and closing scenes sound as if they have a background noise of cicadas or frogs chirping in the undergrowth. And it reminded me that the only place on earth I ever experienced total silence was the North Pole. But that has nothing to do with this film.

It’s a marathon, too, by the way. Be prepared for 2h40m of your life to be spent watching this one.

***

The Legend of Ben Hall

Seen at the Gala Cinema in Warrawong, NSW

Bea says: I really enjoyed this tale about legendary bushranger Ben Hall, who I vaguely remember hearing about at school, as the "gentleman bushranger" and who was famously shot in the back by the troopers (Boo! Hiss!).  I have to admit that the film certainly took a romanticised view of bushrangering - although there were moments that gave the necessary jolt as to the potential violence they could use; the trooper who was shot outside the pub and a father of 8 children; the scene where Ben Hall torches the draper's shop.  I am sure it was terrifying to be waylaid by a bushranger on route between Sydney, Goulburn, the goldfields and Melbourne.

But I enjoyed the story's attempts to get inside the head of Ben Hall a bit - interestingly, it struck me that Ben's separation from his wife and resulting custody battle seemed strangely modern.  I also enjoyed the depictions of 1860s life in Australia, the beautiful scenery and the knitwear - I was thrilled to see the knitters credited for it at the end!

My main critique would be that the film is a bit derivative of the old Westerns in style - I thought of John Ford and Cecil did whisper Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to me at one point,,  I would like to see Australia finding its feet with a more individual style of cinema perhaps; thinking about The Man from Snowy River and Breaker Morant; were they as derivative as this film? (I would need to watch them again to know).

Jack Martin was also rather a dish!  A great bit of escapism.
***


Cecil says: I have mixed feelings about The Legend of Ben Hall. It's beautifully filmed in rural Australia and takes place in parts of New South Wales and Victoria that we know fairly well. But I felt it slightly overdid the romanticisation of a man who basically was a thief and a bit of a thug, no matter that he was the 'gentleman' bush ranger.

I did like the opening scene of the film, where they showed an original 19th century photograph of the man himself, with firm set jaw and unsmiling face, and then let the photo fade and the actual face of actor Jack Martin appear superimposed. The actor looks amazingly similar to the character.

I think we are supposed to empathise with the bush ranger who never killed anyone, who was shot in the back by trappers (uniformed police or soldiers of the time) and who was probably a cut above most of his contemporaries in intelligence. The thing is, call me conventional, but I actually didn't sympathise, and at each moment in the film when he almost gets caught, I found myself wanting them to get him to put an end to the misery he was causing lots of ordinary citizens of the time.

He may well have been idolised and fantasised about by lots of young women at the time, especially those in loveless marriages or with small town boredom as the only future visible for them, but again I'm afraid these characters just reminded me of the teenage girl hangers-on to school gangs in my own days; the kind of girls who egged their boys on to even nastier deeds against whoever their latest victim might be.

And my other problem with the film is that nobody's justification for whatever action they took came across as virtuous or seeking of justice, apart possibly for the hapless leader of the group who did finally track Hall down and stop him (hapless because none of his troops actually listened to his orders at the end).

So this certainly isn't a feel-good movie and I felt even more put out as my emotional pull seemed to run counter to the way I think the director was trying to push me. It's kind of how I feel when I watch Ken Loach films (and why I hesitate to go and see his latest by the way).

And yes, it did feel like Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid. I know in that film we all felt warmth and love for the Paul Newman and Robert Redford characters, but they were probably as vicious as Ban Hall and his cronies at around the same period...

***

The Light Between Oceans

Seen at the Roxy Cinema in Nowra

Cecil says: Best film of 2016. A gripping story from the opening scene through to the final sunset. Be prepared for an emotional rollercoaster if you go to see The Light between Oceans: there is a beautiful romance to kick the film off, with wonderful connections between a hardened World War One veteran (superbly played by Michael Fassbender) and an apparently delicate young thing from a small Western Australian town (Alicia Vikander, who played in The Danish Girl, is wonderful here too); then Dostoevsky themes of Crime and Punishment, with dilemmas thrown in to compare with Sophie’s Choice.

There are so many levels to this film and I guess depending on your own life story it will resonate with key moments of your own journey.

Dilemmas over what to do when a loved one wants one thing and you know it is morally wrong; what to do when you are offered a way out but that would condemn your loved one to prison or even death; how to resolve that prick of conscience that can torment you after the act; how to forgive and not to resent.

The setting of the lighthouse on a small island off the west coast of Australia is utterly beautiful, too, though you can’t help feeling the small town attitudes cross that stretch of sea with their hatred of Germans after the war, their joy at the ‘new baby’, and the pure visibility of every family misfortune and drama that happens in or near the town.

The soundtrack is beautiful – a combination of music composed for the film and old mediaeval work by Tavener. The costumes are wonderful. Even the veggie patch looked a dream, though I had to wonder how they got the vegetables to grow so well in what must have been such salty air…

An all-star cast, with Rachel Weisz, Bryan Brown and Jack Thompson putting in just as polished a performance as the two main characters.

And you know what, I’d see it all again quite happily, just to see what other aspects of my life it may make me think about on a second viewing.

*****

Bea says:  I was in two minds about seeing this film as I knew enough about the storyline to expect it to be sad, and enough to know that the subject matter might be painful for me.  I had not read the book for the same reason.  However, the story – as all good stories are – is actually about larger, more universal truths, like forgiveness, one’s own moral compass, and the importance of relationships, and these truths transcend the immediate storyline.  Still, I did connect with Isabel’s early experience, and left the film thinking – as much as I shared her experience, I do not think I would have done that.  I didn’t think this judgmentally, just in a way that found my own moral compass point, and that was reassuring.  I liked the film’s focus on embracing forgiveness, renouncing resentment, doing what’s right, and remaining connected to people close to you.  These are things that matter in life, and that you can hold on to in the face of loss or grief.

But this is all about the (very strong) storyline – the performances were superb, particularly the wonderful Michael Fassbender as Tom.  I appreciated the direction; it’s rare these days for a film like this not to be overlong and drawn out.  The pace was very good, it lingered long enough to set the scene but not too long.  The settings were incredibly beautiful (Dunedin and North West Tasmania apparently – I can see some trips to those locations in the future!).  It was great to see those old stalwarts Jack Thompson and Bryan Brown in films again.  And as a knitter, the knitwear was great eye candy.

It was actually great escapism as well.  In a week full of the world’s problems, it was great to travel 100 years back in time and be absorbed in the fictional problems of fictional people.  As I said to Cecil on the way home, right now the thought of living on an isolated island lighthouse for 3 years seems rather appealing….

*****

The Girl on the Train

Seen at the Roxy Cinema in Nowra

Bea says:  I had heard a great deal about this deeply anticipated film prior to seeing it this past Sunday morning at the Roxy cinema in Nowra.  I had heard it reviewed on ABC’s The Mix, and on BBC’s Women’s Hour, and everybody seems to be talking about it.  So despite not having read the book, I roughly knew the story, and I knew some of the twists the plot might take.  I knew that the central characters were all flawed, that it was in the vein of Gone Girl, and that the setting had been moved from the UK to New York State for the purposes of the film.

The story did draw me in – I quite like a good thriller-style film, even though I could guess where it might be going, and in that regard it is a diverting film, beautifully shot in a picturesque location, and with strong performances from the cast.  They were lucky to get Emily Blunt for the lead – she played it very well indeed; in less assured hands it may have descending into cliché.

Because it was all rather derivative to be honest – a mash up of Fatal Attraction and Gone Girl, with reference to some classic film noir as well – Gaslight, for example.  What disappointed me from a female writer and a strong female production and direction team, was how stereotyped it all was. 

The women are anxious and neurotic.  The two women who can’t, or don’t, have children are presented with deep personal and psychological problems as a result.  Working is optional for women, it seems.  It was like something out of Mad Men.  

Thank goodness for Allison Janney’s police detective, the only vaguely liberated role model amongst them – and even she was told what to do at one point by her male colleague.  And yes the “truth” is unravelled, and a particular man gets his just desserts, but the message isn’t very feminist – the female characters only take control out of desperation, not out of good decision making.

Don’t expect anything creative or new – but it is diverting if you need an absorbing story for a couple of hours.

***

Cecil says: I also thought Emily Blunt played the drunk, hallucinating, traumatised train passenger well. Whoever did her makeup for the opening scenes and later did a great job making her look dry-lipped, gaunt and bleary-eyed. It takes a few scenes for us to realise her problem is drink, but she immediately hits the viewer as someone deeply troubled.

Opening scenes are always a key pointer to how a film will pan out for me, and the start of The Girl on the Train doesn’t disappoint. I didn’t recognise the small town on the banks of the Hudson, but the buildings along the track were classic hundred year old beauties, like those we spotted on our first weekend away in the States six years ago when we took a train that slowly crawled through Williamsburg.

I actually didn’t know this film was adapted from a book about a British story set around London. From all my commuting into London, it’s really hard to imagine how these wealthy middle class American characters were represented in the original book.

The story is certainly gripping, though the overall tone was a tad darker than I would have chosen for a bright spring morning. Blunt acts well, though there are times when you wonder if some twists are really based on reality: why didn’t she call cop Allison Janney earlier than the moment when he life was suddenly at risk? And I found it hard to imagine an experienced therapist letting himself get drawn into such an intimate and boundary-less relationship with one of his female clients.

Great also to see one of the less visible actors from Friends doing something different. Took me a double take to realise it was actually her…

***.5 

Ab Fab - The Movie

Seen at Nova, Gawler, South Australia

Bea says:  Cecil was absent for this one, which I saw with my sister at the lovely Nova cinema in Gawler, South Australia.  A glass of wine in the foyer beforehand and a bruschetta afterwards at the bustly Nova cafe rounded off the experience.

The film was silly and forgettable, but oh so funny, and a great tonic to the hard work and troubles of everyday life.  Jennifer Saunders and Joanna Lumley as Edina and Patsy are up to their usual tricks trying to get new PR clients when they accidentally "kill" Kate Moss (starring as herself).  My favourite character from the original series, Julia Sawalha as Saffy, plays her usual great straight role and mayhem ensues until Kate turns up again.  Lots of cameos to spot and all in all a great night out.
** 1/2

Our Kind of Traitor

Seen at the Roxy Cinema in Nowra on NSW South Coast

Bea says:  We both like thrillers, and adaptations from John Le Carré's works are usually good and absorbing.  This is both, the time sped past as the twists and turns of the plot unfolded, even if it's darkness did make it feel more of a Friday/Saturday night film, rather than a Sunday morning one (when we went to see it).

The film centres on a couple, Perry and Gail, (Ewan Mcgregor and Naomi Harris) who are trying to reconnect via a luxurious European break following an infidelity.  This doesn't go particularly well, and after being left alone in a restaurant, Perry gets involved with a wealthy Russian and his family who are trying to leave behind their formerly criminal past and escape to the UK for safety and a new start.  Rather unbelievably, Perry agrees to help him.  Enter the secret service (Damien Lewis, playing Hector) and much action, adventure, internal politics and subterfuge as the secret service gets involved in smuggling the family to London.  Despite being university professors, Perry and Gail prove to remarkably adept at hiding out from criminals in pursuit of the family, handling weapons and sharp shooting.  But if all disbelief is suspended and you enjoy Bond/Jason Bourne style thrillers, you'll enjoy this one.

Diverting, somewhat unbelievable, but good performances all round.  Good to see Saskia Reeves again as well.
***


Cecil says: I'm not a big fan of films that give you a sense of foreboding right from the start, and don't let that feeling lift right to the end. I guess it is the nature of the thriller genre, but as Bea says, not great for a sunny Sunday morning...

I also felt somewhat dubious of some of the likelihood of some of this plot really happening: would even a guilt-ridden professor really let himself get drawn into some dodgy drinking mob of Russians in a posh restaurant? (that was one thing I was so glad I managed to avoid on our own recent trip through Russia as men are supposed to drink heartily with any fellow humans or you risk a social slap in the face, and vodka is the order of the day).

But really, it was obvious this group of Russians were up to something and I don't believe Perry would really have gone along with it, or gone to the party, or got himself drawn aside from some young beauty at the party (and what happened to that sub-plot, too? she never reappeared later in the film).

As for the UK Secret Service allowing amateurs like Perry and Gail to get involved in some major saga of potential defections and capture of murderous drug barons, it is highly highly dubious.

So as Bea says, you need to suspend your belief in large chunks for this one.

Gail is a senior barrister, apparently. But it would be interesting to see what the Bechtel viewers would have made of the women characters in this one. She plays a minor role supporting Perry and you kind of feel her job title was a modern creation to make up for Le Carré's 1960s attitudes to women.

Anyway, the film was OK. I'd give it a ***, but don't go and see it if the weather is nice outside and you have better things to do.