AND WHAT DO WE HAVE ON THE MENU THIS WEEK?

Hi folks!

Well, I am just back from a short vacation (but I'm a good little writer so none of you noticed) and I am snowed under with various chores but naturally the cinema remains my first priority, hence here I am once more to voice my opinions on various things I have watched...

What do we have this week? Well, a short-ish and quirky little gem from South America about loving life and films to start with. We also have the debut work of a 20 year-old writer - actor - director. Don't look down your nose at it, it shook me to the core, there's something really big waiting happen with that young man. And last of all, for those of you (like my dear Mom) of more ehm... Conservative tastes, a classical period piece.

No, it's not messy. It's a rich open buffet where anyone can take their pick :)

So scroll right down and enjoy!
Essie

WHO SAID YOUTH SUFFERS IN SILENCE? : I KILLED MY MOTHER

I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. I do not approve of people directing movies then starring the lead in them. There are some exceptions to the rule, but it generally doesn’t work. This film, however, is an exception. Written and directed by 20 year old Xavier Dolan from Quebec, Canada – who also plays the lead – I’ve killed my mother took the Cannes film festival by storm last year… One can’t help but see why. Now, the film is very, VERY far from being easy to watch on a lot of counts. But if you can stomach it to the end, you will have to admire it’s honesty in the way it undertakes its chosen subject. It is, incidentally something we all know a bit about. Basically, it’s about being a teenager.
Hubert is 16 years old. And he hates his mother. His parents are divorced, Hubert lives with his mother and sees very little of his father. School is OK but boring as a general rule. The one truly good thing in his life is his boyfriend Antonin, whom his mother knows absolutely nothing about. Hubert looks around, he analyses and observes. He even tries to take a few steps towards his mother, to get their relationship back to what it used to be when he was young. But they just can’t seem to manage what Antonin and his mother – who are the best of friends – have done. No matter what they try, they seem to descend into bitter shouting matches; will Hubert and his mother push each other too far? Or is there actually some hidden way of reconciliation that the two of them can’t seem to see?
Now, we have all been teenagers. And I’m ready to swear that about % 80 of us have had screaming matches with our parents. Watching Hubert and his mother lay into each other at the smallest provocation is sometimes painful to watch but this is probably because it hits so close to home. Surely remember that period in your life when your Mom and Dad couldn’t do a thing right? They had their noses in everything, they didn’t understand, they limited you, they hated your friends, you hated your parents – or at least that’s what you told them loudly at every possible opportunity. Hubert takes out every single growing pain he has out on the only parent he has in his life : his mother. His mother on the other hand has a tough time taking care of the house and her sick mother and sometimes Hubert is just unbearable. So there is a lot of yelling and not much communication, Hubert, who by the way, has no problem at all about his sexuality, doesn’t even tell his mother that he is gay… And yet… If we say that blood is thicker than water there is a reason for saying that… All through the hate Hubert all but screams from the roof tops, there is a palpable love between mother and son. The affection is always there, they evidently do care about each other very much, they just… Can’t find the way to express this affection. So what’s the way forward? Time? An intervention from Hubert’s father? Talking to Hubert’s school teacher? Sending Hubert to boarding school? You will just have to watch the film and figure it out together with them…

DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE NAME : HOUSE OF MIRTH

One of my aims in this year’s festival was to introduce my mother to the concept of festivals and to make sure she got a taste for them. We tried out one film, again a classic that I will possibly write out later but in fact maybe not, but it was a disaster. A little too “artistic” for well… Anyone’s taste, even mine. I mean I appreciated it but didn’t like it if you see what I mean… So anyway, this was “take two” in that area. An adaptation from a novel, a period piece, I was pretty confident this time round would be a success. It was, in that Mom loved it, however I wish someone had told me Edith Wharton’s books (this one at any rate) were so damn gloomy. I felt quite shell-shocked on exit. I mean, I see that it had to be that way, it was meant as a social critique after all, but still…
We are in the year 1905, in New York. “Society” lives on in pretty much the same way as it does now, and there are the hubs and then those on the outskirts. One of the inhabitants of the outskirts is Lilly Bart. She is a “member” but an unfortunate one; she is an orphan, has a small income of her own but is heavily dependent on her maiden aunt whose attentions she shares with another cousin Grace. To obtain independence, those days being what they were, Lilly must marry and as soon as possible, things are not as simple as they seem however. Quite apart from the fact that she has made a bit of a name for herself as a “man hunter”, and the fact that she has rather large gambling depts, she has a very real but very complicated liaison (one can barely call it an affair even by the standards of those days) with up and coming (but not wealthy) lawyer Lawrence Seldon. We arrive as spectators at a critical time in her life: when she must sink or swim, and every decision may actually be one of life and death… Will she be able to make the right choices though?
The book – and thus the film – is a stinging critique of American “high society” at the turn of the century. Of course in actual fact, the morals were no tighter than they are today, affairs were carried on whether you were married or not but you had to know how to keep up appearances. If you were “caught out” as it were, your name was stained forever, and getting back “in” with the friends of yore was very tough. This condition affected your entire future as once you were “out”, those who wanted to get “in” had to cut all ties from you too for fear they would be “tainted” with your stain… Add to this the condition of Lilly, this is the turn of the century, women were not well educated and could not expect to get good jobs, by this I mean jobs that would ensure a living and independence, so “connections” are everything… Life, social life, love live, all is reduced to walking a maze of very confusing tightropes and one false step will send you plummeting in to the abyss. When it is such a false and harsh society that we are criticizing, you can imagine that the story of Lilly is not a happy one…
And I am sorry to say that some of the values of the day still seem to be valid today. True, women are educated and can gain their independence, get jobs easily; for a woman like Lilly, yes there would be a fall but the fall wouldn’t be as great as it is in the story… But still the “high society” survives, the rules of entry are still strict, and the morals, though looser, still imperatives… Rather sad to think about it for any length of time, but human nature I suppose…

SHORT YET VERY, VERY SWEET : LA VIDA UTIL

We are still in the realm of festival films but you may be amused to find out that I kinda watched this one by mistake. The first day the tickets for the festival go on sale is always hectic, and four hours into the frenzy when I finally reached the little stands at which the tickets were being sold both I and the saleslady were so frazzled that one of us mistook the time of the séance I wanted and I ended up with a ticket for this film instead. I didn’t notice the mistake until later; it was actually supposed to be a ticket for Vive L’amour (and as you can see I later acquired a ticket for that too). Well, there was the ticket, I had the time, I had no idea what the film was about but I thought “what the heck”. The film is just over an hour long so just the right length just on the heels of Vive L’amour (I know, I do take this film thing a bit far sometimes), and despite my slightly fried brain at that moment, I thoroughly enjoyed the film…. Here’s what it’s about.
Jorge leads a quiet and useful life. For 25 years now he has worked in the Uruguay Film archives, and he loves it. Messing around with films, doing the dubbing, organizing the screenings, and presenting the archive’s radio program all have been parts of his life for 25 long years. And the archive seems not only to be an archive of films but also an archive of people as well, most of his colleagues have been working there for similar lengths of time, everyone and in fact the archive itself is part of the fixtures of life. And they like it that way. Their patrons however, think slightly otherwise. And most importantly, they think that although it may be a fixture, it’s turning into a rather expensive fixture. So when the big companies decide to stop helping the archive (in the monetary sense), the archive has no other choice but to close down… This rocks everyone’s world and not in the good sense either… Jorge, who has never done anything else and who in fact still lives with his parents, must now set about discovering the real world. Luckily however, he has the motivation to do so in the shape of Paola, a teacher and “friend”…
This film encompasses for me one of the main reasons I am so enchanted with South America. I have never been there but the artwork I have seen always contains a reminder of “the bright side”. Leaving the past behind and going out into a world you do not know can be a terrifying thing, and films I have written about in previous updates such as Norwegian Wood and Attenberg speak precisely of this side. A Useful Life doesn’t ignore the fact that this is a difficult and sad moment. On his way out of work for the last time, Jorge has tears in his eyes – much to the surprise of other passengers on the bus. He doesn’t give in however. In fact he charges forward (you will understand which scene I mean if you watch it, please take note of the soundtrack, one of the nicest little touches I have witnessed for a long time!) to take life head on. He may not be entirely ready or equipped to cope as yet, but he is going to do his utter best, woe betide anyone who stops him. I find it refreshing to see films with such positive messages. You may have hardships and find the world to be, well, far from what you consider ideal (and Jorge makes these feelings of his perfectly clear to us!) but the best thing to do is carry on and do your best to turn the whole thing around. This one got a special mention in the San Sebastian film festival and in fact was Uruguay’s Oscar® nominee. I can see why, a real little gem.

MIXED BAG : WHAT DO WE HAVE THIS WEEK?

Hello all!

I decided that this week we'd have a good, old fashioned mixed bag for a change. Feels like we haven't had one in ages... But if you really push it you could sort of see a theme emmerging here as well... Life, examination of life, art imitating life and life imitating art... All these kinda come into the mix. I could go on and on about it but I'm rather afraid I'd bore you to death...
So, for those who want to step outside the "West", we have "The Mirror" by Iranian director Jafar Panahi, for those who want to stay in the "West", the Oscar winning, thought - provoking and slightly disturbing "Mephisto" and for those who are in fact ever so slightly sick of films and would like to chew on something "real", we even have a documentary - The Two Escobars!

I hope you enjoy this week's selection... Happy viewing all of you!
Essie

"THE MIRROR" FROM ART - TO LOOK AT LIFE IN...

Now, being able to watch this film was a truly unique opportunity for me – for a lot of people in fact. It’s director is Iranian Cafar Panahi, who is now imprisoned in Iran for anti-regime propaganda. And the film is well… A masterpiece from beginning to end. Now you may recall that I have told you, often enough, that I love a good surprise in a movie. Turning the whole thing on its head at the last minute, unexpected turns in the story or the genre that kind of thing. Fancy a film that turns into another film mid-way? And makes sense? Ok, that sounds as if it makes very little sense in itself, but trust me, Panahi has other ideas.
First of all, meet Mina. She is a typical first grade student, and the school day having just ended, she comes out of school, looking around for her mother who usually takes her home. She has to be very careful too, her arm is in a fresh cast… However, today seems to be unlike most days – her mother isn’t there. Mina waits and waits but no sign of her mother. She tries to call the house - no answer. Her schoolmistress notices her and somehow gets her onto a bus, but when Mina gets to the last stop she realizes that she has taken the wrong bus. Scared and confused, Mina turns to the camera and shouts “I don’t want to be in this film anymore!” rips the cast off her arm and runs off set under the flabbergasted gaze of the crew and other cast members… No matter what anyone says or does, Mina cannot be persuaded, she will NOT be in the film any more. She just wants to go home – on her own. It’s at this point that Cafar Panahi is struck with an idea. Noticing the little girl still has a microphone attached, he says “Fine, let her go off home.” So Mina sets off, and the crew piles into the van to follow her. So, while we were watching a film about a little girl trying to find her way home, we are now watching a REAL little girl, REALLY trying to find her way home… Clever, no?
Now, I hasten to add, you would have to be pretty damn naïve to actually BELIEVE the second half of the film is “real”. No, of course not. Some of the beautiful, clever little touches – and the sheer profusion of said touches – go to prove beyond any doubt that the whole thing is contrived. However, clever idea no? It goes back to the old discussion; life mirroring art or art mirroring life? In any case, we are presented with both sides, so to speak, up to you to decide who mirrors who.
And both films (I have to call them that with such different genres) are so successful… They just show two very different perspectives on the same subject matter. A work-shop, a demonstration so to speak on how a director’s point of view can change how a topic is handled. The first film is a sensitive portrait of Iran at the time, day to day life and the problems of the people. Well, in fact so is the second one but in the second film, so many gimmicks are possible with the various techniques, and so many sensitive little touches are present that I prefer it infinitely to the first half. Although of course, the combination of the two halves is the best of all…
I just want to finish this post by saying that I hope we are able to see more works from Mr. Panahi in the future. It will be a great loss for cinema all around the world if he is not allowed to work again….

"MEPHISTO" : ART TURNS THE MIRROR ON ITSELF

We all love it when art turns its eyes in on itself, right? I mean, maybe not all of us, but a lot of us do. I think it’s a part of being enthralled by showbiz, enjoying it so much. Much like a child taking apart its favorite toy to see how it works, I LOVE everything “behind the scenes” from theories and ideologies of scripts to the smallest screws on the camera’s tripod. I think this is the case for a lot of cinema lovers to a greater or lesser degree. And the kind of film / book / whatever that shows the “dark” side of showbiz, how catty people can become and how “bloody” – metaphorically of course but sometimes physically – the struggle for the limelight can become. If not our curiosity, it’s our instinct to gossip… Such a film is Istvan Szabo’s film Mephisto, though of course it takes place in the ‘30s, so the actors are not those of the cinema but the theatre, but still, the principal is the same.
Meet Hendrick Höffgen. He is an actor in Hamburg in the late ‘20s, and a reasonably good one if not the best. His ambition, however, outstrips that of all of his colleagues. He dabbles with left-wing views, does his best to score the part, has a colorful love-life with his negro mistress Juliette, in short all seems well in his life. It is not enough however. Höffgen marries, enabling a move from Hamburg to Berlin and to a more prestigious theatre through his father in law’s contacts. He truly seems to be in his element when the world is turned on it head. 1933 comes, and the Nazis come to power. A lot of Höffgen’s colleagues sense there are bad things afoot and leave the country, Höffgen has ample opportunity to do the same, but then… Well he has a few contacts left in Berlin. What if he could use them to get friends in even higher places? What if this change of regime means not a halt but a faster rise to even higher places? Höffgen is willing to take the chance… But how high – and how far – is he prepared to go?
I loved this film for two reasons. First of all it is a WW2 film with a different perspective. We all know about the horrors committed in concentration camps, and we are all disgusted with everyone who stayed, supported the regime, carried on drinking and dancing as if nothing was happening. But we shouldn’t be so disgusted that we cannot even look at them. These people merit a close look, closer than some in fact, appearances can be deceiving.
And the picture Höffgen paints is particularly fascinating. If there is one word to describe him, it is naked ambition, if he sees a way that will take him forward; he will take on the role (on stage or off) and charge on ahead. If you ask him openly, his actions are almost always somehow justifiable. It is, I also feel, a very good metaphor for the “careerists” of today, in today’s capitalist system; you know the type, doing anything, making and breaking friends, using connections to get to the top, putting a different spin on the same words depending on who they’re talking to, you know the type… I am not saying that they are as bad as people collaborating with Nazis of course but watching Höffgen, you will see a lot of things that strike you as familiar, especially if you have worked in the private sector. In short, a fascinating film on human psychology, still strangely relevant at any time and with anyone who is principally led by ambition.

FOOTBALL, CRIME AND "THE TWO ESCOBARS"

So, I keep banging on about true stories but let’s face it, there is a painfully small number of documentaries actually featured on this blog. Why? Honestly, it’s because my archive doesn’t contain enough of them. The said festival (yes, as I adored every single film I went to; you will be reading about my antics here for a while, he he =) ) contained a documentary section too, but there were so many classics and old masters I wanted to look into, by the time I had my festival program ready there was very, VERY little “free space” left for the documentaries. There were a lot of good ones, but this one stood out for me – and it was the only one I actually managed to squeeze into my schedule.
Now, when I told my aunt about this one later, I started off by saying “Well, it’s a film about the drug cartels and their connections with football in Columbia in the ‘80s and ‘90s. My aunt burst out laughing and wondered out loud what on earth I could have seen in it. I thus started explaining, loudly, on my mobile, in the middle of the street and I can’t help thinking back and realizing I must have looked kinda ridiculous… But here is what I said…
Now, Columbia as you know is not one of the richest countries in the world. It is, however, famous for other things. Cocaine. Drug trafficking. Violence. But at one time, not so long ago, they were also famous for football… It was a short period and the Columbia national team shone briefly but was never seen again. Among them was young Andres Escobar, a star player. He had absolutely nothing to do with Pablo Escobar though. That is to say, they were not related or anything. At the time however, drug cartels and football were pretty well linked… Think about it, football, ticket sales etc are a wonderful way to launder money. The documentary informs us that the drug barons of Columbia noticed this, and united this interest with their true love, nay passion for football – especially in the case of Pablo Escobar – to become closely involved with the teams of their country. True this meant that the teams were into money laundering up to their eyeballs but it also meant that the clubs had money… To pay their star players high salaries, to hire foreign coaches, get equipment. Raw talent in Columbia was plentiful, and with the influx of money, Columbian football began to shine… Unfortunately, this golden period was soon to end…
This is a fascinating documentary about a corner of the world and various topics you wouldn’t necessarily have thought of if not pushed. I am not a football fan, nor am I particularly interested in drug cartels, but it was still fascinating to watch. It also gives one a very realistic image of why football is such a big deal in developing countries. Countries were life is tough. You need something positive, the normal people all need something positive to build their identity on. They need to hear good news, rejoice at something. This is why football is such a big deal… 90 minutes to forget your life and race towards victory and glory… Sad, thought provoking, definitely worth finding and watching…

THEME OF THE WEEK : ASIAN PROMISE

Well hello there!

I hope you had a good week! I myself am immersed in films as ever, and I reckon that this week we should take a gander at one of the "types" of cinema that is most "a la mode" in art circles : Asian cinema.

Now it's well and good to lump everything on the continent together as "Asian" but of course there are vast differences between countries and styles and this is precisely what I am trying to reflect in my update this week... So, we have a true crime story of Korea's first serial killer, a minimalist masterpiece from Taiwan and a sad and original love story from Japan... I hope you enjoy...

all the best and happy viewing!
Essie

FROM JAPAN : NORWEGIAN WOOD

So, I reckon we’ve covered pretty good distance as far as representing Asian art goes, Korea, Taiwan, murder mysteries (well, sort of) and deep art films. I seriously doubt I could get away with skipping Japan in this context though. What I seem to have achieved is, however, a double whammy. Not only do I get to present you with a rather beautiful and sensitive piece of Japanese cinema but also get to talk about one of my favorite Japanese novelists, nay one of my favorite novelists ever, Haruki Murakami. It is his novel Norwegian Wood that has been adapted to the big screen for our pleasure. Now, in the q & a session later on people enquired of director Tran Anh Hung “Why this book? It’s so unlike any of his other works, and not nearly as “visual” as them?” The director’s answer was simple : It was the first Murakami he had read. He had loved the book and decided not to read any other novels by the writer until later so as not to spoil the emotions he felt and wanted to convey with the film. I think this contains a beautiful lesson, not a lot of Murakami fans like Norwegian Wood (I was sort of so-so about it), mainly because it doesn’t match the “wild” imaginings and symbolism of his other novels. The lesson is that one should try and compare as little as possible, especially when it comes to art. If you start categorizing like that, you will miss the content of the artwork in hand, and although it doesn’t seem so from your biased standing, you might actually be missing one heck of a lot. Luckily, Tran Anh Hung, invites us to stop and ponder this story for a moment, and I for one am glad I did…
Naoko, Watanabe and Kizuki are three Japanese high school students. Naoko and Kizuki are childhood sweethearts; Watanabe is Kizuki’s best friend. Their lives are the lives of all teenagers, until that is, Kizuki, for some reason incomprehensible to the others, takes his own life. Both Watanabe and Naoko are utterly destroyed. Watanabe finds solace in flight. He moves to Tokyo, starts University, cuts all ties with his former town. He lives a pretty solitary life, he has trouble making friends and connecting to people after Kizuki’s death but he keeps himself too busy to notice. Until, that is, Naoko comes to town. They meet completely coincidentally and their common pain is still so fresh in both their hearts that they first become friends, then well… More than friends. But it quickly turns out that Naoko’s scars run a lot deeper than Watanabe’s. Watanabe truly loves her and is determined to stand by her unlike Kizuki who abandoned them all… At which point an original and lively young girl, Midori comes into Watanabe’s life. What will he do? Stick to trying to make the past right, or leave the past to rest and turn his face to the future?
I’ve never fully understood the connection of the story with the Beatles Song it gets its name from. I think I can feel the connection but find it hard to describe… You remember the line in the song “I once had a girl /Or should I say, she once had me?” It’s about… Well commitment to other people in a way. Belonging. And of course, in this case, figuring out where you belong and (in Watanabe’s case) who you belong with…
“The past” eh? We all have baggage in one form or another; very few lucky ones among us have grown up in a bed of roses. But in the end, we all have our own lives to lead. I mean, we have them. The question is whether we choose to lead them or not. In this case it’s the romantic involvement between Naoko and Watanabe, but we may feel a debt, as sense of duty towards someone or something in our past, and we may end up deciding to stand by that / them rather than move on. Whether or not this is a healthy attitude is questionable; in the story, even though Naoko and Watanabe truly have feelings for each other, one may wonder how much of it is in fact based on making each other surrogates for Kizuki. I say this even though the relationship gets physical; the fact that Watanabe is actually torn between Midori and Naoko does indicate after all, that there is a bigger slice of “sense of duty” concealed in his feelings than he may care to admit. I will not go into too much detail but I will tell you the story makes it quite clear which side it is on. I leave you to make your own choice… After all, it is a very personal matter…

FROM TAIWAN : VIVE L’AMOUR! – AIQING WANSUI

Ok, this is quite a heavy duty art film. Golden Lion and FIPRESCI prize at the Venice film festival among other prestigious awards. This being common knowledge, the showing at the film festival this year started out chock-a block. A lot of enthusiast but a few serious connoisseurs too, all settling down to watch a film one doesn’t often get the chance to see… Now, the film is a Taiwanese film, again I haven’t seen many of these either so I didn’t know what to expect. Neither, it appears, did my fellow spectators because from 15 minutes into the film onwards, there was an exodus to the door – right throughout the film (even 5 minutes before the end which I found rather excessive, I mean, after sitting through it for almost two hours you couldn’t take 5 more minutes? Seriously?). My point is this film is NOT for everyone. I find I am more able to watch films like this because I see them more as a job now – since I will begin actually studying them this fall – and I have trained myself not to get bored so easily shall we say. However, well, the film is almost a silent film. I mean, there is sound but almost no dialogue at all – a total of maybe 50 lines at the most in total, in two hours. Which is why half the audience ran screaming (well not screaming but the rate they were going I bet they felt like it) from the room. Be warned.
This is the story of three almost random individuals who “run into” each other in Taipei. May, a lady real-estate agent literally runs into Ah Jung, a street vendor, on the street. The two somehow take a liking to each other and May takes him back to an empty yet partially furnished flat for a night of passion. Little do they know however, that homeless sales-rep Hsiao Kang has got hold of May’s spare keys and set up there as his home. After May leaves for work the next day leaving Ah Jung at “home” with the keys, Ah Jung also thinks the house isn’t such a terrible place to crash for a few nights. So the bizarre trio starts using the house. At once. And completely unaware of each other’s presence. They will, of course unavoidably run into each other in the end, but will this actually help them communicate in any way? You will have to watch the film and see.
Taken in context and given the message the director wants to give, the lack of dialogue actually makes complete sense. Well, it’s big cities, modern life, and isolation. It’s living side by side with thousands of people without even addressing a word to them. Think of modern day apartment buildings. The flat in question here is big, very big, but if you think of small flats, I mean ignore the partition walls and doors, we live in the same amount of space with complete strangers for years and years without even knowing their names. The most basic things, the most basic desires go unsaid. Talk about “The Sound Of Silence”… But director Tsai Ming-Lang doesn’t paint a completely bleak picture. Little touches of wry humor, much like in real life makes one smile in spite of the bleakness of the general picture… I would describe them but I really don’t want to, the picture in the film is so complete of itself that taking one little piece out would really spoil the film.
Apparently the film divided critics at the time of its first showing 16 years ago, well I can see why. It’s hard to watch in more ways than one, but I would recommend you at least try if you feel you can cope with the lack of dialogue… It’s not as easy as it seems but you may well find it rewarding in the end…

FROM KOREA : MEMORIES OF MURDER

What makes a film original? Well, it’s not really just one thing, is it? Sometimes it’s a story, sometime it’s the performance of a certain actor or the decisions of an outstanding director… Sometimes it’s more than one thing… Take the Korean classic Memories of Murder ( Sal In Eui Choo Eok) . It’s basically the story of South Korea’s first serial killer – a true story. So, a common or garden cop-flick, right? I mean, more striking because of the fact that it is a true story we are talking about here, but all the same… The director however, it Bong-Joon Ho, one of South Korea’s great directors (we have written of him actually – check out the Host in our previous hosts). And this is a very typical, very Korean film… So when I said cop-flick if you thought of a “hard hitting cop” like Al Pacino or CSI (pick your favorite city) and I’m pretty sure a lot of you did so don’t deny it, you were wrong. Big time.
So, our story is set in a small town in rural South Korea. It has everything a small town out in the sticks needs, including a large factory (and a large population of workers) and a local police station with a few officials who consider themselves hard-hitting cops but who actually have never handled anything really tough in their lives. Murders are not unheard of, however when what seems “suspiciously” like a serial killer surfaces in their town everyone (including the police) is at a loss as to how to cope with the situation… The usual methods (yelling, lucky guesses, intimidation on various levels) don’t seem to be working when a young police officer, an expert in the field, comes down from Seoul to assist with their investigation voluntarily. He is not liked, he is not a “tough guy” like the detective in charge of the case, and he disapproves of the afore mentioned “tested methods” they like to use and he genuinely seems to think he’s better at the understanding this little town with his city ways… The thing is, as the case advances, it begins to seem in this last point he may be right… The thing is, will they be able to put their differences aside and get the killer off the streets?
What I like about Asian cinema – among other things – is the way there are various levels of different emotion and themes (as there usually are in Western films) but the way they are portrayed are so… Different. It’s just so subtle and, for want of a better word, graceful. For instance, in this serious and true story of a serial killer we find inserted a goodly strain of Korean style humor. The thing is, it is by no means inappropriate. Quite on the contrary, it gives a very appropriate picture of the small town officials trying to cope with an event the likes of which is rarely seen in rural Korea…

THEME OF THE WEEK : MASTERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

Hello everyone!

First of all I'm sorry for the change in adress and I hope all the regulars have been able to find me again. I can only say that I deemed the change necessary for various reasons and that it came almost as much of a surprise for me as it did for you... If, in this hassle we have made some new friends, I am happy to see you, pull up a chair and settle down!

Right, so what do we have to watch this week? Well, this week is basically a mixed lot. Only not quite. I decided to share with you three films from three master directors. You will almost definately have heard of them, you may or may not have favorable pre-concieved ideas about them and I reckon that if you haven't already, you should definately take a closer look at them. In short, from a cinematic point of view I think this week's films will provide you with an enjoyable challenge. I hope you like... Take it away maestros!

Have a good week and happy viewing!
Essie

FROM THE U.K : THE DRAUGHTSMAN’S CONTRACT

You may or may not have picked up on this but I LOVE British cinema. I love the use of wit over well… Everything else basically. Writing clever and exciting plots, really original plots are a talent and it’s something Hollywood is very good at. What doesn’t come out of Hollywood is wit. That’s what makes a lot of British films stand out from the crowd, and it’s what the British are, in my humble opinion, are good at. Peter Greenaway’s “The Draughtsman’s Contract” brims with wit. It is without a doubt one of the most intelligent and original thrillers I have watched in my life and believe you me, I have watched one HECK of a lot of thrillers…
We are transported back to the 17th century, to England. Mrs. Herbert is the wife of a rich businessman, Mr. Herbert. Mr. Herbert is the owner of a very large estate, and it is Mrs. Herbert’s desire to have drawn 12 sketches of the estate to present to Mr. Herbert. For this purpose she makes a contract with Mr. Neville, a master draughtsman. However, Mr. Neville is the best of the best, he thinks incredibly highly of his work and every line he draws comes at a price. Mrs. Herbert must pay for the sketches with money but with her body as well. Whenever Mr. Neville pleases. So, the contract is drawn up and Mr. Neville begins work on the sketches. He is pleased with the whole deal at first; having no doubt in his mind that he has got himself a good deal. However, is it really going according to plan? And if it is, according to whose plan? Mr. Neville’s or somebody else’s?
Now, you may or may not know that Peter Greenaway comes from a background of painting. This is very obvious in another of his films; The Cook, The Thief, His Wife Her Lover (one of my all time favorite movies incidentally) but more so here. There are many little clues and tips of the hat to old masters such as Caravaggio and Rembrant (I don’t pretend to have caught on to all of them). The compositions of the shots even, have a “painters” touch. And it is, on one hand, a film about painting by a painter, something fascinating to behold…
And then there is the main storyline. You may be conned into thinking yourself in a familiar realm. That of period drama and scheming aristocrats. You would not be exactly wrong, but you would be simplifying the whole thing rather a lot. First of all, although ample clues are available, it is VERY tough to get to the heart of the adventure a second before Mr. Greenaway intends us to get there… The drama, the tension unfolds slowly, gently almost, like the poor unfortunate Mr. Neville we are lulled into thinking we know EXACTLY what is going on and then… Wham! One of the best plots I have seen in a long time. And the wit doesn’t stop there of course. All through the film, long, 17th century, and very British sentences and stabs make the journey a sheer delight. If you get to watch it, please note the opening monologue concerning an anecdote about plums… I almost fell out of my seat laughing at it… =)

FROM SWEDEN : AUTUMN SONATA

OK, as I said, the festival gives one the chance not only to ogle at new productions but catch up on classics one may have missed in ones past. Now as you know, I am studying for a new career as a post-grad student in film studies and there is nothing more ample in my past that “missed classics”. The entire works of Ingmar Bergman, I am ashamed to say, feature prominently in this category. Thus, right at the beginning of the festival, I decided to set this right and took myself to Autumn Sonata by Bergman, among other classics you will find here this week. I usually like all art Scandinavian (a trait that gets me deemed “mad” by many friends and acquaintances) so I wasn’t nervous, merely curious. Bergman didn’t disappoint me. Turned out to be the little Scandinavian gem I always suspected it would be. I am on the hunt for the rest of his filmography as we speak.
So, what’s the story? Eva is the seemingly content wife of a vicar in a remote parish out on the Norwegian fiords. After hearing of the death of her mother’s “friend” (you can guess the reason for the inverted commas, right? Good.) she invites her mother (a celebrated concert pianist by the way) to stay with her and her husband for a couple of days. The mother and daughter will see each other for the first time in seven years, so there is much excitement on both sides. First there seems to be much rejoicing on both sides as caresses and questions are exchanged but before the first night is up the truth behind the veneer begins to raise its ugly head. There truly is nothing as complicated as “family ties”.
I don’t want to give too much of the “issues” (let’s go American) between the mother and daughter, simply because their slow unfurling is the backbone of the film. And I do not want to send you to a backboneless film – like a jellyfish, ugh… Anyway, so I will talk about the emotions the film left me with, or rather the impressions. Now, you may or indeed may not know that Scandinavian countries have a long (read ancient) custom of “story telling”. It survives today – if only barely – I was lucky enough to meet a Norwegian guy who was kinda training himself to become one a couple of years back but that’s a different story. Anyhow, the point is, this tradition makes a lot of their works of art like theatre (thing Ibsen’s plays for example) and film based heavily on dialogue. Take this film. I mean, there are “actions”, re-enactments and the conversation is broken from time to time, but the main part, the heart of the film is Eva and Charlotte’s (the mother) argument that goes on throughout the night and during which we see very little except the two speakers. The conversation takes place at night as I said so it makes the whole affair “dark” in more senses than one. And the content, well, it just gets heavier and heavier as it goes along. Plus it’s in Swedish in case, like my own beloved mother, you are “sensitive” about that. The whole thing is very tricky style to master and pull off that is unless your name is Ingmar Bergman. But even if you get it just right (which Bergman does, being Bergman) it’s definitely not for everyone. You will leave the film either feeling as if you’ve been hit by a freight train (as I did) or refreshed, because you fell asleep halfway (as did quite a few people in the theatre with me. Well, it was an evening séance) But I would take the gamble if I were you…

FROM RUSSIA : ANDREY RUBLEV

Ok, so, going to the film festival requires a certain amount of dedication. There are, of course, more “lightweight” participants, but for the more seasoned viewer there are more “challenging” options available. This is why, I believe, the selection this year was highly commendable, it was a very VERY good “spread” indeed. In this context, I saw this “little” classic by Russian directing giant, master Tarkovsky, and decided to go for it. Now, a word to the wise. Watching any film that is three and a half hours long in one sitting is a challenge in itself. Especially if it’s black and white and you don’t understand the language (easier to dose off you see). It’s more of a challenge if you’re in a cinema. You know, no distractions, not even a loo brake or a chance to stretch your legs. Add to this that the material you’re watching is, well… Tarkovsky. The experience was fascinating, but it’s not one I’ll be repeating in a hurry.
So what is the film about? Well, it is loosely based around the life of 15th century icon painter Andrey Rublev. Master Andrey, along with two companions, leaves the monastery where he has trained and lived for many years and goes out into the world. His aim is to hone his art as an icon painter - without leaving the religious “context” of course. However, once out in the real world, he finds the task is by no means easy. Especially in 15th century Russia, where infighting and Tartar hoards were plentiful…
The film is, admittedly VERY loosely based around Rublev’s life. It was, however commended the world over for its realistic portrayal of Russia in the middle ages. The thing with Tarkovksy is that his work is heavily symbolic, slow moving, with beautiful images conveying deep meaning, stuff you really need to think about. Personally I didn’t so much as understand but rather felt the meaning of some of the bits of the film… But the main theme is how Rublev slowly begins to lose faith, in more ways than one. The Orthodox Church (of which he is, as a monk, a part) is a massive force of the era, making free art all the more difficult. Rublev looses faith in everything; his art, the church even, Tarkovsky suggests at the very end, his own faith… It is clearly a very “anti-church” very possibly “anti religion – or organized religion any way – as well. You may not necessarily agree with all his messages, but you HAVE to admire the striking way Tarkovsky puts them across. And this is the cinema after all… Presentation IS half the game…
Now, there is one interesting aspect of the film that a good friend and I discussed on exiting (and walking around for about an hour trying to gather our wits and downing a couple of beers to get our brains working again). This film was filmed in Soviet times. And the Soviets of the time DID NOT like the film… So much so that they cut a total of 39 minutes of it. (Now don’t panic, three and a half hours is the total, uncut version, the film in total is NOT four hours long) But I was sort of surprised. I mean, the Soviets weren’t exactly hot on Religion, “The opium of the masses” and all that jazz, you know… But then again, we have to take it in context. True, apart from a few allusions, the film is anti religion, not politics. But, the church of the time was the major determining factor in politics at that time, as were the Soviets in Russia. Andrey’s loss of faith in the major “father figure” of his time, might easily be construed as a loss of faith in the Soviet system of the time. So really, small wonder they didn’t like it. The thing with Tarkovsky is, as you know, symbols. Stripped bare, it is the story of an individual against a mass, the artist against “the wall” (think Pink Floyd) no matter what the wall is… It’s one to be watched again and again to be properly understood, I plan to. Just possibly not all in one go…