THEMED ESSIESPICS IS BACK! WELCOME TO "THE BEAST WITHIN" WEEK!

Well dear readers,
I hope this post finds you well? A little explanation about this weeks fare. I kinda felt you guys liked the theme idea I had so I decided to go for it more regularly... I may not be able to group every weeks entries into a theme ( some films are simply uncategorisable!) but I will do my level best, I have a few more ideas up my sleeve. This week's theme is "The Beast Within" Week. Ah yes, the human being's innate need for violence and gore... But do not worry, do not run screaming (please don't), I have only top quality stuff for my readers! Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez for those who prefer modern and a historical stunner Stanley Kubrick who prefer slightly older films... Step right in and see what you make of it!
And if there is any "theme" you would like to see explored do let me know! I do my best to please!
much love to you all,
Essie

THE BEAST WITHIN WEEK 1 : "DEATHPROOF"

Now this, as you may remember, is part of a project Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez started up a while back. Two films – Deathproof and Grindhouse / Planet Terror, both of a certain genre, both using similar filming techniques, released at the same time. As these films are a duo, I will be reviewing them both this week, because naturally I bought both. I mean, if Quentin Tarantino directed it I MUST watch it… And Robert Rodriguez… Well, I think I mentioned this in “Four Rooms” but I was curious about him. So there you are you see. First observation; I should seriously stop watching films “wholesale” as it were. No, what happened was this; I watched Deathproof. I actually really enjoyed it. I had some spare time on my hands so I reckoned seeing as this is a duo, I could just go on to Grindhouse. Admittedly, I would not be able to finish it today but it isn’t actually a classic of modern cinema, no harm done, right? Wrong. Very wrong. I mean it’s totally OK to watch it in pieces (to anyone who watched either movie, this will sound like a very VERY bad pun). However, two hours of Tarantinian gore and violence topped up with Rodriguez gore, violence gunk and zombies… I don’t quite know how to describe it but it is not a happy place… Especially where my stomach is concerned and I have a sensitive stomach… I guess if you watch them separately it would be ok. In fact, I am pretty sure you would be ok if you watched them separately. This wholesale movie watching is a problem that I have to personally deal with…
Ok, Deathproof. Now, these films are, by the way, in the genre of old – 70’s – slashers. This includes the technical side of it: grainy filming, problem with the colors, missing scenes… If we didn’t know better, we might think we had dug something out of the vaults of yesteryear. It’s not only the technique but the storyline that harks back to an entirely different era (apart from the fact that it is actually set in modern day America. Small detail but there you go). You remember the genre: a group of young ladies about town. They are beautiful, confident, having fun and they really don’t give a damn… However, they are not aware of one thing… A dark stranger is watching them from afar, biding his time, and when he makes contact… Well…
I have heard a lot of people dissing this film. “Oh but it’s Quentin Tarantino, we expected something more”. The fact is the film is funny. And I don’t mean in the way that horror movies – meant to be scary – turn out funny. This is a class – and classy – example of horror – comedy. I say classy because, as with every single Tarantino film, Deathproof is packed to the gills with references to other films and inside jokes. I’ll give you one example; I know this is not really my style but I want you to get the ambiance. So we all know about Mr. Tarantino and his er… Love of women’s feet, right? This is no inside info if it’s the first time you’ve heard of this, just watch a goodly number of his films and more often than not SOMETHING, anything, to do with a woman’s feet will get into the story. Now, opening shot for Deathproof. We are driving in a car, and we see the road from the eyes of the person sitting in the passenger seat. The passenger is a lady; she has her feet up on the dashboard. Her feet are bare with red nail varnish… So what we see is a dashboard and a bit of sky outlining a woman’s feet and legs. Right on top of this picture comes the writing, in big bold orange letters “A QUENTIN TARANTINO FILM”. All I could do in response was say “Yes, it is!” and burst out laughing… That sort of thing… By the bucket load. Don’t take it too too seriously though, it’s a “peanut” movie, aiming to take your mind off the rest of the world for a couple of hours and give you a good ride… With everything a Tarantino movie entails of course… (Including the director himself in a cameo! I am so glad he is back to that, when I didn’t see him in Inglorious Bastards, I had begun to worry…) So fasten your seatbelts… It will be one HECK of a ride…

THE BEAST WITHIN WEEK 2 : "GRINDHOUSE / PLANET TERROR"

Ok, part two from the dastardly duo… Now, I have to admit that I may not have been able to enjoy this film in as “in depth” a way as possible. But, see above, after two hours with Mr. Tarantino my “violence meter” was already pretty severely bashed up and then Mr. Rodriguez comes along. Same filming techniques and same “line of thinking” as far as the film is concerned… Let’s get to the story you’ll see what I mean…
And this, dear friends, is a zombie movie. A small group of randomly gathered people (a one legged stripper, the owner of the best barbecue in Texas, the sheriff, his deputy, Wray – the mysterious outlaw and a doctor whose hands are momentarily paralyzed after a small “accident” with her husband among other people) in a small town in Texas is having, well, quite a night… A mysterious force is turning the rest of the residents into zombies. Whatever it is is spreading fast, the zombies are getting hungry and violent and the rather discordant little group must work together to survive , find a way out of the town and save the planet if they possibly can…
Well, the storyline is kinda short but that is simply because you all know this storyline by now. This is hardly the point of the movie… I must say though, I am impressed with both Mr. Rodriguez’s style and his sense of humor. A tad darker than Quentin Tarantino and more… Organized. You don’t have that sense of chaos you have in Tarantino movies but well calculated bazooka strikes: bam, bam, BAM! So, a word for those of sensitive stomachs : being a zombie movie there is GUNK. Gunk is in capital letters because there are liters of the stuff. And blood. But I seriously doubt you will be adversely affected by the blood – it is such a bright red in color and there is such a profusion of it, it defies anyone’s imagination to actually take it seriously… My recommendation? Save it for the end of a tiring work day when you have nothing to do and some pent up aggression to get rid of. I was just thinking actually, maybe this is why people react so badly to Tarantino and the like. Legitimizing violence – well it’s a point but maybe people find it scary because the films actually can be sorta cathartic… I mean, people watch these films because it helps them “externalize” if you will, the aggression and violence inside them… I guess realizing they sort of find the films “cathartic” sets people on edge. I can see that. And of course I agree that such films should be kept WELL away from the young and impressionable. But I reckon, once we have reached the stage in our lives where we know that, for example, attacking our boss with a stapler is not a good way to work through issues at the office, a little dose of Tarantino / Rodriguez / whatever your poison is can’t hurt.

THE BEAST WITHIN WEEK 3 : "SPARTACUS"

Well, as long as we’re on the subject of blood, gore and violence, let’s do a bit of time travelling as well. Waay back, to the days of the Roman Empire. Yes, let’s give them their due; we owe the Romans many cornerstones of civilization: architecture, literature, law and many military formations. They were, for all that, a bloodthirsty lot. Ok, maybe not more so than anyone else then or today Now don’t protest; any fans of Quentin Tarantino among my readers? I rest my case. The only difference with the Roman gladiators (you probably guessed I was getting to that from the title, right?) and watching films with violence in them, is that we know that at the end of the day’s shooting, our actors picked themselves up from wherever they had been slashed to bits, were hosed off and handed a hot drink and possibly complained to the director about getting red dye out of their hair. The gladiators actually died at the end of the show. Leave aside the fact that this was a brutal and sad waste of a human life, a life usually captured and forced into slavery / gladiatorship, it was not particularly cost-effective either (you cannot re-use a dead gladiator unlike actors who can star in more than one film). There was, however, nothing to be done. The audience loved it and special effects hadn’t been invented so there you were.
One man however, decided to put a stop to this or die trying. This was Spartacus, a Thracian shepherd who was sold into slavery and made a gladiator. Now, the rich crowds in the Roman times usually preferred fights to be to the death. The life expectancy of a gladiator once he had been trained was 5 – 10 years if he was particularly good. Spartacus decided he had had quite enough of being the rather brutal plaything of the Roman aristocracy and started the biggest slave revolt in the whole of Roman history. Along with 6000 slaves from the gladiator school and those liberated from nearby estates they formed an army with the sole purpose of marching to the sea , securing ships and sailing back to their homelands (slaves in Roman times you understand were rarely if ever Romans – they were usually the natives of lands the empire had invaded ). Naturally, Rome could not allow this – the honor and name of the empire depended o it and… Well, you can pretty much guess what happened next…
Now, do NOT be fooled (and I had to check and encyclopedia too by the way) Spartacus is a TRUE story. And despite my rather flippant introduction the whole idea of gladiators makes me sick to my stomach and I have ENDLESS respect for Spartacus who took on, almost single handedly, one of the greatest empires in the world and actually gave it a good old shake. Like all great stories, there are MANY adaptations to the cinema of this one too. The one I watched (and recommend) is actually Stanley Kubrick’s version. It is 188 minutes long (but so was the Godfather so don’t whine about it being too long!). Starring such immortal names as Laurence Olivier, Kirk Douglas (as Spartacus) and the stunning Jean Simmons it is a true epic that won 4 Oscars® (Best Supporting Actor, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costumes) for its trouble among other awards. The film basically stays true to the actual sequence of events, there are, however, literary flourishes (love interests, tear jerkers and the like) but they take nothing away either from the event or the greatness of the man…
It is a great story of a great man who stood up for his own rights and what actually IS right despite oppression and almost impossible odds. This demands respect. And as such a great master as Kubrick himself decided to cover it, it only seems fitting to watch this version… Any old representation just would not do…

A CLASSIC IN ITS OWN RIGHT : "CARLITO'S WAY"

Now, hand on heart, I was not a great fan of gangster flicks before. I liked adventure films, car chases and all that jazz as much as the next person, but I had no particular love of the genre… I have to say that this film actually changed my outlook on the matter. Carlito Brigante, the hero that gives the film its name is played by Al Pacino who is dazzling and charismatic even today (even today as in he is, at a stretch, old enough to be my grandfather and I still think he’s hot…). And Senor Brigante is one of the most charismatic mobsters I have ever seen (I mean the character as well as the actor!) So if you’re tempted to go “Brian De Palma and Al Pacino? Right, lots of gunfire and tough guys… Next…” Don’t. Give them a chance – you might actually surprise yourself…
Carlito Brigante (Al Pacino) is out of jail. He should have 25 more years to go but his lawyer (normally a coke-head who cares about very little except himself – played by Sean Penn) has actually got him out on a technicality just 5 years into his 30 year prison sentence. Carlito was an absolute king in the underworld in his time but he has changed. All he wants is to get back with Gail, the girl he had to leave when he went into jail (Penelope – Ann Miller), get some money together and go to the Bahamas to make a fresh start. A legal fresh start. However, in Carlito’s line of business retiring is not that easy. And Carlito still faithfully sticks to his old fashioned morals and “code” despite the changing times… Will his experience and genuine will to change be enough to pull him and Gail out of the underworld?
You know how some films set a precedent and then other films desperately run after in trying to catch the same effect? I don’t exactly mean sequels, although they come into it too… I mean one film that is successful with a certain theme that “gives birth” to loads of other films on the same theme… Take the gangster trying to redeem himself against the odds for instance. I remember talking about this in The Town. The theme is definitely not new, heck it was probably discovered back in the 50’s or 60’s when gangster flicks were more “in”. But if there is one film that carried the torch to modern times and kept it glowing to this day, it is Carlito’s Way. Another thing, what is it with Al Pacino and his ability to play gangsters we can sympathize with? Think about it, the Godfather series, Scarface and here Carlito Brigante… We are all normal citizens who would have nothing to do with the “mob” usually but in front of the TV, we somehow end up cheering for Carlito – in this case – or Tony Montana or Michael Corleone… Well I guess there is actually a different reason for this in each separate case; however, I think the reason in Carlito’s case is the fact we all hunger for a fresh start. Carlito, for all his sins, is easy to identify with; he has old fashioned values, he is charismatic and he genuinely hungers for a new life and a fresh start – the way we all do some times. Maybe we subconsciously associate the mobsters forever closing in on Carlito with the real world closing in on us and our dreams? I don’t know… Anyway, this film oozes the quality one would expect from a director like Brian De Palma and actors like Al Pacino and Sean Penn… And if you are a fan of gangsters redeeming themselves and that kind of film, don’t miss this one. Much better to watch the original instead of the copies it gave birth to, no?

LIFE IS FULL OF 'EM : "DANGEROUS LIAISONS"

Love… Even the laws of thermodynamics don’t come close to its level of complexity… Most of the time the “problem” is that this field is ruled mainly by emotions. Thus the reaction of the person before us is ruled by the heart and impossible to foresee. Not however, that I said “most of the time”. There are also many instances that ploys and techniques are used to “reach our end”. We seek to manipulate the heart. It usually ends us manipulating us in the end. And this, my dears, is “the game”, “ the dating scene”… This has been like this pretty much for all times; however it wasn’t always openly voiced. This is why, when back in late 18th century France the novel “Liasons Dangereuses” was published it was an absolute scandal. People talked about it, read it and although they seemed to very much disapprove it reached immortality and is known even today. You may not know it through the book itself, not necessarily, there is a famous play, adaptations galore… But out of all the adaptations to the big screen, perhaps none are so successful or famous as this one. John Malkovitch, Michelle Pfifer, Glenn Close and Uma Thurman join ranks with director Stephen Frears to bring this little scandal right to your living rooms…
The Marquise (Glenn Close) is a rich widow. She has the arts of ruling men down to a “t”. She can have anyone she wants and still keep her good name. Her closest associate is Valmont (John Malkovich) a known rake everybody is scandalized by but who everyone receives – in their houses and otherwise. One day, a dangerous bet springs up between the two allies. Valmont must seduce a young newlywed known for her honesty and piousness, not only that, but he most obtain written proof of his conquest. Success means a night with the Marquise. But then again, as I said, hearts are tricky. And in the case of Valmont they will come into play when he least expects it upsetting all his plans. Add to that the unfortunates who get swept up in the wake of the unprincipled couple and you have… Well…
This is a brilliant film to watch on many levels. So much so that I am rather disappointed the actors didn't get awards in that year's Oscars; Best Art Direction, Set Decoration and Writing is fine but it gives the impression its another good period drama. I reckon its more than that... Think about it... Glenn Close and John Malkovich’s acting. The cold calculated moves mixed with the emotion. And the story that could just as well be set in today’s society. (I think the story actually has been set in the 20th century in one of its’ adaptations – I watched a bit of it if I remember rightly, nowhere near as good… ) I mean the film is extraordinary to watch, if only just to think that this story was written not in our days and adapted to the supposed values of the 18th century but written actually in the 18th century (1792 to be precise) by people who actually had the said values… It just goes to show, some things really never change… And now, don’t you pretend to be scandalized by all of this. This no more or less than that soap opera you love so much – you know what I’m talking about, right? It’s just set in period costumes and with a very cunning plotline… A bit of emotion thrown in too… Go on… You know you want to…

"SPELLBOUND" BY MR. HITCHCOCK / ONCE AGAIN

This is once again a classic example of old Hollywood at its finest; Alfred Hitchcock at the helm, starring Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck. A psychological thriller on more than one level this one; not only is it a classic Hitchcock thriller, it is also set largely in and around the human mind with plenty of psychoanalysis thrown in. I am not a particular fan of psychoanalysis. I am, however, a particular fan of Mr. Hitchcock so I persevered. And boy am I glad I did…
Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is a star psychoanalyst in an asylum called Green Manor. She is young, brilliant and beautiful. The only problem is she steers well clear of all emotion. This stems from the (rather old fashioned and very sexist) belief that a woman in love operates on the lowest level of intellect. Her peaceful life at Green Manor is shaken to the core when the new head of the asylum; Dr. Anthony Edwards (Gregory Peck) arrives on the scene. He is a lot younger than everyone thought. He is charismatic and good looking. Ok, he has some strange mannerisms but that can be overlooked. Despite her own misgivings about women and emotion, Dr. Petersen is madly in love with him in a thrice. Her feelings are by o means one sided… But even though their love is strong, there is something decidedly wrong with Dr. Edwards. As his outbursts and fainting fits get more and more frequent, Dr Petersen is faced with a rather strange question: Who exactly is this man she has fallen in love with?
If you checked in last week, you will have read my opinions on Notorious, another brilliant Hitchcock film, well my opinions stand for this one as well. I mean, Mr. Hitchcock went as far as asking the great Salvador Dali to design the dream sequences in the film. Now THAT is what I call not cutting corners. The plot is complicated and very intelligent as usual. And another thing I love about these old movies is they do not take the audience for fools. It was the same in War and Peace. One assumed you knew the rudiments of European History; no idiotic babble explaining the background for “those who missed it”. Here the same. The film does not have a scene where a professor is lecturing first year students for instance. No. The director feels that a brief introduction to the concept of psychoanalysis is necessary, so, he puts a brief definition of it, in writing, on the screen for a few moments. The audience reads, grasps the definition and carries on. Freud, dream analysis and guilt complexes hurtling at you left and right. You are assumed to have the capacity to follow all that. It’s not scientific at all, but as I said in Notorious, it’s just a good quality thriller. A thriller with quality. And perfect for those of us who do not want to watch monsters and 3D precipices for a thrill but prefer to use our intellects. Elitist? No. I loved Avatar, I just ADORED it. I would have gone again if I could afford the hiked ticket prices (hiked for 3D purposes you know). I just think that this should NOT be the only sort of adventure around. We are forgetting to use our heads as we watch films and that is very sad indeed… Well at least the film was given its due in Oscar nominations in its time (Best Picture, Best Cinematography, Best Effects, Best Director and Best Actor in a Supporting Role - it ended up only winning Best Music, very unfair in my view...
As I watched this film, I was thinking something else… Oh heck who am I kidding; I wasn’t thinking at all, I was positively drooling over Gregory Peck. Now HE was a stunner – that’s my view anyway. But the cinema business is funny like that isn’t it? One craves intelligent, quality entertainment but even old fashioned Hollywood at its best would not be Hollywood without Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck and all those who came both before and after; looking dashing or beautiful, making us drool or get quite hot and bothered… Well well, that’s the nature of the beast. I mean, both human beings and show business, naturally =)

A TRIBUTE TO THE HUMAN SPIRIT : "THE ELEPHANT MAN"

As you can imagine, directors are a pretty big thing for me when selecting films. And like all human beings, I have the ones I like and the ones I don’t like so much… Now, David Lynch I respect. Yes, I may have avoided him thus far but I do respect him. Lynch is one of those guys you know, you either like him or hate him. I err… Well, not to sound too sided I don’t exactly like him… Ehm… I bought this film never the less… The 8 Oscar ® nominations and the César Award encouraged me as did the presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins and the true and tragic story the film was based on… (Mind you Oscars® and awards don’t necessarily guarantee viewer happiness, look at Mulholland Drive – from my point of view I mean :S ) God, I’m on a rambler this evening, OK, The Elephant Man.
Now, The Elephant Man is the true story of a young man named John Merrick. He lived in Victorian England. He was intelligent and sensitive; however, he was most terribly deformed. His deformations were of such an extent that the only way he could make his living was in a carnival freak show – as one of the “freaks”. Not that he made his own living either; his “minder” was a man named Bytes who assumed Merrick was an idiot (because he never spoke). Merrick’s life was changed when an ambitious young surgeon named Frederick Treves (a dashing young Anthony Hopkins) visited the carnival. He convinced Bytes to “lend” Merrick to him for a symposium. He succeeded and made quite a name for himself in the process. But, despite all his initial doubts and prejudices he grew fond of John. Even further, he befriended him when he realized John could both speak and understand. As you can imagine; this changed Merrick’s life forever…
This film is not a happy one because the true story of John Merrick’s short life was not a happy one either… Well, except at the end of course. This, by the way is not a typical “Lynchism” with weird subconscious – dream sequences… I mean there are a few thrown in but nothing that doesn’t wash down with the rest of the story. No, this is your typical “film” film (in case you’re confused I mean that as a compliment). Seriously though, it just served to show me and the likes of me, that if David Lynch is known for his more err… “confusing” films it is by no means for lack of skill or lack of comprehension of the cinema as a medium. Oh no. I cried buckets all through the film that tells a touching story very skillfully (when I say buckets I mean buckets by the way, I was so upset I actually ran out of the room howling “I can’t take it” at one point) and with great composure. It is a Victorian “film noir” if you will. Shot in black and white for ambiance (and it makes a good pun too, no? film noir, black and white… Oh never mind…) this is a must see on many levels.
And one of them is a tribute to Mr. Merrick. Mr. Merrick to whom mundane tasks such as sleeping (his head was so large if he lay down to sleep he would break his neck; he had to sleep sitting up) or walking down the street (apart from the fact that people who saw him ran screaming his spine was deformed, making walking painful and difficult) were at times extreme challenges. Remember your office job you hate? Mr. Merrick had to work at a freak show as an exhibit (I will officially be very angry if anyone makes jokes about this in front of me from now on). Have to have a boring conversation with a colleague or a relative? Until the age of 21 Mr. Merrick (whose mouth was deformed making speech very difficult to start with) was assumed to be an imbecile and didn’t have a single conversation in his life. And yet, despite all this, he was gentle, sensitive, loved the theatre, rejoiced like a child at the idea of having friends… Puts our mundane little problems in perspective, no? Personally, I doubt I could have been as gentle and as good a person as him if I had his problems…Watch and cry my dears. And repeat, whenever you feel you have the world on your shoulders…

A FILM PERTAINING TO THE FACT THAT MOST THINGS THAT MATTER IN LIFE HAVE NO AGE : "LEON"

Well, what a film this turned out to be, eh? I defy anyone to watch this film and not be moved, even the most ardent “anti-French cinema” supporter among you… Luc Besson, Jean Reno and what a debut for Nathalie Portman, eh? It’s very strange to watch the film today, knowing what this film led to, what she became… Now, this is not a film for the faint hearted. I mean, it is violent but not gory, that is not my problem… But some people (my Mom for instance) cannot “take it” when children are involved and sadly (because it’s truly a great film) she may not be able to take it… Just so as you know… Heads up…
Mathilda (Nathalie Portman) is a 12 year old, living in New York. She has a pretty average life living with her father (who stores drugs for various shady characters around the house) her step sister, step mother and kid brother. She lives across the landing from Leon (Jean Reno) a quiet guy who keeps to himself and just happens to be one of the best and most ruthless hired killers in town. Not that any of his neighbors know this, they just know he’s a weird guy who drinks a lot of milk… Anyway, one day, one of Mathilda’s dad’s deals goes south. The entire family, minus Mathilda herself, is slaughtered. Mathilda takes refuge in Leon’s apartment. But once she figures out what her new friend actually does for a living, she isn’t scared. Quite the contrary: She wants to learn how to be a killer. She wants revenge – and she wants to get it herself…
Leon is just one of those films where… Well, one of those films where you are asked your opinion on the film and there is so much to say, so much emotion involved, you just don’t know what to say or where to start… The main theme of the film is love. Not necessarily romantic love; but that comes into it too (don’t cringe there is NOTHING err… “worrying” going on between Mathilda and Leon – their love is a lot purer than that). No, it’s about the basic need we all have to be loved really. And what we are prepared to do once / if we find that love. Love of a family, a lover, a sister, a brother, a child… Two runaways, two lonely creatures united in their need to belong, even though Leon, like most grownups, has great difficulty admitting this need. It is about growing up, getting older and the difference between the two…
But the trick is to see beyond the age difference between Leon and Mathilda. A lot of people did of course, but as I said, it could be tricky. The thing to remember is that souls are in fact very different from bodies and you can easily have a 12 year old whose soul is much older or a grownup who is barely twelve in some respects… You will be thinking about this and a lot more as you watch the film…
It is also a brilliant reminder as to why exactly Jean Reno seems to turn up in about half the French films that make it worldwide (I say half because the other half usually contains Gerard Depardieu. Not that I have anything against either actor but it’s a funny coincidence, no?). Brilliant acting in a tough part. And you wouldn’t expect it to be tough would you? The silent hit man that keeps to himself… NOT that simple… Not that simple at all… And what about the pint-sized Nathalie Portman? I admire her greatly but having seen her in a few more things I genuinely think she has yet to do anything better… She is so brilliant as Mathilda; not quite an adult but definitely not 12 anymore either…
In short, you would have to have a heart of stone not be touched by it…

NOTORIOUS - IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE

There are some things in life that you can pretty much guess most people will like. I mean, there are exceptions but some things, as far as the human condition goes, is a generalized like or dislike. Chocolate for instance. Now, a small number of women actually dislike chocolate (no, really, Mom for instance). However generally, women like chocolate. Or waking up with an alarm clock. I’m guessing pretty much most people hate this, then again there’s no accounting for taste of course… In circles of cinema, take Alfred Hitchcock. Again, to each his own but I reckon most of us like Hitchcock, no? His are truly good quality thrillers (or comedies – yes there are some, “There’s Something About Harry” for instance), usually starring classic actors, good solid story lines and an atmosphere you can cut with a spoon. Notorious is no different. Starring film legends Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in addition to the already legendary Hitchcock, I mean be honest, what more COULD you want from a Saturday night thriller…
Florida, 1946. Alicia Huberman(Ingrid Bergman) is the daughter of a Nazi. Her father has been tried for treason and charged. They are estranged for she loves the United States of which they are both citizens. But her father has associates and friends – now living in Brazil. The police know they are “up to something” but they are not quite sure what. They also think Alicia might be “convinced” to help them. Alicia becomes convinced and more when she meets her contact in the secret services - Mr. Devlin(Carey Grant). They click right away; but there is a problem. Devlin is a decent, upstanding chap, whereas Alicia has a “reputation”. She drinks too much and she flirts too much. She claims love has changed her and swears her loyalty to Devlin but before long his faith is tested severely. Alicia’s “job” is to “get close” to Alexander Sebastian, a prominent German businessman who is in the center of the secret proceedings. She succeeds; however, her success in this area means losing Devlin who she truly loves. Unfortunately, the place her heart lies barely comes into it; if the Nazi group finds out she is spying on them it may well cost her her life… Will Devlin and Alicia’s love stand these trials? And more importantly, will Alicia come out of the whole affair alive?
Well, in the hands of the master the most glamorous party turns into a nail – biter, the most dashing gent may well be a murderer and an innocent damsel a wily little so and so ready to ruin you… So it is with Notorious. This classy 40’s flick is old fashioned Hollywood at its finest. Adventure, baddies dashing, brave /beautiful hero(ine)s… A seemingly doomed love affair that may cost the lovers their lives… You know what I’m on about. This is why I like watching old black and white movies you see. You actually get to watch an adventure film or a thriller. You know what I mean, look at modern films; I mean adventure films these days are nothing more than a very skimpy excuse to show off the latest 3D / HD technology. Thrillers? CGI, monsters, plenty of gore. Special effects and Makeup Oscars ® all round. All this is well and good and of course in cinema today we need a bit of that as well but what happened to the film itself? You know what I mean, the thing you’re left with when you strip away the special effects. There has to be substance in that as well, and I don’t necessarily mean in “art movies” or “psychological dramas”. No, thrillers should have class as well… Otherwise, in some cases anyway, the “film” is nothing more than an insult to one’s intelligence. And I don’t give a flying foxglove how old that makes me sound…

A CLASSIC THAT NEEDS NO INTRODUCTION..."WAR AND PEACE"

OK, I hear you. Yes, there is (or should be) a limit to the phenomenon of watching the movie rather than reading the book… I hear you and understand, but I do not agree, not in this case. First, there is the practicality of it (don’t cringe, I’m a pretty average representation of the modern generation and I do NOT read as much as I should and I’m pretty sure you don’t either!). So come on, hands on hearts, it’s only us here: How many of you have actually read War and Peace? (The full four-volumes; not the abridged version.) Ok, how many of you actually got through it to the end? I thought not. I have never read it either. The second thing is, the film in question is not any old film. There are just about eight million re-makes of this one so let’s just specify; this is the 1968 film directed by Russian director Sergei Bondarchuk. Now, I can also guess your first criticism : “Essie, there you are mouthing off about the book being four-volumes long, that will NOT fit into a film, even you will agree.” Well you are right of course, but you see, this film is 405 minutes long. So actually, it’s more of a “mini-series” than a film. It’s pretty easy to watch as well, I mean it’s divided into “films” as the book is divided into “sections”. (My edition is three DVDs long, the first DVD was one film two hours long, ending at a good stopping place, making it easy to pick up later). Then there is the film itself. Despite its enormous length, this film won the Oscar® for Best Foreign Film in 1968. I was rather surprised to read this on the cover when I first got the film but by the end of the first DVD, I could see why…
Ok, so the story. Good God, where to begin? The story spans the lives of a multitude of characters in the Russian aristocracy of the 19th century. Over a seven year period we follow their lives and loves and wars… Yes, for between these dates (as some of you may know) Russia was involved in two great wars, both with the same foe : Napoleon Bonaparte… Through the multitude of characters we discuss many different topics, from the academics who “know nothing of real life” to the old aristocracy, ready to dive in swords drawn to defend Mother Russia…
Now, there is one major difficulty about watching this film. First of all, don’t make the mistake I did. Don’t try and watch it all at once. The “film” is divided into four films (four books, remember?) for a reason. I, having a lot of free time on my hands, watched three of them in a single day. Big mistake. You see, since the story is so long you just glaze over and cannot get “involved” after a while. Which is a shame – or possibly not – because the war scenes are among the most lifelike I have ever seen, i.e. absolutely horrendous. And of course there is a lot both in the story and in the film to underline the “anti-war” nature of the film. One by one they may have been more effective. Watched in bulk like I did, well… As I said, I was glazed over… On a slightly more technical note, in the 1960’s, before CGI, I absolutely shudder to think how those scenes with THOUSANDS of people were organized… Brr…
Speaking of technicalities though, within minutes of starting the film, I was bowled over sideways by the director’s use of the camera and the editing. The quality is above and beyond ANYTHING I have watched in a very long time. (This kind of mastery just fills me with the despair of knowing that I will never be this good even if I do get to make my own films one day… Ooops did I let that one slip? J ) . Just the way we pass from one scene to another, from one sequence to another is breath-taking, intelligent and in some cases deeply moving (and yes, editing CAN be deeply moving and you will see what I mean if you watch this film!). Then there is the majesty of the film itself… No expense was spared to finish this film so much so that when the budget is converted to today’s currency it ranks as the most expensive film in all of history. For the war scenes alone, 1,200 people were used to form an actual army – that should give you some idea as to the grandeur of the film. The length is no matter, the story is so strong and the representation of it so masterful that you are swept away into the story before you can know it…
There are, of course some little “kinks” stemming from the fact that this is a 60’s film… First of all, I sincerely doubt dubbing is widely available for this one so you will have to watch it in Russian. (My Mother who is among the first to throw up her hands in dismay at the idea of a film in a “foreign language” did the same for this one. I explained that the sheer number of people it would take – ever read a Tolstoy novel? – and the length of time would send the costs soaring). Then there is the fact that the director assumes a certain level of general knowledge. Now I’m not being snooty, that in fact is the whole point; I didn’t have the said knowledge either! Of course, in the 60’s the cinema was not a “pass-time” but quite an intellectual undertaking, so you were supposed to either have read the book or at least be familiar with the particulars of the Franco-Prussian war of 1805. If you were not, you were pretty much left guessing (or alternately stopping the DVD and grilling your mother /laptop/smart phone on historical and literary details; much to the annoyance of my Mother who was already disgruntled at having the TV hijacked by a Russian film I might add). I mean, you are given a vague outline but no helpful introductory “in case you hadn’t noticed” dialogue you tend to find in U.S. movies or at the ends of crime dramas. What dialogue there is, I have already explained, is in Russian. So, if you don’t speak Russian, you are left to the mercy of the subtitler, your wits, imagination, internet connection or your Mothers’ (insert any helpful and available relative) patience. This, bizarrely enough, does not put you off though. I know it should logically, but it doesn’t. The film is just so well done that you WANT to find out. You are swept up in the film, you sympathize with the characters and want to find out what the heck is happening to them… So you get a dollop of general culture, almost read one of the world’s literary classics AND watch a brilliant movie / miniseries all in one. If that isn’t a bargain I honestly don’t know what is…
P.S. If you ever get your hands on this edition (and I sincerely hope you do) for my personal favorite look out for Natasha and Prince Andrei’s waltz – and the “aftermath”. One of the best filmed love scenes I have EVER seen…

"TENDER IS THE NIGHT" BUT ALAS SHE IS CRUEL AS WELL...

There is something about this one. No, really. It has taken me SO long to both read the book and write the review that I was actually beginning to believe (yes, I am superstitious) that it really was never meant to be. Not that there is anything wrong with the book. Quite the opposite in fact, I will go as far as saying that it is writers like Fitzgerald that remind me why literature and writing are art-forms. But it is true that I read less these days. I guess it’s the day job, one gets tired and distracted at work you know, you have very little energy left to actually “concentrate” on anything, much less a serious novel like Tender Is The Nıght… And I mean, you actually want to concentrate on those things not skim through them with your eyes half closed before you go to bed. Time management, that’s what it all comes down to; time management and the rigors of modern living. That, however, I will gripe about in another entry…
Tender is the Night is the story of the Divers. Dick and Nicole Diver are social butterflies, perfect couple, perfect host and hostess with the perfect children. They are universally loved, admired and envied by all who know them and lead an enjoyable and uneventful existence… That is until one summer on the French Riviera, Rosemary bursts into their lives. Rosemary is a young starlet, guided carefully by her mother through both life and Hollywood. However there is one thing mothers cannot guide and that is love. And Rosemary falls for Dick, on the spot. The trouble is, he falls for her as well… Now, a married man having an affair may not exactly be the end of the world in most cases. However, Dick and Nicole have a secret. And this may actually be the end of a world if not the world…
Now some of you may have guessed this is a semi-autobiographical story… Scott F. Fitzgerald’s wife Zelda suffered from the same sort of problem as Nicole (though I sincerely doubt they were for the same reasons). Neither do I know whether Mr. Fitzgerald ever had an affair. However, the way the Diver’s relationship is played out, the sentiments portrayed and the reactions are deeply realistic and easy to identify with. Perhaps it is because they are so close to the truth… Or have their roots in the truth…
The thing I love about Fitzgerald is his style. Now I didn’t feel this so much in The Great Gatsby, but in this novel, I was somehow so struck by the way Fitzgerald said something I quite forgot to concentrate on the content… It’s hard to explain and it hasn’t happened to me very often either, I guess it’s like being so struck by the colors or brushwork in a painting you don’t really notice the subject. Not that the subject is not well chosen, oh Lord no. Indeed, sometimes it was the twists in the story or even some consideration thrown in as an afterthought that made me put down my book and drift off into a reverie…
Tender is the night is like a beautiful, sad dream. No other way to describe it. Never have I seen so much substance packed into such a tiny book… It won’t go down in a gulp… But, hey, in these overly fast times we do a little too much gulping for my liking… Who knows, you might enjoy a good ponder, give it a go…