A “NAKED” BOOK REVIEW…

I was pottering about the kitchen this morning when I was struck by rather a bizarre thought. As you know, the aim of this website is to provide a non-expert review of films or books for other non-experts. It’s all very well and good to have expert opinions but they sometimes differ largely in perspective from the concerns of the “common people” i.e. us. In this website, I strive to be “useful”. Alerting you to the presence of a film you may not have heard of. Providing a review for a book you may have seen but not considered. Well, if I want to be truly useful – not to mention honest and open about sharing the good books I have come across, there is one book I CANNOT leave out. It is not, however, the kind of book you may have initially expected… I’m not quite sure how to put this… Ok …
It’s a cookery book.
Now, as I said, I strongly believe in non-expert, down to earth views of things. Pretty much everything. This is not to say that I believe experts useless, quite au contraire. It’s just that, unless you’re an expert – or at least quite knowledgeable – yourself on the matter, their advice can be rather hard to implement. Unless it’s a real down-to-earth expert who actually tailors his/her advice and opinions to be down to earth and practical. I’m talking about Jamie Oliver..
Now, one thing to know about me is that I am not a very good cook. I was blessed with a mother who is an excellent cook but a perfectionist and a very impatient teacher. Any attempts on my part to help /experiment in the kitchen were whisked out from under my nose with a cry of “Oh give it here I’ll do it” from Mom and howls of protest from me (Mom, I defy you to look me in the eye and tell me I’m lying).It wasn’t the idea of me cooking that “upset” Mom, but the learning process and all it entailed. Indeed, if someone could “upload” cooking into me Matrix style, Mom would be more than happy to leave all the cooking to me. Unfortunately, there were mistakes to be made, experiments to be undergone, kitchens to be wrecked, ingredients to be burnt and Mom would rather just do it herself than go through all that. So here I am. On the wrong side of 25 and unable to cook to save my socks.
Now, being an industrious soul, I decided some time ago to remedy this sorry state of affairs. Mom was still as Mom as ever so I needed was a book. A practical book. Down to earth. It needed to be well written though – and by someone who knew what they were doing. (I am as impatient as my Mother and the quicker I get round to the production edible of food items the better.) I picked Jamie Oliver as my “expert of choice” on a whim more than anything else. I had seen a few of his cookery programmes, The Naked Chef and all that. I liked his style. I mean, he is a proper A-list celebrity and yet doesn’t put on airs. And I like his whole philosophy of wholesome, healthy meals. So I trundled along to the cookery books section – and Mr. Oliver has written a REMARKABLE number of books let me tell you – I decided on “Jamie’s Ministry Of Food”. I rifled through it a little and figured out that it is basically a very well illustrated “cooking for idiots”. Just what I needed. I bought it on the spot.
And now, basically, I swear by it. The dishes suggested are practical things that you can cook quickly day to day. I admit that finding some (some as in a VERY small number indeed) of the ingredients may be difficult depending on the country you are in but nothing a little ingenuity can’t overcome… The instructions are basically idiot-proof. I mean, I can follow them and believe me, that’s saying a lot. And it isn’t just basic things for beginners, oh no. Mom who is quite an accomplished cook was quite impressed by a number o f novel ideas. Porridge for instance. Ever thought of grating cooking chocolate into your porridge, adding a spoonful of marmalade and warming it through to cook chocolate- orange flavored porridge? No? Neither had we. Mr. Oliver has. Basic salads, basic dressings, dips and salsas, pasta sauces, you name it. Broken down into bite-sized morsels for the beginner. And the range goes all the way to lasagna and beef wellington. No matter what “level” cook you are, you will find something to “sink your teeth into” (Ho Ho  ). And for those of you with families – Mr. Oliver being a father of two himself, he is very conscious about vitamin values, filling and healthy meals for the little ones… In short, something for the whole family…
The book proudly proclaims “Everyone can learn to cook in 24 hours”. I thought it was a marketing ploy. I am now beginning to suspect he was right. I strongly recommend this book to anyone with any interest in cooking – I have come a long way thanks to it… I mean, even Mom is impressed… ;)

TRUE STORY OF THE WEEK : "ZODIAC"

Ok, we seem to have got off to a nice little start with Jamie Oliver. Cooking, nice and homely, warm kitchens… Fancy a change of tone? How about a serial killer? A real one of course…

Those of you who have been following me for longer, (if you’re out there, I’m kinda hurt no one ever writes comments on this dang page but oh well…) anyway, those of you who have been reading this blog for longer must have spotted my penchant for true stories. Those of you who are into the genre (or know about it) may have suspected I am also into true crime. Well, I have news for you: I am; BIG TIME. It’s sort of ghoulish but well… I just can’t help it. And the Zodiac murders are now officially stuff of legend – not least because the identity of the killer is still unknown… Celebrated Hollywood director David Fincher was a child in the San Francisco area just around the time the killer was active – so was able to experience the terror that gripped the city first hand. Having then gone on to direct such dark yet wonderful classics as Seven, The Game and Fight Club, I personally think there was no one better qualified to take on telling the story of the Zodiac. And with big time names like Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo on the “roll call” who could resist this film… I mean, be honest…

Ok now for those of you who either were not alive at the time or do not share my interest in true crime, here is a “what the film is all about”: Between December 1968 and October 1969, the San Francisco bay area was terrorized by a hooded killer. Apparently picking his victims at random, pretty much the way a hunter would, he claimed the lives of five people (experts can agree on a total of seven victims, two of these survived. There are also numerous suspected victims). He also wrote letters to the press to be printed – namely the San Francisco Chronicle sometimes in code (very good code at that) sometimes not, making various threats the most famous being ambushing a school bus, causing much alarm among parents. The fact that the Zodiac (for thus he signed himself) claimed to have murdered 37 people and the fact that he was never actually identified only made him more feared. Authorities continued receiving communication from the Zodiac until the late seventies. Although a prime suspect exists officially no one can prove or say who the Zodiac killer actually was. The film centers round two characters Robert Graysmith who worked in the Chronicle at the time and David Tosci – one of the detectives assigned to the case…

So, what do I make of it? Well, rest assured, the film lives up to its big names. Both Jake Gyllenhaal – as Robert Graysmith who became completely obsessed with the case, and then the leading expert on the Zodiac murders and Mark Ruffalo as David Tosci who was dragged above and beyond the line of duty thanks to Graysmith are in a word superb. And David Fincher is as usual, a master of creating atmospheres. The killings are present, naturally, but not overpowering – this is not a gore flick. It is the suspense, the growing yet fruitless hunt, the taunting letters and the fear gripping the hearts of the public that dominate the film. We watch with baited breath as Graysmith makes breakthrough after breakthrough, struggle with him as he tries desperately to make Tosci and the rest of the police take him seriously and yet, of course common sense dictates that he will fail – to this day the identity of the Zodiac killer is not known for sure…

I can understand if you feel the idea of watching a movie on real live murders is a little too much for you. But frankly, look at it this way, we watch a lot of war films do we not? And are a lot of said war films based on true stories – true wars? What about the news? Death and carnage surround us and there we don’t even have the comfort of being faced with Oscar nominee actors, there the events are REALLY real. Taken in that context, to my way of thinking, Zodiac is no gorier than any other cop-flick you have ever watched. It just has an added “brrr” factor when you stop and think about it… And believe me you will think about it. Mr Fincher, my congratulations sir, you have done it again =)

THEY WALK AMONG US IN "DISTRICT 9"

Oscar® movies are all very well and good in their place, but some people find them “hard to sympathize with”. This is mainly caused by an aversion to big budget movies / movie studios, and that I can understand. But occasionally, just occasionally an Oscar ® movie not quite like the rest comes along. Well, especially this year – with the number of Oscar® nominees going up to 10 in Best Picture. District 9 was one of the “flukes” that got into the top ten on that count, although I was truly rooting for it for Best Screenplay. And Best Editing. Ok, and Best Visual Efects… It’s an alien movie not quite like the rest, hell, it’s a movie not quite like the rest – standing boldly up and criticizing the system slap bang in the middle of Hollywood…
I was as curious as the rest of them when it came to District 9. The marketing tactics used were truly creative: a sticker here, a notice saying “non-humans were not allowed” there… I sat down to the film praying not to be disappointed. My prayers, Thank God, were answered…
As I said, District 9 is an alien movie. It starts – pretty much in “V” style with a large ship (just one – not 29) hovering over Johannesburg (fitting for World Cup Fever, no?). Anyway, one day the ship appears. Then silence. No messages appearing beneath the ship (Yes, OK I watch V. You’re just going to have to live with it), no bizarre creatures demanding to be “taken to our leader” just silence. So, humans being humans, we go and investigate. In fact, it transpires that the ship was just passing and made an emergency stop. The ship is out of order. Illness is rife in the colony. They don’t want to invade the planet – they just want to rest for a few days, repair their ship and go home. This being Earth however, this is not that easy. They are soon caught up in a web of bureaucracy, most of their belongings are confiscated and they are put up in a shanty town / refugee camp – District 9 - in Johannesburg. The big shrimp-like creatures soon breed hostility and racism. We arrive in their campsite with a camera crew – in fact that is what the entire movie is, a “documentary” on District 9, and we watch the developments through the eyes of the cameraman. Developments however are not what they might have been thought. And soon even Wikus Van De Merwe the head of the bureau running District 9 himself is caught up in a freedom fight he never imagined would be his own…
First of all, I defy you to watch this film and not get completely caught up in it. It is one of the best examples of the genre – not using an objective “invisible” camera and placing it live in the action. The director sweeps us along to the heart of the story until we are quite emotionally embroiled. And besides, you would need to have a heart of stone (or a sensitive stomach – having cameras running and jolting along is well and good but apparently this can make people queasy. Personally, I’ve never had the problem but there you go)
I guess I do not need to spell out the criticisms of the human race in general in this film. The problems of today: poverty, inequality, prejudice, racism, empty bureaucracy that doesn’t help those in need… they all find their way into District 9. It also forces us to ask ourselves what makes us “human”. Or rather, what exactly we mean by “human”. The message of the film, in the end, is that we have to look way beyond our appearances to begin to understand each other, and I’m sad to say we have quite a long way to go on that count… Those of an older / queasier generation can still watch it. There is some violence but nothing stomach churning (and yes I can be objective on these matters even though I am a Tarantino fan thank you very much). And, as you have already read, it is most definitely NOT a typical sci-fi movie. It is not the “evil aliens against humans” this time. This time, the humans (well some of them anyway) are the monsters – even though they are the ones with two arms two legs and one head. And as for the personal story line of Vicus – masterfully acted by Sharlto Copely – is touching to the core. To. The Core.
You will think some rather uncomfortable thoughts and draw some rather uncomfortable parallelisms. You will undoubtedly be shocked and shaken, this is one GOOD story. You may, at the end get a tad emotional and hunt for a tissue. It is an experience. I just wish it was awarded for its pains, because as far as I can see, it most definitely deserves something.

THE FACELIFT :)

Hi Folks!

As you can see, I have added a couple of things to make reading the blog hopefully more fun and more usefull! The websites facelift will continue in the coming weeks... Any comments ? Let me know! :)

Essie

BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S – DAARLING!

OK, as I mentioned last week I’m feeling mighty guilty about being so “unliterary” for so long… And having both “discovered” Truman Capote and being in possession of another one of his works I have the opportunity to continue my review… And of course, if I recall, I had mentioned what it is to you folks as well: It is that classic of both literary and cinematic fiction; Breakfast At Tiffany’s. Now do not be confused, my review is of the original book, not the wonderful adaptation into film starring Audrey Hepburn. The film’s turn will come of course, but in our mediatic times, when I am faced with books adapted into films (or ofcourse vice- versa ) I always prefer checking out the original media first. As successful as it may be, the second is only an adaptation after all… And starlarınkine Capote was the writer of the original media so it kind of does deserve precedence in my book!... (No pun intended!)
Now, we are all familiar, I assume, with Holly Golightly – the heroine of Breakfast At Tiffany’s, if only through the film or through reputation. Incidentally I found the fact that the book I bought actually had a picture of Audrey Hepburn as Holly on the cover… I guess this is the point where the adaptation clearly surpasses the book in celebrity! And ofcourse I was also attracted by “the main act”. However, the edition I have has more people to introduce than an average “Breakfast” . In this edition in addition to the story that gave the book its name, we find three other short stories by Capote : House of Flowers ( the story of a Haitian “working girl”, her quest for true love and the price she is prepared to pay for it), A Diamond Guitar ( the story of a hardened convict whose life is changed in a way he never thought possible by the arrival of a new convict) and last of all A Christmas Memory (the story of a rather unlikely but very happy friendship).
Now, I was of course well aware that Capote was a good writer (see review of Summer Crossing last week for details) but I never expected to be blown away to this degree… To start with, we are faced with rather a different Capote then what we are taught “at first glance”. Indeed, in the afore-mentioned Summer Crossing, his friend and lawyer explains clearly how Capote’s wit turned poisonous later on in life and alienated almost all who knew him. These stories, I would dare say, were written before that happened. Beautiful encounters, life changing emotions, deep friendships and love… All are exquisitely and eloquently explored. And every single time this is done from a perspective you never quite expected it to be taken from – and this ofcourse is what made Capote great… I ventured, you may recall, a small analysis of what I thought Summer Crossing may symbolize. If I were to venture another opinion here – I might say that all these were written at a time when our author was secure in a relationship. All the emotions that make relationships – and not just relationships in the romantic sense but all relationships – beautiful and essential to our lives are described vividly… I will not go into what these are in detail – I assume you know what I mean already.
In fact, I will not rabbit on at all. Just by the book and get lost in it. You will NOT regret it.

THE INFORMANT!

Well, naturally, no week of picks could be complete without a good old “true story”. And this week’s true story is the rather unbelievable tale of Mark Whitacre – corporate informant and conman extraordinaire. Well, sort of…
What seems to be a pretty routine security issue in the big food corporation ADM turns into a career-making sting for the FBI agents involved when they cross paths with Mark Whitacre. Mark Whitacre is a decent man, he is one of the youngest department heads in the company history and he can take it no longer : The company is part of a massive price-fixing scam. The scam spans pretty much the entire world and a vast range of products – well, technically every single item the corporation is producing. The agents are intrigued but cautious : they demand solid proof. To their surprise Whitacre participates in the inquiry with almost as much vehemence as the agents themselves. He wears a wire, makes tapes and when all that does not yield the information needed even maneuvers a secret camera. When the FBI closes in the “sting” is MASSIVE. All the company’s records and paperwork come under the scrutiny of the FBI. The price fixing is most definitely there… However, so are a few other things Mr Whitacre “forgot” to mention…
Well my first comment is, the story is definitely true (and documented I hasten to add) and truly fascinating. It is fascinating to the point where you may well feel the need to give yourself a pinch and remind yourself it actually is real. It is, I must say a tad hard to follow in bits but nothing a simple rewind (or pausing, turning to whoever was watching with you and asking “what was that?”) won’t solve. Another point I MUST mention is Matt Damon, who plays Mark Whitacre. Now, the problem with actors like Damon is that it is very easy to slip into thinking they’re merely a pretty face. Mr Damon’s face is anything but pretty in this particular case (no offence whatever to Mr Whitacre but very few of us have looks to match Hollywood actors – I most certainly don’t!) . But since his looks are “removed” from the equation, his considerable talent shines through. He is absolutely HILARIOUS to watch and coupled with the talented Mr Steven Soderbergh as a director the film is in a word “made”.
This fast-paced and intelligent dark-ish comedy is a brilliant and original choice for your evening’s entertainment – despite its mainstream pedigree. I mean, I loved it despite my high expectations for it – and despite the fact that I knew part of “the plot”. Between you and me folks, I think we may be looking at a modern classic folks – watch this space!

A SERIOUS MAN

This week is definately one of my “visit the favourites” weeks. Because now that we have passed through my latest review of Truman Capote – now one of my newest “favorite” authors – and we are hankering for something to watch, why not go for an old favorite this time. My favorite writing – directing – producing duos the famous “two headed director” , The Coen Brothers. More specifically their latest film, A Serious Man. Now, A Serious Man was highly publicized. I usually have very high expectations of the Coen Brothers – they are my favorites after all! And ladies and gentlemen, this film did not disappoint either…
Meet Physics Professor Larry Gopnick. He is a devout Jew, a family man, an idealistic teacher. A serious, sensible man with a serious sensible life. Then, quite unexpectedly he hits a bad patch – or rather, the bad patch kinda hits him. One of his students decides to bribe him for a passing grade – and that in itself starts a chain reaction of unfortunate events but there is more. His tenure is now in danger because of anonymous letters that circulating about him. At home, his brother Arthur is stuck on the couch indefinitely and is causing mayhem in more senses of the word than one. His son’s Bar-Mitzvah is approaching but his son only seems interested in the television and his radio. Oh, and his wife has just told him she is cheating on him and she wants a divorce. She also wants him to move out of the house. Yes, Larry Gopnick is most definitely in a tight spot. But at least things can’t get much worse, right?
First and foremost I must hasten to tell you that those among you who usually avoid the Coens because of excessive violence (with classics like Fargo and No Country For Old Men no one can blame that attitude, although it is not my attitude in the least) need not do so this time.
Ok, so I was in two minds as to wether to point it out but it took a while for me to notice this (I started watching the film with virtually no research) but it’s actually a modern adaptation of the Book Of Job (from the Old Testament). I hesitate on “banging on” about this fact but really, the film makes a lot more sense if you bare it in mind I foundBut don’t let that put you off – there isn’t a single actual reference to this fact in the film. I mean, the Gopnicks are a devout family but reference-wise that’s about as far as it goes. Infact, in the able hands of the Coens, the film almost becomes a dark comedy in parts. And there are some very intelligent jokes and references. I mean, I am not Jewish and I was not alive in the 60’s so a lot of the period stuff was lost on me. But there are some very intelligent details that become apparent on closer inspection so this double Oscar® nominee (Best Picture and Best Writing, Screenplay Written Direct For Screen) is definitely worth your attention. Hell, I’m thinking of watching it at least twice… And that’s not just because I’m a fan…

ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED

Although it’s actually rather rude to ask a lady her age, I can divulge that I am too young to remember the Roman Polanski incident. He had deflected to France a good while ago by the time I was born. But naturally, I had heard a lot about it. And naturally, the idea of a grown man having sex with a 13 year-old is in a word, disgusting. Which is why I strongly recommend you watch this documentary on Roman Polanski, his life and the incident in question. It’s easy to categorize this event under the label of “simply disgusting” and dismiss it, but the truth of the matter, and the truth about what went on in the courtroom is very far from simple. Roman Polanski is, no matter what you think of him as a person – on any level – one of the greatest directors of our time. This is why I believe you at least owe it to him to make an informed decision about him. Not an easy mission, believe you me.

At this point I should technically give you an account of the story, but really I am not sure where to begin. My point is, the whole reason one would watch a documentary on an event so “talked about” as the Polanski case is to get a fresh angle, more information. If I gave a detailed account of the documentary and the things it uncovers, in my opinion, there would hardly be a point in your watching it. A cursory summary of events would not do either – most of us know so much about Polanski’s life one way or the other. The tragic beginning he had in life is known: after having lost both parents in the Dachau concentration camp, he was left completely alone in the world in his early teens. He didn’t let that drag him down, rose like a comet in the world of cinema and not only made it to Hollywood but also managed to hold his own and stay original there. He was adored by both the stars and the public. Then, fortune smiled on him once more – he found love, true love. Indeed, his marriage with Sharon Tate is also well documented; it was one of the great love stories of his era. She was eight months pregnant to their first child – a baby boy – when she was brutally murdered at their home at the hands of the Charles Manson family. Polanski almost physically disintegrated from the sheer misery – this is also well documented. But he is, as all who know him testify, a survivor and survive he did. Then came his encounter with Sandra Gates and I will not be going into that as what happened there is technically still being discussed in courts – and is the main topic of the documentary. But add to that the courtroom shenanigans that ensued… Suffice it to say, it ended in Polanski’s lawyer Doug Doulton giving in a petition declaring the judge assigned to the case was too prejudiced to give a fair trial. If you think “that serves him right”, let me also add that Mr Doulton had as a very willing witness the assistant D.A. who should have been his “rival”, Roger Gunson. Believe me, it’s a story you would be interested in hearing even if you aren’t particularly “in” to courtroom drama.

In my initial paragraph, I talk of “giving an informed decision”. Considering the subject matter, this documentary is about as objective as you can possibly get. Interviews with Sandra Gates herself, the afore-mentioned Doug Doulton and Roger Gunson, journalists and courtroom employees of the day make up the bulk of the documentary. Mr Polanski himself does not figure in it personally; however, he is naturally present in the great quantity of archive footage of the day, not to mention extensive archive interviews with him – and he basically does say all he - I can only presume – wanted to say there. The extensive use of archive footage is important – the director has succeeded greatly in giving the ambiance of the day. It was one of the first “media feeding frenzies” of modern times. Naturally, we are used to such thing now, but it’s fascinating to see things develop, “all those years ago” back in 1977. And the way the documentary itself is actually put together is also quite spectacular. I mean, you may be bothered by the “subject matter” if you see what I mean – have no fear. No seedy reconstructions here. It is strikingly edited (striking as in it received the prize for best editing at the Sundance film festival in 2008. While we’re on the subject, Wanted and Desired was nominated for the Grand Jury prize for Best documentary at the same festival, won 2 Emmys (outstanding directing and writing) and was nominated for a further 3 Emmys : outstanding nonfiction special, outstanding picture editing and outstanding sound editing. In truth, if you are at all into media studies you wouldn’t do badly to watch the film purely from an academic point of view). And said editing gives the full impact of the importance of the event – without letting it disintegrate into the realm of the seedy, which is a great accomplishment. In fact, director Marina Zenovich has done such a good job of it, I am actively searching for more of her work. In short, it is a frank and open account – that is artistically put together to boot.

Another good thing is the fact that the documentary doesn’t hold sides. You may or may not think this a good thing, but the whole point is that nothing in life is that simple – especially not something as grave as what Polanski’s being charged with. I mean, there were things in the documentary that disturbed me – but it had little to do with Polanski : the way the courts handled the victim Sandra Gates in a word, made my skin crawl. And here’s another piece of information for you to chew on : Roger Gunson (as I mentioned before, the assistant D.A. in charge of the case) plainly states on tape that he “is not surprised Polanski left the country under those circumstances”. He is not some “hippy” by the way. He is a Mormon who seems to be renowned at the time for his straight-thinking and common sense…

In short, Wanted and Desired doesn’t want you to “pick a side”. Just listen to the whole story and make your mind up then. No matter what you think of Polanski and considering what a long and complicated story it is, that’s fair enough, wouldn’t you say?

NE TE RETOURNE PAS / DON’T LOOK BACK

This has happened before – and I have never made any bones about it. I watch a film, cannot decide what I think of it and a dilemma raises its’ head: To blog or not blog, that is the question... I loved it in a lot of ways – yet was also disappointed with it. In the end, I decided the enjoyment it provided largely outweighed its shortcomings, but well… Watch it and see, it’s not a bad film, no, not at all. I mean, everything to one side, the main stars are Sophie Marceau and Monica Belluci which to my mind, indicate the film is “watchable” at least but to be hones,t in my mind, it didn’t live up to what those great names promise…
Anyways, meet Jeanne. She is a writer, lives in Paris with her husband and two children. She is successful in her job and happy in her home, all in all a pretty average situation. There is, however, one strange thing about her: Her memories start at the age of eight. Absolute blank before it. This has actually become her new project and she is trying to write an autobiography when strange things start to happen. Things seem “different”. Furniture seems to have changed place. She starts forgetting telephone numbers and losing addresses. Her husband and children just… Look different. To add to all this, her family seem to have no idea what she’s talking about, claiming everything she claims has changed has always been that way… Until she starts seeing changes in herself as well. Everyone around her is denying it and it seems incomprehensible and scary to Jeanne herself – but one thing is very clear: She is literally turning into someone else. But then, a clue comes her way. In her mother’s house, she discovers a photograph, containing a vital clue. She sets on a journey following that clue which will lead her to a rather disturbing secret in her past, a secret she doesn’t even remember…
Now, as I said there is much about this film I like. First of all Monica Belluci and Sophie Marceau are both absolutely brilliant. As you can imagine, acting plays a major part in this film and both actresses show us once again their considerable talent in their portrayals of Jeanne’s fear, confusion and at times sheer agony as she transforms. And the story is absolutely wonderfully told it is, in a word, riveting. (So much so that even doing overtime to finish the work on it didn’t seem like a bother!). It is very well directed and both our tension and confusion mounts as the story progresses – oh what in the world is happening to her? Your reaction to the answer provided by the film may well be “Oh. What?” It’s not a bad conclusion. It just lacks development. I honestly think if they had added about half an hour or forty minutes onto the film to explain certain points, give more detail, enlarge on certain emotions and illusions the film would be a masterpiece. As it is, it ceased to be so and ended up being a cool movie for a Saturday night at home. As you may have guessed, the film is not “supernatural” but a psychodrama (slight spoiler but I thought I’d risk it; the film has been extensively talked about in art circles so there’s a good chance you already knew that). So you might argue that it isn’t necessarily meant to make complete sense. And the lack of sense makes sense in a funny kind of way but well… Like I said, I felt it needed developing…
Don’t let me rabbiting on about developments put you off it though – oh no. I have often said before, man cannot survive on A + films alone; watch it and enjoy it. Just don’t expect it to change your world. I sort of expected it to change mine, so I was disappointed but you have been warned so you should be ok ;)

SPREAD YOUR WINGS - "AMELIA"

As you all know by now, I have a soft spot for a true story. I also, you may have noticed, bend over backwards most of the time not to give “spoilers”. This is basically because I personally absolutely HATE spoilers. There is no point, I find, in watching a film if one knows the end, 90% of the time anyway. But then again, what do you do about true stories? Especially, if you’re talking about an historical event. I mean, if you’re watching a WW2 film, you’re basically screwed : no prizes for guessing what happened at the end of that one!! So there are exceptions to the rule. Especially, in the case of “Amelia”. The story of Amelia Earheart – first woman to cross the Atlantic solo by air.
But of course, some of you may never have heard of her – which is understandable. So let’s learn a bit more about her. Amelia Earheart (Hilary Swank in the film) was originally from Kansas. She was extremely interested in flying from a very young age – which was not considered the “done” thing in the early 30’s. That didn’t stop her from going as far as learning how to fly a plane though. Nor did it stop her from replying to an advertisement searching for a woman to participate in an attempt to cross the Atlantic by air. She is extremely excited but John Putnam, (Richard Gere in the film) the promoter of the event, very quickly brings her down to earth. She is to be no more than a passenger and a pretty face. This doesn’t stop her from attempting a solo flight (where she actually flies the plane) a few years later. Having seen her spirit and obstinacy, no one stands in her way – least of all John Putnam who is now her husband. Her success as an aviator makes her a celebrity in all the senses of the word. She has her own brands, all the fame she could want and a short affair with the dashing young entrepreneur Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor in the film). But all that never eclipses the two great loves of her life: John Putnam and flight.
Now, you may or may not know how Amelia’s story ends. Personally, I did. But that did not for a minute stop me from loving every moment of the film. And another small surprise for me was a short appearance from Christopher Ecclestone who I grew especially fond of as a fan of Dr Who (and admit it – he has to be one of the best Dr Whos, right?). Now, you read the cast. No prizes for guessing that the acting is absolutely faultless. I was yet again reminded of the talents of Richard Gere – and I haven’t seen him around in quite a while but I guess that’s my doing not his 
The story you may find slightly Hollywoody – and it is a VERY Hollywood film but the thing is, it’s absolutely true. She herself was larger than life, their love with John Putnam (J.P. as she lovingly called him) was larger than life and the adventures her love of flying brought her were definitely much larger than life… In fact, you may find yourself having to remind yourself that all this actually happened but it did. In the end, however, as it’s usually the case with larger than life events and people, you will find you are swept away by it completely… It is not a “work of art” but I definitely do NOT regret watching it. And if you don’t know the story of Amelia – DEFINITELY watch it. Or at least research Amelia Earheart on the internet. 20th century true adventure stories are few and far between and I would NOT want you to miss this one!

SUMMER CROSSING

Well, hand on heart; it has been a SHAMEFULLY long time since I reviewed any literature… And truth be told that’s because it has been an equally shamefully long time since I actually read any good literature. But in my defense I was out to remedy that last weekend when I made another discovery: I have never read any Truman Capote! I’ve seen the film starring Philip Seymour-Hoffman, yes, but never actually read any of his work. And there on a shelf in a bookstore was Breakfast At Tiffanys (the book not the film) and assorted stories and his recently discovered début novel, Summer Crossing.
By recently discovered, I mean that his lawyer and friend Alan U. Shwartz discovered the four notebooks it was written on some time after Capote’s death. When dated it turns out to be his début novel – so it’s a little ironic in my view that it should be printed posthumously. Shwartz ponders whether he did well in publishing it in the short annex he provides to the book (in my edition) where he describes the book’s discovery. He ends up not regretting it – and I am glad. We would have been deprived of a true gem.
Now, this little 120-page jewel (Good news for those of you who get put off by books that are too long! – And don’t you deny it, I know you’re out there!) is the story of Grady. Grady is the 17 year-old daughter of a rich American family in New York, in the 50’s. And for the first time in her life she is completely alone all summer this year – her family are taking a boat to Europe. And why pray does Grady chose to waive such a chance at a European adventure? Well, that would be because she has a secret… And the secret’s name is Clyde Menzer. He is a Jewish car park attendant and they are madly in love. Left alone and completely free for the first time Grady clings to Clyde, intensifying their relationship and bringing it to a point Grady never imagined it would come to…
Now, I am not a particular fan of romances (nor am I particularly averse to them – I just am not “addicted” to them) but this is BRILLIANT. It is first love concentrated, boiled down and poured into a book. It is told exquisitely; it is gripping and is also full of all the mannerisms and quips of its age, giving a marvelous insight into life in the States at the time, right from the inside. But as I read Summer Crossing (not only crossing the Atlantic you understand – that comes into it as far as the parents are concerned but also Grady’s crossing into womanhood) I felt it contained more insights than first caught the eye. Take the rather bizarrely named Grady (named after her uncle apparently). One of her major characteristics is that she is DIFFERENT from her sister and parents. They are “nice” and “usual” she is “not like them” . Clyde is merely a more “obvious” demonstration of this. Now, this is a very common (and in this case very well described) state of mind for a 17 year-old but could it possibly be an insight into Capote’s own feelings towards society – or maybe even his family (this is a début novel right at the beginning of his career don’t forget) ? And then, Clyde, the Jewish car park attendant. A gloriously inappropriate lover for high-brow Grady. Maybe a consideration on Capote’s own homosexuality that was considered “very inappropriate” at the time ? Capote wasn’t “Capote” then you remember, so he didn’t have the liberty fame brings… I don’t know. And you really should read it and make your own judgments. But Mr Capote, allow me to say this: Do not regret the printing of this book even if you never meant for it to be seen. It was an amazing gala to your career that deserved to be shared with the world…

MAN ON A WIRE

I have never quite understood why Oscar® winners in categories such as Best Documentary or Best Foreign Film are so quickly pushed off the edge of the stage and forgotten. Such was the case with Man On A Wire. It won the Oscar® for Best Documentary last year and to my knowledge was never heard of again. But then again, it is a documentary about a French wirewalker. Not what you would consider a riveting night’s entertainment. The thing is, Man On A Wire is not really out to be “in your face”. It is out to tell a story, simply, beautifully, unexpectedly.
Well the “man” mentioned in the title Philippe Petit, French wirewalker. And the “wire” mentioned in the title is a high wire, in this case fixed between the Twin Towers (of yore) in New York. But ofcourse, as you can imagine, doing this is actually illegal. (and why that would be I find it hard to understand, I seriously doubt there are enough people trying wirewalking between skyscrapers to actually cause a problem). Anyway, Philippe isn’t going to let a small matter such as American Laws get in his way so he gathers his accomplices round him and hatches a plan. The documentary tells us of the accomplishment of this plan. It makes for quite an exciting story and a fascinating insight into Philippe’s mind…
I strongly recommend you shed your prejudices and watch this film. But don’t expect it to grab you and carry you off on a journey the way Hollywood films do. It has a more minimalistic approach. By this I don’t mean minimalistic in the cinematic sense per se, I mean yes there are plenty of reconstructions but not as much or as in your face as you might expect from a counterpart. Infact a lot of it relies on the European story-telling tradition with just a camera and Philippe, Annie (his girlfriend at the time) or another one of his friends and accomplices telling the story. Their narrative is interspersed with reconstructions and recorded footage of Philippe practicing, pulling off other stunts (highwire between the towers of the Notre Dame in Paris for instance).But apart from the bits you are shown (mostly as they were at the time) there is plenty left to the imagination. I would go as far as saying the experience is cross between watching a documentary and reading a book… But there is great grace and beauty in this minimalism. In fact, the sight of Philippe, reduced to almost the size of an ant in perspective with the New York sky line, reclining (yes reclining. As in lying down. Oh, by the way, I have vertigo!) on an invisible wire suspended between two of the highest buildings in the world is surprisingly… Poetic. Definitely esthetic. And I privately feel that that “snapshot” captures the very soul of the film. You’ll see what I mean once you’ve seen it.

HE SEES DEAD PEOPLE... "GHOST TOWN"

You may or may not have figured out as you browse the pages of this humble blog that I have a soft spot for comedy. I like making people laugh in life and I like people who make me laugh. So I have a soft spot for comedians as well. And as far as people I have a soft spot for goes, Ricky Gevaise features pretty highly on the list. He first made a name for himself with The Office (the ORIGINAL BRITISH version) as the absolutely stranglable boss David. In addition to all this, he keeps knocking off some pretty damn good films, and Ghost Town is one of them.
Meet Bertram Pinkus (Gervaise). He is a dentist. And also, very possibly, the most antisocial and stranglable man on the planet (yes even more so than David) . He hates human contact of any kind, thinks most human beings idiots and would prefer to be left well alone which is just as well because not a lot of people like him. However one day, during a colonoscopy, his life changes. He dies you see. Only for a couple of seconds but he does die. When he comes back, his life has changed : He can see dead people. It turns out that the dead walk among us (those who have unfinished business with the living naturally) waiting for someone who can transmit their last messages to us. They naturally flock round Bertram begging him to help. Bertram just gets annoyed and tells them to piss off. The ghosts insist. They are decidedly at an impasse when a rather unexpected member of the “living” dead come along. Frank (the talented – and Oscar® nominated Mr Greg Kinnear) is a businessman who was killed in a freak accident. His wife has got over is death pretty quickly (because he was rather a cad and had been cheating on her) and is infact preparing to remarry. Frank is at his wits end because he can see that her fiancée, despite looking perfect in every way, is a con artist. He decides she deserves better, especially after the way he treated her. Being a savvy businessman among other things, he sees his opportunity and makes a deal with Bertram : If he helps him separate his ex-wife and her fiancée, he will help Bertram with “the ghost problem”. Bertram who is also at his wits end at this point, accepts. But as they start working on Frank’s “cunning plan”, another complication shows its head : Bertram seems to have grown feelings. And the feelings are all centering round Gwen, Frank’s ex-wife…
The thing about most of Ricky Gervaise’s comedy is, in a bizarre way it tends to be a bit of a “niche” event. I mean, The Office. I LOVED that show but personally felt that a lot of the situations in that would mean very little to anyone who hasn’t worked in the private sector. Again, another movie of his, The Invention Of Lying. I am told it is hilarious (I haven’t watched it) but reviewing the subject matter I have a nasty feeling it would be lost on you unless you were an atheist (I may of course be wrong, but that’s what I gathered on first inspection). Ghost Town isn’t like this. Bertram is a common or garden annoying anti-social bloke and I’m sure you know at least one person like him. So you will by definition LOVE seeing him in trouble. And if by any chance you watched The (British) Office and thought David was funny you will LOVE this (experience talking) . It’s very VERY good quality situation comedy, with a bit of Hollywood thrown in. Ok, I mention Hollywood and there is NO getting away from this matter here especially at the end (For God’s sake,the tagline for the film is: “He sees dead people. And they annoy him.” If you see what I mean.) So Ok, it will not change your life. But the sight of poor bloody Bertram trying to grapple with the ghosts will make you laugh out loud. And really, you DO NOT want to watch serious stuff the whole time. I mean, the frowning will give you wrinkles to start with… ;)