ESSIE SPEAKS OF SLICES OF LIFE.

I know. Not only does that title sound gruesome (or alternatively as if this week's theme is either butchery or cooking) but neither is the case. It isn't the technical term for the type of film I am talking about this week. If any of my lecturers are reading this (though the chances of that happening is minimal) I appologise and promise to brush up on my genres. Moving on; these two films don't have anything in common thematically, cast-wise or in fact technically. But they do share a certain something. Both, albeit in different ways, portrays a "slice of life". They choose to do so in two very distinct ways; while the first film, Amores perros (now a cult classic) uses a non-linear timeline to flash back and forward in time and connect the three stories; Jim Jarmusch's Night On Earth does it in a good deal calmer manner, presenting five stories that are happening at the same time. And I do realize this update is slightly shorter than usual, however, Inaritu and Jarmusch are such great directors that I didn't feel comfortable just pushing a third film in willy-nilly. No, I am confident their talents will be more than enough to regail you for the week.

happy viewing!
Essie

JUST ANOTHER "NIGHT ON EARTH"

Great minimalist director Jim Jarmusch once asked, I have read, why, if life hasn’t got “themes” and “storylines” films should be obliged to have them. This statement could well be the recipe for disaster in the hands of a novice or someone who wasn’t quite sure of what they were doing. In the hands of Jarmusch, however, it becomes the starting point for some of the most original and beautiful works of art in cinematic history. Now, a lot of you probably know that Jim Jarmush is a minimalist. And as such, not all his works are exactly easy to watch. Night on Earth however, is a comedy. It is, in actual fact, a sensitively filmed series of short stories that come together to make a story of a short space of time cut out of one night on planet earth… Doesn’t that actually sound a bit like what life is to you? It sure does to me…
When starting filming, Jarmusch makes his point of inspiration particularly clear; on the wall there are five clocks. You know the types; they usually have them in massive multi-national corporations and show the times in all the big capitals and important cities in the world. Here we have Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Rome and Helsinki. It is seven p.m. in L.A., ten p.m. in New York, 4 a.m. in Paris, 4 a.m. again in Rome and 5 a.m. in Helsinki. Just at this same moment, five taxi drivers are driving along in five cities. Corky, a sassy young lady cab-driver in L.A. has just picked up a big Hollywood casting agent from the airport; Helmut, a migrant from Eastern Germany to New York whose driving skills have a lot to be desired, has picked up his first customer ever, Yo-yo, who wants to go to Brooklyn; in Paris, a young cab-driver from the Ivory Coast has just about had enough of the two arrogant and drunk dignitaries in the back of his cab, in Rome a hyperactive and slightly quirky cab driver is heading off to pick up a priest from one of the city squares and in Helsinki gruff looking driver Mika has just picked up three rather drunken friends and is wondering how to get them home and, more to the point, where he should take them. What follows is funny, touching, surreal or maybe just plain weird. But it is all simply part of a night on earth…
I spoke about Turkish minimalist director Nuri Bilge Ceylan a few weeks back; this is a totally different take on the genre. Or “type of film” as it were. There are no prolonged silences (and some of Jarmusch’s films contain those by the cart-load, but not this one) and general air of sadness. Jarmusch has somehow given what is, to me anyway, the essence of the night in a big city. It is in those small hours when all the good folks are in bed, the weird, the bad and the slightly mad become more and more conspicuous. There are no distractions; we can concentrate on their stories. And this is what these films are largely about: concentrating on one thing. Of course this is a large risk as the stories take place only in the cabs, in some of the cases there is dialogue, but in a few cases one or another of the characters carries the entire weight of the segment in a monologue. This is why, no doubt, Jarmush opted for actors such as Winona Rider, Roberto Begnini (one of his staple cast – I am not a massive fan of Begnini but here, the part fits him like a glove. He is actually one of the actors who has a monologue and not a dialogue so his task is tough, but credit where it is due, I cannot imagine anyone doing a better job of it), Isaach de Bankolé and Beatrice Dalle among others… This is for those of you who want something simple and beautiful. True, the stories don’t “come together” as it were in a magnificent climax but they peacefully co-exist and are definitely part of a whole… Like life. Real life.

AND THE THINGS THAT MATTER; LOVE, LIFE AND DOGS : "AMORES PERROS"

I have to admit, chances are you have seen this one. It is a masterpiece by Mexican director Alejandro Gonzales Inaritu and is cited in a lot of respectable sources as one of the best films ever made. I am not quite sure how one would qualify “the” best film ever made, but the breath-taking sequences, insightful, sensitive and yet exciting storylines and the way the characters lives clash together for one life-changing instant definitely makes it a contender in my book. Sometimes, an event is much like a pebble thrown into the water. The ripples it causes may end up hitting a distant shore and changing things the pebble or the thrower had never imagined… Here, funnily enough, it all starts with (or culminates in) a car-crash…
There are three parties to the car crash, two cars and one old homeless guy who lives with his dogs and witnesses it. In one car, there is Octavio, his beloved Rottweiler Coffee and his best friend ??. Octavio’s life is a bit of a mess, he lives with his brother, his brother’s wife and his mother in a tiny house. This in itself is a difficult situation but he is also in love with his brother’s wife – they are actually having an affair… He dreams of making enough money so they can run away with his little nephew, and Coffee is the goose that lays the golden eggs – because Octavio enters him into dog fights where Coffee is a little too good for his own good and his masters… In the other car is Valeria, a famous model. She is driving back from the new house her boyfriend has hired for her; he has left his wife for her and a wonderful new life with just him, Daniel, her and her beloved dog Richie is opening up in front of her… Or rather it was until the crash came along leaving her with potentially career-ruining scars… And then there is the old man. He lives alone with the street dogs he has rescued over the years. And as other witnesses run to save the survivors of the crash he concentrates on dragging Coffee out of the car. He takes him home and nurses him back to health. Little does he know that his new friend is going to change his entire life, dragging him back to something he should have finished 20 years ago…
This film is very, very clever. Like a lot of films of the same kind, it starts off showing snippets of various characters. It’s quite a mystery figuring out who’s who, but then again I find that kind of thing very amusing. It is told in three chapters, and although every chapter focuses on one of the stories I told above, the other stories creep in too, around the periphery… We watch the crash three different times, and as a spectator it is fascinating to gage how, us the amount of information we hold increases, the impact and importance of the crash also seems to increase… The editing is also clever, although the story cuts from one strand to another, sometimes quite dizzyingly; the cuts are all very, very cleverly done – I would go as far as saying an example to be held up for good editing.
Art imitating life or life imitating art? Hard to say really, isn’t it? One thing I do know though is that it is always touch and go when various artists try to closely copy life; I don’t mean in a Hollywood sense – they just do whatever the heck they like and expect us to just assume it’s real – but when it tries to make it really realistic… Here, it doesn’t feel like a film at all. We just watch dogs and owners (and the dogs are very much in the forefront of the story) go through life, much as if it were just a dramatic slice of life… Definitely worth your time…

ESSIE SPEAKS... TURKISH

And no, before you panic, I am not changing the language of my blog :)
It's just that... Well... I have lived in Turkey for most of life. It is the country I have grown up in. Coincidentially its cinema is doing really well these days, so I decided to give it a little plug on the blog. I reckon I'm entitled. Now, with the possible exception of Faith Akın these are not films, directors or actors you will have heard of, however, I reckon you have got to know my taste in films over the last few years so you can probably bring yourselves to trust me... right? :)

happy viewing!
Essie

NOW IT'S TIME FOR A LITTLE JOURNEY: "IM JULI"

Ok, I got you with the German title, didn’t I? Well, the thing is, a Turkish film doesn’t necessarily mean a film in Turkish, right? It could also mean a Turkish director – in this case Fatih Akın. Mr. Akın is actually quite well known around Europe, but more so in his native Germany. Mr. Akın is the son of one of the many Turkish families immigrated to the country. He grew up there and was honored at the Berlin film festival with a Golden Bear, but his films are always somehow connected to Turkey – sometimes they even take place in Turkey – but they usually have more to do with the Turkish minority living in Germany. Im Juli is a wonderful, touching film about love, fate and adventure. It is one of his better known films – and for good reason.
Daniel is a teacher’s assistant who lives in Hamburg. He is shy and quiet, his students don’t take much notice of him, in fact adventure doesn’t even figure in the periphery of his life. But on the last day of term, things begin to change. A mysterious and beautiful stranger (Juli, who he actually passes every day on his way back from work without noticing) sells him a ring. The ring is, apparently, an ancient Mayan lucky charm, in the shape of the sun. She also gives him a flyer to a party and tells him that if he goes there, he will meet the love of his life, who he will recognize thanks to the sun motif. Daniel doesn’t believe in this but goes to the party anyway – and guess what, the charm works! Coincidence brings him face to face with Melek, a girl of Turkish origin on her way to Istanbul. She is looking for a place to stay, one beer leads to another and Melek ends up staying over at Daniel’s place (as in she sleeps there – literally not metaphorically)before heading off to Istanbul. All Daniel knows is that she will be meeting someone in Ortaköy – a neighborhood in Istanbul near the Bosphorus bridge in one week’s time. Daniel then makes a big decision. He is going to drive down to Istanbul, be there on Friday and see Melek again. This impromptu journey to follow his fate will prove more adventurous and will teach him more than he had ever, ever bargained for.
The thing I liked the most about Im Juli is how real all the characters are. None of them are perfect, dashing or overly moral. That is, I think, what makes the massive coincidences Akın has sprinkled along the film easier to stomach. It is, for all intents and purposes a road-movie. The two “things” of the movie are the characters and the road. The film is born out of their interaction. And some of the coincidences, I have to say, are a little… You know. I mean yes, the main idea of the film is fate, that some things were meant to be, that you have to travel a long way sometimes just to learn a simple lesson. And I am not averse to a few coincidences; I mean I love Jim Jarmusch and I also loved Slumdog Millonaire, the film that kinda became the reference point for such films in modern times, but still… Mind you, Akın chose the right place to place the coincidences, the route takes us largely through the Balkans, an unpredictable an exciting place, with a warm and unpredictable populace. So I mean OK, overall the background has sort of been prepared. They are not unbelievable in themselves; there are just rather a lot of them. But I mean, one sympathizes so much with poor Daniel, and get so into his quest to find his destiny and his true love, by the end you are ready to overlook all that and are just rooting for him to succeed. So yes. A good’un. It’s the kind of thing you watch with your girlfriends over a box of chocolates. And by the way, if nothing else it is relieved to see a (believable) bewildered man being taken advantage of by women for a change. Maybe not a typically Turkish movie in a lot of ways – but still Turkish enough to be able identified as part of the family. An interesting experience, I think you’ll like it.

TIME FOR SOME CRIME AND MYSTERY : "VAVIEN"

There are good and exciting things happening in Turkish cinema. I mean yes, directors like Semih Kaplanoğlu (Berlin Film Festival – Golden Bear) and Nuri Bilge Ceylan (Cannes Film Festival – Golden Palm) are the ones getting all the praise but they are not alone in making achievements. Normal films, for lack of a better word – minimalist cinema is something I respect and enjoy greatly but I wouldn’t call it “normal” if you see what I mean. But never mind that now, what I want to talk about is a film about lies, deceit and murder. Now, a good quality film noir is literally non-existent in Turkish cinema. And if this carries distinct traces of humor that stop it qualifying as a “film noir” it is definitely a “film gris” if you see what I mean…
Celal and Sevilay (played by Engin Günaydın and Binnur Kaya respectively – two of the best Turkish comic actors of today) are a married couple living in a small Turkish town with their son Mesut. They have a pretty average life as far as family lives go, Celal is an electrician, Sevilay is a housewife and they make a living somehow. And all three family members have their own separate lives that the other members don’t have a clue about… Mesut sneaks out of his bedroom window every night to meet up with his girlfriend next door. Sevilay stashes money her parents send her around the house without telling the family and is close to amassing a small personal fortune. And Celal wants to kill his wife to marry the woman of his dreams. And because she really annoys him. Now, Celal is not exactly known for being a man of action, but today he will make an exception. He plans the whole thing carefully, prepares and sets the deadly trap in action. The trap seems to succeed alright… However, it will have results that Celal’s wildest dreams or nightmares couldn’t have foretold…
If nothing else, Vavien is a brilliant example of dysfunctional families. Whether family members have seemingly happy and peaceful existences or are literally at each other’s throats, sometimes, just sometimes, they never quite get round to understanding one another. You can co-habit the same house for years and actually have no idea who you married to begin with or who your offspring actually is. Sevilay adores Celal to the point of worship and has no idea, nor could she ever imagine that her beloved husband would try and kill her. She is a good girl who does as she is told, so when her father (who we never meet but only hear on the phone) instructs her to hide the money and not tell Celal she does faithfully, but not out of a lack of trust for Celal. The same goes for Celal’s relationship with his son. Poor Mesut is never sure why his father approves of him or scolds him (and the two moods seem to come in rather unpredictable swings). As for Celal and his “wild and passionate” affair (that is in fact a one-sided obsession on his part) no one who knows him could believe him capable of such emotion. So, in fact, every man is an island. Miserable message, yes? Not really. While The Taylan Brothers (I’m not being facetious; their surname is Taylan, they are brothers and that’s what they call themselves!) make no bones about the utter lack of communication between family members, subtle elements of comedy pertaining to everyday life are slipped in, making the whole film that little bit more real. And don’t forget, the fact that you are not communicating doesn’t necessarily mean you have a sad relationship. In the end, as long as everyone gets what they want out of the whole affair somehow, who cares whether you know what the other person is thinking? That’s what Vavien argues anyway. Watch the film and see what you think…

AND NOW, A BIT OF LIGHT ENTERTAINMENT: "YEDİ KOCALI HÜRMÜZ"

This film actually got a bit of a bad rap when it first came out, not necessarily from the general public but from “art circles”. I think the reason was , since Yedi Kocalı Hürmüz is in fact quite an old play that has been re-made for various mediums a number of times, the expectancy from the film was a little too high. No, honestly, this film will not change your life. It will however bring a smile to your face that I guarantee. If the film did not exactly turn out to be a deep, philosophical work of art it stayed true to itself: this is a light-hearted musical, aiming solely to entertain. The cast is brilliant, the acting hilarious (which is a compliment seing this is a comedy) and the songs, while in Turkish and aimed largely at a Turkish audience are fun to listen to and the dancing that accompanies it is fun to watch so even those viewers who do not speak Turkish can be sure of a good time when they sit down to watch this one…
We are back in Ottoman times, at an uncertain date before the First World War. Turkey is governed by Sharia law, and according to this law any man can marry up to four women legally – provided he can look after them. The same right is not, as you can imagine, extended to women. They have hardly any rights at all – hardly any say in the matter even seeing as they are often “given away” by older relatives and not necessarily allowed to court or chose their future husband. In İstanbul lives one woman who is determined not to be the “weakling” in this whole set up. After all, if a man can marry more than one woman, then a woman should be able to marry more than one husband. As there are no actual centralized records back in those days, and the second wives do not necessarily live in the same house as the husband (it is common to live in the same house but not necessary)with a little intelligence this is not hard to manage either. Hürmüz lives in a large house left to her by her late husband (a very old and rich man in love with her beauty and died leaving her everything) and by using her wits and with help from her friends is married to no less than seven men! The trick is not to keep the rest of the town (for back then, as it is now, reputations once gone cannot be regained) and of course the seven husbands in the dark. Thus Hürmüz very successfully has her cake and eats seven helpings at once until… Until she meets a man she actually falls in love with – and she isn’t married to! And just as she is trying to find a way of luring him in as well to be number 8, one husband (who was in jail and thus out of her hair) breaks out of jail, one who lives in a neighboring town decides to pay a surprise visit and her newest husband – a sea captain – comes home one day with no prior warning, causing the two husbands she has in the same town to become suspicious… Hürmüz risks public humiliation and stoning if she is found out, and with such a plague of husbands buzzing at her door, she must use all her wits and creativity to break herself out of this mess…
As you can tell from the summary, the actual topic of the film is as old as the hills. Men vs. Women. However, my personal opinion is that if films on the subject continue popping up, it’s because we keep on watching them. It is rather funny to think that this was first adapted from a play that was, as I said, quite old and from a time one assumed moral values to be different. Just goes to show I suppose, some things never really change… Another thing that is as international as the story is of course good acting. And this film offers up some of Turkey’s best; Nurgül Yeşilçay makes for a striking Hürmüz, while Gülse Birsel – who is also famous for her successful performance in a very, VERY long standing sit-com she also wrote is a priceless sidekick (the town matchmaker, naturally) and… Well I could go on and on and on, but just about every single one of the cast members are famous and I can’t think of a single one that ends up doing a bad job…
I was in two minds about writing about this. I mean, since stories and sentiments are more universal, normal “film” films are a better bet when it comes to crossing the language barrier. Comedies tend to rely a bit more on cultural specificities and a goodly number of the jokes in the film do tend to be “in jokes” on local dialects and funny sayings. But all in all, I personally feel that the sense of fun and the universal nature of the topic – men and women – make up for the bits that will get lost in translation. And let me also add that some of the songs from this musical have quite literally come from Turkish traditional music so you it will be a true cultural tour for the unfamiliar as well…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF... COPS AND ROBBERS!

Aah, the adrenaline of a good car chase, the hard-hitting, honest cops and the inner workings of the dastardly - yet often charismatic - mob... These bad boys are one of those "basic" genres everyone has hear of. We have all watched a few, at least the cult classics (see Millers Crossing below for an example of the latter)and can all (well most of us can) repeat the key scenes off by heart...
Now all that being said, I am pretty sure you're expecting a review of the Godfather, but you'd be wrong. Not because I don't like the series, au contraire I love it like everybody else, but it is a classic, everyone has seen it and therefore, no point in reviewing it, yes? We all know it's brilliant anyway... :)

Here's a couple of little gems you may have missed...

happy viewing :)

Essie

ANYONE WHO KNOWS THE MOB HAS BEEN TO "MILLER’S CROSSING"

Put your hands on your hearts… Admit it. You like a good old-fashioned gangster movie. I don’t mean the new-fangled genre, you know, gang wars, drugs and shootouts, that kind of jazz. No, I mean the old-fashioned ones. About wise guys. I mean films like the Godfather(s) (naturally) and Goodfellas in the U.S. , films like Borsalino and C.O. (starring Alain Delon in case you’re interested) from France. The ‘40s. Wise guys with automatic weapons and slick hats rule the streets. Heck, sometimes they even rule the town. The wit, the power, the danger the adventure… All from the security of your own living room… Miller’s Crossing is one of the best examples of the genre, oh yes and by far. This oeuvre bares the signature of one of my favorite directing / producing duo the Coen brothers and is guaranteed to take you on a bumpy ride, back to the times when wise guys ruled the streets, and you could almost smell the danger in the air…
Leo is the “big guy” in town. He basically runs everything with his moody and cool-as-ice right hand man Tom (played by the charismatic Gabriel Bryne). Things go pretty smoothly as a rule but soon a problem emerges. Leo is the big guy in town but he is by no means the only major player. Johnny Caspar, along with his own right hand man Eddie Dane, is determined to get a piece of the action. And Leo’s refusal to compromise on what we shall for the present call a “minor point” will push the town to the brink of gang warfare. Tom pleads with Leo to be reasonable, but Leo cannot be budged. Plus there is another problem. Tom and Leo have found themselves on either corner of a love triangle – an occurrence that doesn’t best please boss Leo who is both used and determined to get his own way. Which leaves Tom in quite a lot of trouble no matter which way you cut it. But, as we said, if one thing Tom knows how to do, it is to keep calm and use his head. And he will need every single ounce of wit he has if he wants to turn this sticky mess around…
There are many different ways of creating suspense. Chases are a good one in this genre, and check a little further down for one of the greatest car chases in film history in Bullit. Another one is by keeping back information. You know, just giving the viewer a tiny drop at a time, one single clue at a time just enough to go the next step and then wait, biting your nails, for what is coming next. In a lot of films, the viewer is “omniscient”, that means that we are kinda “all seeing and all hearing” a lot of the suspense here comes from the “It’s behind you!” effect. Here however, the audience is by far the one who knows the least in the whole mess. Thus we, like Tom, are left with nothing but our own wits to puzzle out what the heck is going to happen next. And the film is ingenious in the balancing act it produces; there are so many really cunning characters (such as our unlikely hero Tom and Verna, a class- A femme fatale played by Marcia Gay Harden) and each one of the characters has woven such a complicated web of intrigues leading to completely opposing goals that you will, I guarantee it, not only be completely unable to unravel the whole thing until the very end (i.e. when Ethan and Joel Coen damn well feel like it) but you will marvel at the engineering of the whole thing. If there was ever a film that pushed you to use your head, here it is. And that makes a brilliant change from the violence-packed movies that are usually thought of as typical of the genre. I also think this makes the film more realistic. Think about it, the times when the wise guys ruled the streets were real. No doubt there. And just as real was the amount of danger, blood and violence. But as in every power struggle, bigger and more effective than going in all guns blazing was the scheming. Be it the really “wise” wise guys like Tom who use their wits to keep themselves and/or the people around them on top, to Verna and her brother Bernie (a character who later became a classic played by John Turturo) who used the inflated egos to chisel a living for themselves. If you think about it that is also what makes the Godfather films great. The “factoring in” of intelligence, Michael Corleone’s careful planning and creating of strategies to get to power and stay there, as opposed to his brother Sonny whose hot-headedness gets him murdered. Oh, this is a classy little number no doubt about it. Watch out for a couple of cinematographically rather brilliant scenes too – especially on the attack on Leo’s house, my personal favorite – you’ll know the one I mean if you watch the film… =)

AND NOW, THE HARD HITTING COP NOONE MESSES WITH... MEET BULLIT

There are some films that become epitomized with certain genres. It’s a funny phenomenon that. I mean, in this kind of movie the main hero often doesn’t even need much in-depth character analysis or even establishing shots giving us information about him, because even if the face and name may change we know him well really… I can think of many examples of this phenomenon, but the one I have in mind in particular today is a certain kind of crime-thriller from the end of the ‘60s and the beginning of the ‘70s. Our hero is a moody and charismatic individual who doesn’t play by the book. His superiors are bothered by this but let him operate any way he chooses because he is a good cop and gets results. He has an unbendable sense of justice and may be either a serial womanizer or have a long-term relationship but the relationship will be without a doubt problematic. You know him well, right?
In this particular case his name is Lieutenant Frank Bullit (played by a very moody and charismatic Steve McQueen). His superiors tolerate his “not by the book” attitude, the guys he works with are loyal to the bitter end because he has earned their respect as the best in the business. So, when he is assigned as protection detail to a star witness in a major gang-related trial, Bullit reckons it’s no big deal. However, nothing is as simple as it seems, and before Bullit can say “knife”, the witness is dead and one of Bullit’s best men is in hospital, critically injured. His superiors, the prosecutor in particular is baying for blood – and Bullit’s head on a plate. Bullit, however, has only one thing in mind: finding the killers and bringing them all to justice.
Now pray don’t be discouraged by the fact that I have slightly slammed the movie in my opening statement. I mean, the fact that there are many of the same thing knocking around is testament to the fact that whatever it is hit off in the market, right? You may be additionally coaxed by the fact that back in 1968, the film won the Oscar® for Best Editing (although Best Editing does tend to attract movie buffs more than some regular Joe just looking for an evening’s entertainment). On no, without a doubt Bullit is one heck of a good cop flick. Set in San Francisco and peppered with lovely shots of the sweeping hills and old wooden houses common in those parts (back in the ‘60s at any rate), it is quite a spectacle to watch. And speaking of hills, there is of course the famous car chase. Now, this went down in history as one of the best of its kind, and for all the new technical thingamajigs we have to enhance the experience today, I have to admit, they had a point. The chase starts out pretty casually as it were, then the music accelerates as does the speed and as the cars wind up and down the San Francisco hills at what is sometimes a break-neck speed (funny isn’t it how when you say “car chase” you never really think it can mean up or down a hill but on a straight road? It’s what I visualize at any rate), strategically placed point of view shots ( shots where you see the scene directly from the eyes of the character as it were) must have given cinema-goers the impression of being on a fair-ground ride and not a film (Mom actually felt sick watching it – she could never really handle fair-ground rides…). There is nothing like a really good car-chase to get you into gear, and this one is a jewel in the crown of Bullit. Shame it doesn’t have much else to say about itself. One thing that is mentioned on the DVD cover and that does deserve praise – credit where it is due – is the film’s realism. Well think about it, if you actually were a cop trying to nail big-time mobsters, I sincerely doubt your day actually would be dotted with funny anecdotes and witty repartee that is so essential to sub-plots in such movies. No, the film is concentrated on one thing only, the main plot. But then again so is Bullit, so that actually ties in rather nicely… I guess what I am trying to say is that the film has a sort of “sparse” feel to it. But that’s all right. Bullit is a man of few words, out to get the killers. Any other kind of story would… Well, feel wrong…

AND LASTLY, A CLASSIQUE FRANÇAIS WITH "INSPECTOR BELLAMY"

As the opening credits rolled through, I felt I was slightly bemused by the combination of Gerard Depardieu, Inspector Bellamy and a mention at the Berlin film festival. I respect Gerard Depardieu deeply as an actor but somehow when the two are combined with Inspector Bellamy, it didn’t seem to fit. The DVD sleeve was pretty darn sneaky about the whole thing as well – it gave the impression of being a common or garden cop film; and this was partly the reason the award surprised me. But Claude Chabrol’s version of Inspector Bellamy (and let’s face it, I should have trusted him more) combines a very subtle, very understated and very beautiful film with an excited and unpredictable cop-show plotline with wonderful mood setting and witty dialogue. One leaves the film slightly unsure of what just happened other than the fact that whatever it was was very striking indeed.
Inspector Bellamy (Gerard Depardieu) is on holiday. He hates this fact with a passion one can only imagine. His loving wife Françoise longs for a cruise in Egypt but it is all she can do to persuade him to come out to their summer house in Nimes. So she is not best pleased when a mysterious stranger knocks at their summer house door demanding to see Inspector Bellamy about a case he could be interested in. The whole thing seems highly fishy but Bellamy is bored out of his wits so he decides to go along with it. The man claims to have killed someone to be with his mistress, “the woman of his dreams” but he is obviously lying about something or other… On the home front, as if the lack of Egyptian cruises was not enough, Bellamy’s brother Jacques has come to stay. Jacques is constantly broke, has a bad habit of “borrowing” various things of Bellamy’s be it cars, guns or other people’s money without asking and drinks almost constantly. But what can you do? The man is family, and Paul Bellamy feels responsible towards his much younger brother. What sort of shape will Bellamy be in at the end of the holiday? And will he be able to get to the bottom of this mystery murder? If it was a murder that is….
Ok, so the film starts off nice and slow. Witty repartee and typical scenes of a long-married couple bickering seem to promise something light-hearted and mildly exciting. Witty repartee, by the way, will be something that is very present through the whole film. Clever comebacks and wordplay are scattered in the least-likely places, making them all the more appreciated and setting a sometimes slightly acid tone. The whole “murder mystery” angle is very cleverly done with some rather nifty flashbacks; the story itself actually seems rather mediocre I know, but the “real story” is so confused and convoluted that as we follow Bellamy trying to make head or tale of a seemingly simple affair we completely lose track of where on earth the whole thing might end… What I loved best though is the “contretemps” created with the home angle. Jacques is not your typical “drunken oaf” from the world of vaudeville, oh no, he is a very real character with very real personal problems and explodes into Bellamy’s life almost costing him his marriage in the process. It is a really, really good portrait of family life, “problem” relatives and trying to deal with both.
Chabrol gives us the “point” he wants to make right at the end with a quote from W.H. Auden : “There is always another story; there is more than meets the eye.” And in this film, categorically nothing is what it originally seems. A great choice with those who prefer a little meat on their movies – if you get my drift. And don’t insist on “happy” films…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF... MANY THINGS...

OK, you got me, yes it's a mixed bag this week. But it's not just any old bag, I've got some good quality stuff here... We have the works of classic masters like Bertolucci, contreversial artists like Lars von Trier and a documentary that will both teach you and make you cry buckets...Now I come to think of it this weeks fare is a particularly thought - provoking bunch all in their own individual ways of course... Well well, we all need time to stop and quietly think every once in a while, right?

enjoy the show and happy viewing!
Essie

THE STORY OF A SILENT SIEGE : "BESIEGED / ASSEDIO"

A good friend whose opinions I greatly respect, once said that if there is too much “conversation” in a film it means the director is not able to tell the story with the camera – and thus is not a good director. I told him at the time, and still maintain that this is a touch too harsh. I think you can have “too little conversation” in some films, especially if the director is pretending at talents he really doesn’t possess. And then there is clever dialogue, witty repartee. I love the whole “tennis match” feeling you get from a really clever dialogue. But then again, there are some directors who are perfectly able to tell a story with minimal dialogue and maximum camerawork. I do not mean the minimalists per se, they are an entirely different kettle of fish. In this particular case, I mean Bertolucci. I mean, the guy is not a minimalist; the dialogue doesn’t go at one sentence every 20 minutes. Then again, any unnecessary dialogue has been removed. And this deeply emotional film has been told basically thanks to camerawork and shifts of lighting. This is why the man and the film deserve some serious respect – in my opinion anyway.
Shanduray lives with her husband Winston in an unknown African country. The country is, as is most African countries in political turmoil. And Shanduray’s life is turned upside down when Winston is taken into custody for political reasons. Unable to bear the stress, Shanduray escapes to Italy. She settles in Rome, finds a job cleaning a rather eccentric pianist – Mr. Kinsky’s- house and starts studying medicine. There is no way of finding out if Winston is still alive, Shanduray worries deeply about him but gets on with her life – or rather tries to. Her semblance of order is upset when Mr. Kinsky, unable to bear it any longer, confesses his love for her and asks her to marry him. Shanduray, shocked by the idea, tells him that if he wants to do something to make her happy, the only thing he can do is get her husband out of prison. On that retort, things seem to go back to normal… Or have they? Strange men begin visiting the house, and every day Mr. Kinsky is off somewhere selling some piece of furniture or another… What in the world could he be up to?
I know that we are usually more “struck” by films with big flashy special effects but that’s not all it takes. There are different kinds of “being struck”. This film touches ones heart with its closeness to real life. The minimal dialogue does not stick out; in fact chances are you won’t even notice it as such until you think about it afterwards. I mean think about it, if you are a person living on your own without too many friends, you don’t actually talk that much… So we have a completely realistic picture of Shanduray’s content if rather lonely life. And then there is the silence Mr. Kinsky, unable for the most part to give voice to his emotions except with the help of his trusty piano. The differences between the two characters are accentuated with their “signature tunes” (neither has one single tune). Shanduray loves listening to African music on the radio whereas Mr. Kinksy plays classical music on the piano. Like a lot of people suffering from unrequited love, Mr. Kinsky finds it hard to talk to Shanduray, even though technically she’s his cleaning lady. So the silences and the general lack of communication between them at times speak volumes. The lack of words however, does nothing to hide his silent desperation and then his quiet determination as he goes about his mystery duty. The other good thing about the film is that we are generally limited to Shanduray’s view of things. So, with her, and only when she gets the opportunity to do so can we speculate as to what on earth Mr. Kinsky is doing. Later in the film we do get a few “omniscient” shots – where we follow Mr. Kinsky around a bit – but generally speaking this is Shanduray’s film. And it is a film about the silent screams, the silent siege of feelings pressing themselves on her heart and soul… But that’s usually the way with feelings, eh? Sneaking off without so much as a word of warning… A deep and beautiful film, for those in the mood for something different.

FOOD FOR DEEP THOUGHT FROM "DOGVILLE"

If you follow cinema news even at a most basic level, I am pretty confident you will have heard of Lars von Trier. The man has a bit of a reputation. He started a Scandinavian version of the neo-realist movement (but then was the first to disobey his own rules) and makes films that can be described as “strange” at best, from The Kingdom (whose filming and editing makes it hard to watch for all but those with the strongest stomachs – and I don’t mean blood and gore, I mean jiggling about) to the deeply symbolic and philosophical “Europa” trilogy that will leave you wondering for months if you get carried away… The America trilogy was one of his newest projects and Dogville made quite a lot of noise at the time of its release. Quentin Tarantino (a favorite of mine as you know) called it one of the greatest films ever made. I don’t know enough about films to be able to make such a strong comment but Dogville is without a shadow of a doubt one of the films that has struck me the most. Therefore, I am really excited about sharing it with you this week… Now, what is this two and a half hour long masterpiece about? Well, Lars von Trier claims that the point of the film was that evil can exist in anyone, that anybody is capable of evil… I must say that’s a strong and scary point to make, and von Trier has made a dashed good job of making it…
Dogville is the name of a town. Well, you would hardly call it a town really… It’s just a small street with a small bunch of rag tag people living on it really. The only one with any high moral ideals is Thomas Edison Jr. His father is the doctor of the area, so he has the luxury of being able to pursue a career as a writer. His major project is to “educate” Dogville. And it is just on such a night; Thomas is getting ready to explain to the townsfolk that they don’t know how to “receive gifts”. The self-same night, a young stranger, Grace comes to town. Now, Grace is in a bit of a predicament. There are some dangerous men, gangsters after her so going back to the big city isn’t an option. However, there is no way forward either seeing as Dogville is on a dangerous mountain ledge. So, Grace must stay in Dogville, if she is to survive of course. Now, the good citizens of Dogville are not quite sure what to make of this. She is a fugitive from gangsters, can’t go to the police, and cannot speak about her past for her own safety. She is prepared to work, but what work is there to be done in their humble shacks? For Thomas Edison Jr. this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his point and bring some morals to the town. So Grace, ends up staying. And with a little coaxing it turns out that there are some things to be done around Dogville after all, if Grace insists that is… Soon Grace has settled in, even getting wages for her labors… Until WANTED posters with Grace’s face on it begin appearing… The citizens of Dogville will, naturally, hide Grace. But they do not feel comfortable openly lying to the law. The price for Grace’s safety must go up… How far up it will end up, however, is anyone’s guess…
Dogville is a striking film in many ways. Not least because of the setting. Because there is no setting. The entire film takes place in what appears to be a large empty warehouse colored black. The houses, streets, plants and even animals are marked out on the floor with chalk. So, eerily enough, there are no walls. And in any one shot you can clearly see what is going on in the other houses (I found this aspect especially eerie not least because I often imagine or try to anyway, what is going on in other flats and other houses… In this world you can actually see it – we can anyway!) There is some furniture, but only the bare necessities. I mean, there are no doors on a lot of houses – the actors pretend to open and close invisible doors. There is even an invisible dog (you can, funnily enough hear him though). There is also no nature and no natural light. What light there is, is again not openly absent but the bare necessities. So, the one tool Mr. von Trier has to tell his story is his actors’ performances. A strikingly appropriate choice for a film intent on exploring the depths of the human soul…
And as for the exploration… Well, the argument as to whether or not we are all capable of evil or not do come up be it in philosophical contexts or day to day events… This film makes a remarkably clear point of proving this to be the case. I mean, if I told you the end of the film, out of context, you would probably not be able to understand how that happened. However, the slowly climbing tension, the enmity of the citizens of Dogville, an enmity that they themselves were not aware of at first that slowly seeps into the relationships and leads them all slowly, surreptitiously and inexorably to a rather horrible place… It’s that typical “we don’t like strangers round here” kinda small town hostility, so familiar from westerns, but multiplied and made real… More spiteful. At the very end, when the credits start rolling, von Trier makes a second point, superimposing Young Americans by David Bowie with a series of very striking photographs from impoverished American shanty-towns – towns just like Dogville - he makes the film into a commentary on the whole of American society… “Dog” ville, “Dog eat dog”, heartless capitalism and all that jazz… There is a lot more to say about the film but I’ll let you go on ahead and actually watch the film first…

AND A LITTLE EDUCATIONAL SOMETHING : RAIN OF THE CHILDREN

It has been a shamefully long time since a documentary graced these humble pages. The main reason for that is the fact that I simply don’t watch enough of them. But even though they are few and far between, I try to share the good ones as they come along. I mean, it is never too late to learn something new, right? Besides, Rain of the Children isn’t what you might call “didactic”. I mean yes, you learn a lot from it and it gives you a lot to think about but it mainly carries the spirit of storytelling. Oh yes. In fact, it combines two different stories to be precise. One is a history lesson, a fascinating story about the history of New Zeeland. And the second is a story of the present day, the effects of this history in the life of one old woman and her son. For the life of Puhi, the old woman in question, is not only closely linked with historical events of Maori history but are quite extraordinary in their own right… The best thing about the documentary is that the film maker Vincent Ward, who sees Puhi and her son Niki as family, doesn’t seek to “educate” or “give a message”. He merely attempts to honor an old woman who is dear to him and has now sadly passed away, and share the quite extraordinary story of her life.
Vincent Ward meets Puhi for the first time in 1985, when he is 21. A young and intrepid filmmaker, as far as I can understand it, he is touring round New Zeeland, his homeland, in attempt to discover something, without being quite sure what it is he is seeking. On his travels, he comes across Puhi, an old woman of over 80 years old at the time who lives with her adult son Niki. He ends up staying with them for two years, filming them during his entire stay. On hearing of Puhi’s death, he returns to the place where the extraordinary threesome first met and traces back Puhi’s life. During the course of this long and complicated story, intertwined, as I said, with Maori history, we learn a lot. About Maori history and culture, of course, but also about the strength of the human spirit, the effects of grief, the power of beliefs and much, much more…
The documentary is in effect a biography. And at first, we are slightly confused (I mean I was) as to why we were watching Puhi’s biography in particular. I mean, every life conceals a story, but why make a film about Puhi? What would interest us, people who didn’t know her at all? I was wrong in thinking this… First of all, the first half of the documentary. This was an eye-opener for me. I mean yes, we do basically know about how the settlers first came to Australia and New Zeeland. How the natives had no immunity to the European diseases and died in their thousands. How the “white men” (that would be us) took over the land. Try, if you can, hearing these stories in detail, from the natives perspective. Ward makes sure his narratives are objective: whenever possible the story is told using old photographs of the actual people and events and witness testimonies of people who were actually there, Puhi as well but not only her. Naturally, there are re-constructions too, but they are not the primary source of information. We meet the great Maori leaders, including the self-proclaimed prophet Te Rua. Seeing the black and white photos, and then sometimes listening to the people in those photos, Maori history comes alive.. And it ain’t pleasant folks. Steel yourself for that one. But then, when we arrive in due course to the present, Ward doesn’t give up his “sense of reality”. The effects of the various events in the first half of the documentary are narrated mainly with the aid of the footage of Puhi, filmed by the director during those two years they lived together. I will not go into details, because this is a voyage of discovery you really have to make for yourselves but keep the tissues handy. Even the director himself chokes back tears sometimes as he tells the story, a story obviously very important to him. And through the clear and honest narration of the film, we are drawn right into it. I mean, I know that generally speaking documentaries are meant to be “educational” in one way or another. But who said they cannot have emotion as well? Rain of the children will educate you in matters of the human soul as well as history. You will not regret watching it.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF FOOD OF THE SOUL...

No, no, no folks, I haven't taken up meditation. MUSIC is the food of the soul, remember? I mean, honestly, I can't remember who said that, but I remember someone did and that counts for something I suppose =)
So it's musicals this week. An iffy genre, some like it, some don't.So I tried to keep a very wide selection. For the lovers of the golden oldies we have Gene Kelly toe-tapping away, for those who think musicals are a bore we have Jean-Luc Godard's take on the genre (and believe me you'll be trying so hard to unravel this little baby you won't have time to be bored) and lastly an Oscar winning, world famous... Penguin. I bet you know who he is too :)

now settle back, open your ears and eyes this time and enjoy the show!

Essie

THERE'S NOTHING QUITE LIKE AN OLDIE! SINGIN IN THE RAIN

I’m not quite sure how I should describe this one. Of course we have all heard tell of “classical Hollywood”, right? Of course we have. Singin in the Rain is my idea of “classical – classical Hollywood”. You know how when someone says “picnic basket” we all think of that little wicker one with a red and white checked table cloth? That kind of classic. Or the brownies your Mom used to make. Now, you all have your own ideas concerning Hollywood. Some approve, some disapprove, some don’t really care. I personally respect all these views. But I can say, with confidence, that if you want to watch a fun romance with some wonderful, sparkling, all singing and all dancing numbers thrown in, Singin in the rain is the one for you…
In this little beauty Gene Kelly is Dan Lockwood a Hollywood actor (someone see a contradiction in there somewhere? Hehe) just at the end of the movies and the beginning of the “talkies”. That is the advent of sound in cinema folks. He is famous as part of a duo, his counterpart being Lina Lamont (Jen Hagen) an actress with whom he is linked in every way by everyone else but who he personally despises. Still, it is good for business, so while he does his best to make it in showbiz, he keeps the association as well. Until, that is he meets the love of his life, Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds) a girl from the chorus line, by no means a big name in Hollywood but he mistress of his heart all the same… However there are storm clouds on the horizon. Sound may well mean the death of the career of his acting partner, and with his heart now in someone else’s hands as well, Lina will stop at NOTHING to keep her claws on what is “rightly” hers…
I have mentioned this before and I will say it forever and anon, we all LOVE films about showbiz. Realistic or not, it feels like a little peek backstage. And it may give us the “comforting” feeling it’s not what it’s cracked up to be, not really. But still we flock back to those movies. So I predict you will love this little showbiz number, and not just for its gossip value. Intrigue and flying claws are a-plenty but then there is the singing and dancing. By God, the numbers… They really knew how to do it back then… One word of warning is, that to the uninitiated, some of the number may feel a touch too long, but really I found them worth watching. Check out the comic numbers by Donald O’Conner who we see as Dan’s inevitable best friend and sidekick. One of the most believable and “real” sidekicks I’ve seen in a while that one… Anyway, for the dancing a last point is that Gene Kelly himself was the choreographer – and I secretly feel that he made them out to show himself to the best advantage but there you go. He kinda deserves it too.
I mean, others among you may remark that the film lacks, well… Substance. And it is true, it is a a-typical boy meets girl movie with good songs and dancing thrown in. A bit like candy floss - lovely but well, slightly pointless. Then again, there is nothing at all wrong with a bit of candy floss from time to time. If you want to unplug for an hour or two and toe-tap to some good old fashioned tunes, this is your fella!

THERE'S MORE THAN ONE WAY TO MAKE A MUSICAL / "UNE FEMME EST UNE FEMME"

Yes, naturally we all know that musicals, music hall numbers are one of the staples of classic Hollywood back in the day. And that was precisely what directors such as Jean Luc Godard were criticizing back in the ‘60s. I don’t mean the popularity of musicals of course, but classic Hollywood and the lifestyle it stood for as a general rule. Directors like Godard tried to make their films “unfilmlike” if that’s a word at all. And the aim in doing that was to get the viewer to think about the film. Why a certain thing was done, what it stood for. Something, anything to jerk you out of the soporific state more commonly known as “getting in to a movie” and get us actively participating. That is why the films of directors such as Godard are often deemed unwatchable by most normal folk. I mean, fair is fair; sometimes you just want to unplug and relax. Actively participating in a deep and meaningful philosophical debate is not the first thing you want to do after a tiring day at work. However, there is wisdom in checking these films out from time to time, when you are in the mood for something serious. Not least because the results of Godard’s experimental style are not always boring /unwatchable (or both). Like this post modern musical, Une femme est une femme.
Angela (the rather dazzling Anna Karina who Godard would end up marrying) is a stripper. She has, however, dreams and hopes like other women. And one of them is starting a family. She is determined to have children soon, and her schedule is pushed back just a touch when the latest tests inform her that that very same day is her most fertile day to fall pregnant. Now she has only a couple of hours to convince her boyfriend Emile – but he doesn’t exactly look favorably on this idea that has been sprung on her. So she turns to her husband’s best friend Alfred (Jean Paul Belmondo) who does care about her but is still a little surprised by her offer – and besides there is Angela’s boyfriend to think of. So what will our heroine do? Will she be able to start the family she wants so much? Or will she have to wait until the next fertile date comes along?
Now, this is and is not a musical. Music features greatly in it, no doubt about that. But the characters do not actually break out into song (apart from Angela, who sings as she does her number on stage). It is nevertheless, and very openly, a salute crossed with a criticism of the genre. The storyline is funny when you get into it - and please note this film was made in the early sixties so what with one thing and another, it was quite brave to have the whole film about sex, getting pregnant by anyone at any cost (and that could be a poke at some storylines still knocking around today!). And even though the “non-diegetic” (not pertaining to the “film universe”) elements will jar with you from time to time, you will begin to find it funny after a while. A couple of my favorite quotes and examples are these : Alfred (Jean Paul Belmondo) is summoned to Emile and Angela’s flat after the couple have had a major quarrel. Emile wants Angela to ask him to go to bed with her if she’s so desperate and Angela is hesitating. Alfred listens for a while and says “I hope this is not going to take long, A bout de soufflé is on TV and I don’t want to miss it.” – A bout de soufflé is a film by Jean Luc Godard =). Another favorite is that when an actor is mentioned at some point in the film ( I forget who) Jean Paul Belmondo turns to the camera with a big grin and says “He’s a good friend of mine!” Things like that. There are a lot more I can think of but I’ll let you pick them up on the way. Now, this is not the usual way one watches a film but for me, it gave the impression that, I don’t know, I was part of the action. Sitting relaxing with friends, you know, that kind of ambiance. And I mean chatting, not just listening to a lecture – as it were. It’s a nice easy Godard if you want a soft landing into French New Wave. I mean, I don’t like everything I have watched that he has done, but this was a winner in my books.

AN LASTLY, A MODERN TWIST : "HAPPY FEET"

Ok, we’ve had the classics, we’ve had the off-the-wall versions, how about musicals today? I had a couple in my selection. And until I watched this one, for a completely different reason, I had a completely different film in mind to make up this trilogy. However, the more I watched Happy Feet, the more “right” putting it here seemed. I mean, it is an all-singing, all dancing extravaganza with a star cast this one… I mean, so what if the ones doing the singing and dancing are animated penguins?
Mumble Happyfeet (who borrows the voice of Elijah Wood) is a seemingly perfectly normal penguin. I mean, his father Memphis (Hugh Jackman – or the voice thereof) did drop the egg for a few seconds when he was incubating but still… His mother Norma Jean (Nicole Kidman) loves him all the same. But as Mumble grows, a problem emerges. A little-known fact about penguins is that they can sing. Indeed, they must sing. This is how they find their one true love; singing is what their society is constructed around. And Mumble cannot sing to save his socks. He can do something else, it’s this funny jigging around with his feet, but the older penguins do NOT approve of it. Besides, what with the great fish shortage, times are tough, there is no time or energy to be wasted on such frivolity. However, Mumble is determined. He knows in the roots of his claws that what he is doing is right. And that there is a way for him to somehow fit in and belong. Oh, and that he can figure out what is happening to the fish. Mumble is about to go on a voyage of discovery beyond his wildest dreams…
Even the most hard-hearted anti – animation – and - musicalist among you will not be able to resist this one. The songs are so skillfully chosen and so well performed that you simply cannot help toe-tapping and heck, even singing along. And the range of songs is just soo great that you are bound to come across at least one of your old favorites – I did! (Somebody to Love by Queen – I startled the entire household by spontaneously breaking into song; since I was actually watching the film on a laptop with earphones, it took some explaining afterwards not least because my level of singing is round about the same as that of Mumble, as anyone who was karaoked with me can testify). The themes are well-known ones. Society, change, being a late developer, not fitting in at high school (yes, penguins have a high school), finding your feet (ho ho) and, last but not least, (and rather unavoidably) the evil things mankind is doing to the planet and how we have to do something about it. So, Ok, you will not discover new worlds with this one. But it will sure as heck rock your world. I mean, pollution is an important issue, and as we are NOT doing anything about we should be reminded from time to time. As for the rest, well… We can all relate to each and every one of those themes on some level so we may complain that they’re classics but they are classics for a reason… In short, watching this film was some of the best fun I have had in a very, VERY long time. If you have somehow missed it, this is definitely one to catch up on…