ESSIE SPEAKS OF WORLD CINEMA

Ok you guys, I'm back again, how are you all? Over here the schedule is getting slightly frantic so the update this week is slightly shorter so I appologise prefusely. But hey, Christmas is coming (sort of) so we don't have THAT much time to lounge around watching films, right? For me Christmas kinda means essay deadlines so I definately don't... :(

However, I still have some sterling films for you by some wonderful directors from very different parts of the world. watching them close together and comparing and contrasting styles could be quite something actually... If you're into that sort of thing... Just a thought...

happy viewing,
Essie

A STEP TO EUROPE : "BROKEN EMBRACES"

Yes I know collectively there has been rather a lot of Almodovar in the blog lately. But the thing is you see that I sometimes get “batch lots” of certain directors. If I’m not /don’t become a fan, this fact slips by unnoticed as far as the blog is concerned. If, however, like Almodovar, I “discover” them, well I want to share them with you. Hence they keep appearing on the blog. Now, these mixed bags sometimes spontaneously appear. It’s rather like opening the fridge, finding out that you have various odds and ends, you know, one celeriac, one carrot, two tomatoes… All perfectly good in themselves but you can’t make a dish with either. So you just blend them together and make vegetable soup. Occasionally the combinations get rather random. So I do realize that at a cartoon dog and one of the greatest Spanish directors do not exactly mix. But we can like them both for different reasons, right? Right. Moving on…
Matteo Blanco is a screenwriter and director, but he has been living as one of his “nom de plume”s, Harry Cane for many years now. He is comfortably between projects at the moment and is seriously contemplating writing a vampire film with Diego, the son of his agent and life-long friend Judith when he is made aware of the death of a prominent businessman. To Matteo / Harry this brings memories flooding back, and these memories are not exactly happy ones. As he shares his story with Diego we go back in time to say how and why Matteo decided to abandon his real name and become a character, why Harry is blind and why he is so struck by the death of a man who seemingly has nothing to do with him at all…
I was, just for a minute, tempted to put this with Dr. Zhivago from a couple of months back and make a “star-crossed lovers” week. As you can imagine, there is a love story involved. As is some of Almodovar’s favorite themes: jealousy, obsession, changing into someone else and of course cinema. And it is the great success of the director to be able to use these same themes over and over – often with the same actresses, we all know he has his “favorite” actresses in his films like all directors – and yet make a different combination, come out with a different point of view on it every single time. I guess it is because they are very basic human emotions and since they are all slightly different with everyone, it is possible to capture many different sides to them so long as you’re sensitive enough to see it. As it is, Broken Embraces combines just the right amounts of mystery and tragedy. Penelope Cruz is as brilliant as ever. And in this film we also see different sides to love. How it can turn into obsession and ruin lives, how, combined with mourning it can also change lives and live on – but in a different way. Like his themes, Almodovar is also consistent in his brilliance. Well worth watching…

AND A STEP TO FARTHER LANDS : "THE WIND WILL CARRY US"

OK enough frivolity; let’s finish this week off with a proper art-house movie shall we? And let’s get our noses out of Hollywood for a minute. Heck, let’s get away from Europe too. There is a lot of world out there and a lot of cinema in it, so let’s see what else is available to us. One tends to forget to do that, and one must remember that even though they do not always make headlines there are a lot of talented directors out there, a lot of fascinating stories and things we have yet to learn. Of course if one were to make a list there would be rather too many to mention. What I specifically have in mind for this week is Iran and famous Persian director Abbas Kiarostami. His film The Wind Will Carry Us won him prestigious accolades such as a Golden Lion nomination at the Venice Film Festival, not to mention FIPRESCI, Grand Special Jury Prize and Best Film at the same. There are, of course, problems inherent to a film originating from Iran otherwise I have no doubt the film would have many more accolades to its name. This silent, understated little masterpiece has a lot to say about life…
Iran is a fascinating country where many ancient customs rub shoulders with the new. One of the customs that have persisted like this to modern times is the concept of traditional funerals. These funerals – though sad occasions as funerals usually are – are marked, in rural areas with many customs different than our own, one of the greatest differences being the way the women injure themselves and tear out their hair. Unfortunately – or fortunately, depending on which way you look at it – this custom is sort of dying out now… But the media being the media, when a chance is found to film such a ceremony and comment on it in however way is appropriate at the time, it is not missed. This is how producer Behzad along with his camera crew of two ends up in a small remote village in rural Iran. Here, they have heard this ancient funerary custom still survives and what is more, there is an old woman who lives there who is literally on her death bed. So the team keeps a silent vigil, waiting for her die and their chance to capture the events on film… However the fact that the old woman seems to insist on staying alive throws a spanner into their plans. And as their stay grows longer and longer, a certain je ne sais quoi of rural life begins to rub off, even off steely Behzad…
The film starts off as if it is going to be quite difficult to watch. It is extremely slow-paced and nothing much seems to be happening, until that is, you realize that this is precisely the point of the whole film. We concentrate on the effects this “nothing happening” has on Behzad. Indeed, Behzad is such a focal point that although he interacts with his camera crew a lot and we frequently hear the two men’s voices we never actually see them. Another person we never actually see is the old woman who is meant to be dying. We hear of her a lot through the little boy serving as guide to Behzad and his team, we see her house and her son, but we never actually have that “fly on the wall” death bed scene one would expect from a Hollywood production. No, the film is completely tied in with Behzad’s point of view. Sometimes not even that seeing as Behzad does actually see his camera crew. The film is all about the fact that sometimes you just don’t know what life is going to come up at you with. You just have to have faith, lean back and go with it. That’s what life in the countryside is all about and that’s its fundamental difference from city life. In the city we are always on the trot, never quite sure where the next “thing” whatever it may be is coming from, we are either chasing after it or trying to avoid it. In the country work also continues but it is less frantic. There may or may not be a lot of it, the point is that the natural order of things is known, everyone knows their place in the order of things and takes that place with grace. This is what the face-off between Behzad – who is adamant that the old woman will die and wants to wait – and the crew – who after three weeks of futile time-wasting in the village want to go home to their families – really all boils down to. And personally I do think that we would all benefit from taking a step back and going with the flow… But what of the film? Is Behzad right in insisting on staying or has he lost track of the bigger picture? You’re just going to have to watch the film and see.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF CIVIL WAR

I know. A tad odd banging on and on about how peace-loving I am (and I am!) and then coming up with weeks dedicated to war films. I would understand if you began to get a tad suspicious.

But honestly, these civil war stories just randomly came to me. The theme was "in built" as it were. And none of these films claim that civil war is a good thing. One of the reasons I picked these three films is that they offer either a perspective on a famous event that we don't usually think about, or gave us a bit more info on historical events. They are good films, sad films, but they also teach us many things. One of them being that war of any kind is a terrible thing...

happy viewing,
Essie

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND "DANTON"

Anyone who has so much as gone near a book on European History will know the bare basics of the French Revolution. Marie Antoinette saying “let them eat cake”, her hair going white overnight when she is arrested, the whole gory shebang… And after that? Well, France became a democracy, the French revolution was inspiration all around Europe and in far off lands such as the United States, history was made, etc… That is the thing you see. When we wonder what happened next, popular history focuses on the effects of the Revolution elsewhere. One mustn’t forget – although it does sound like a rather silly point to make – that the Revolution had quite a few effects in France too. These effects were by no means confined to the year 1789, nor were they all pleasant. The French populace did NOT spontaneously start living in peace and harmony (one might argue that not a nation in the world has managed to do THAT yet, but let’s not split hairs). The point is, some of you might know and some of you may not, but the years immediately after the French Revolution, France was plunged into some of the worst years of tyranny and poverty imaginable. The populace lived in abject fear and for the most part poverty while the Revolutionary Council and the deputies headed by Robespierre violently silenced anyone who so much as questioned their authority… Danton is the story of one valiant attempt to bring the redress the injustices and the cruelty that the Robespierre had, perhaps unwittingly, perpetrated…
The year is 1794. Five years after the fateful events of 1789, France is far from the peace and harmony the perpetrators of the revolution had once dreamt of. Robespierre as the head of the revolutionary council – some sort of higher body of legislation if you will, making Robespierre basically the “boss” of 18th century France – is determined to stamp out every last voice that speaks up against the Revolution and thus the “good of the people”. And in this attempt no one is safe. Robespierre leads alone, he is one of the three main perpetrators of the Revolution; Marat is dead – there is a rather nice reference to the famous portrait of Marat dead in the bath being painted actually – and Danton has gone into voluntary exile after letter proving that he had sold information to the palace on crucial events of the French Revolution has been discovered. Now Danton is a businessman. (And incidentally, despite the lack of concrete evidence, based on what we do know it seems pretty certain he DID pass on information.) But he also believes in the principals of the Revolution. He sees that Robespierre has turned into a tyrant. And decides to come out of exile to try and put things right. He has two things on his side; first, he is one of the most talented public speakers of his day and quite capable of charming any crowd within minutes. Secondly he is known as a hero of the Revolution to the general population and his popularity and influence are already great… The question is will these be enough?
Now, anyone who has some basic knowledge of the post-revolutionary years in France will know that the answer to that question is no. But even this knowledge of “impending doom”, so to speak, doesn’t take anything away from the excitement and emotions created by this film… Danton is played by Gerard Depardieu, and I know that I’ve poked fun at him for being the “staple” of every single French film ever made, but credit where it’s due, here he is BRILLIANT. Danton is a “big” man in many senses of the word, he has a strong voice, he is tall with tons of personality. But he isn’t only show either; he understands politics very well, and the fact that he used to be a good friend of Robespierre makes the “match” all the more interesting. This is where the brilliance of Polish master director Andrej Wajda comes in, the first half of the film is made up of Danton and Robespierre “circling” each other, pitting their wits against each other and maneuvering. It has the potential to be boring but in fact one can’t help but watch with trepidation, as if one were watching a particularly good game of chess (if you like watching chess that is). There is a lot at stake for both sides; for Danton coming down to Paris and trying to set the world to rights is all well and good but if he doesn’t use his wits he may well end up on the guillotine. As for Robespierre, mowing down every single opponent is well and good – and there is no apparent reason why it shouldn’t work this time round – but sending a man as popular as Danton to the gallows could be political suicide, not to mention the fact that the two men used to be good friends…
I’m usually dead against saying much about the end of any film, but I have to say that I found the ending of this one cinematographically brilliant – one of the best I’ve seen yet – yet story-wise mildly unsatisfying. Ok so as you can probably guess Danton ends up on the gallows. But as he goes there he defiantly cries out that Robespierre has begun to dig his own graves and that he gives him no more than three months before he is toppled. History tells us that exactly three months after Danton’s death sentence, Robespierre himself ends up on the same guillotine in the Place de la Concorde… I’m pretty sure that that line is meant as a reference to that fact but I just wanted to clarify as it is a tad too oblique for my liking... But please don’t let this little spoiler put you off. As a film it is a true masterpiece… Whether you know the end or not…

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND "DR ZHIVAGO"

The moment I wrote the title for this one I heard the rustle of romantics everywhere reaching for their Kleenex. The epic love story of Dr. Yuri Zhivago and his Lara has now its own place among the literature’s truly great love affairs. But as famous as Boris Pasternak’s novel – and maybe even more so – is the MGM epic, one of the last great epics ever made, starring Omar Sheriff and Julie Christie. Emotions run so high and so much is at stake in this great adventure that even at three hours long the film seems to fly by… If we haven’t drowned in our own tears by the end like in Alice in Wonderland that is… =)
Dr Yuri Andreyevich Zhivago (played by Omar Sheriff – and ladies, you have to admit… he WAS a stunner in the true sense of the word…) is an orphan, brought up by family friends at the beginning of the 20th century. He is an idealistic young man with a warm heart and devoted to his trade, curing people. As they have grown love has blossomed between him and his adoptive sister Tonya (Geraldine Chaplin who I also admire greatly). Life seems to be treating him pretty well until the First World War and then the Russian Revolution changes their lives forever. Fate brings him together with Larissa on the front; he is a doctor and Larissa is a nurse. They are not complete strangers, their paths have briefly crossed before; but they are both married now and have young children. Even so, the bond between them is so strong that love blossoms despite their best efforts. But quite apart from the fact that they are both married the Revolution has changed their lives back home forever. Soon survival itself will become a serious issue, but is love stronger than this? More importantly will it support the two of them until better times when they can be together?
Of course this is one of the great epic love stories of the 20th century, of course Omar Sheriff with his legendary, shining eyes and expressive face coupled with the demure beauty of Julie Christie make for one of the most successful couples on screen but believe me when I tell you I have put this film in the “civil war films week” for a reason. The beauty of the film lays mainly in the fact that director David Lean has struck a great balance between the main love story and the effects of the civil war raging around them. For example, I was remarking to my mother that only in films of yore would you not be surprised to see that the main protagonists had not even met yet 70 minutes into the film (have a heart, it is 192 minutes in total). In a typical film, in a modern film in fact, the main action would be centered round the couple and all the bits of their lives that didn’t pertain to whether or not their love would survive would be elided or passed over quickly. Here the aim isn’t merely to present a love story. For example, after Yuri and Lara part company at the end of Russia’s involvement in the First World War, we follow Yuri back to Moscow. We see how life has changed there, how his wife and elderly father are surviving with the greatest difficulty and watch Yuri try to adapt to the new life. Of course the new life under Soviet rule was by no means easy; apart from the strictness, the censure on pretty much everything (stretching even to Yuri’s poems) famine and disease was everywhere, a fact we can witness thanks to Yuri’s job as a doctor. One could argue that these discomforts perpetrate Yuri and Lara coming back together again, but my point is that they could have been portrayed in a much more concise manner. Instead, David Lean (and Boris Pasternak) take the time to show us what life in the Soviet Union immediately after the revolution was like… The tragedy of Lara and Yuri is that they dream of building a new life together that would mean destroying their previous lives. This would have been difficult at best, but the new regime in Russia means their old lives are being destroyed anyway, and they are being destroyed in such a way that things may end up actually and physically destroying them and their loved ones. It is this pathos that makes Dr. Zhivago such a great story AND such a great love story…
Unmissable on many counts I’d say…

"THE KILLING FIELDS" OF THE KHMER ROUGE

My blood ran cold the moment I picked this one up. I had vaguely heard of the film – winner of three Oscars and nominated for a total of seven back in 1985 – a true story about the experiences of New York Times correspondent Sydney Shanberg (played by Sam Waterstone) in Cambodia of 1975 in the months leading to the take-over of the Khmer Rouge. The years after the takeover of the Khmer Rouge are told through the eyes of Dith Pran (played by Dr. Haning S. Ngor); he was Shanberg’s guide, translator and personal friend who was subjected to the full “Khmer Rouge experience” so to speak.
Sydney Shanberg is a war correspondent like any other during the war in Cambodia. The authorities on all sides find them slightly pesky, but the war correspondents of all nationalities stick together to form a motley crew of friends – and none were as close as Shanberg and Dith Pran. In Pran’s own words they are like brothers and together they have got into and out of many scrapes throughout the war. Yet they are both actually pleased when the Khmer Rouge take over, now at last it seems, peace may reign over this war-torn country… History has proved how wrong everyone who thought that was… While Shanberg, being western, escapes, Dith Pran, being Cambodian, has to remain. And we then turn from Shanberg to follow Pran, hear his amazing story and bear witness to his own first-hand experience of the killing fields of Cambodia…
In today’s turbulent times, Cambodia usually doesn’t feature at the top of international concerns and thus except for the discerning and politically conscious among us, the suffering endured in Cambodia is pretty much forgotten. This is why I think films like this are good things. True there is no lack of war – great escape – miraculous survival stories on the market (now don’t make that face; how else could an entire hour of footage be based on one man’s experiences in a communist dictatorship – surely you had figured that one out? Of course Dith Pran survived). My personal view is that as long as they are films of such good quality, they should definitely be watched, for two reasons. First of all, to bear witness to the suffering endured by these people. If Cambodia is no longer the top of news bulletins, such horrors should definitely not be forgotten. We will probably forget some murky article we see on the internet or in a history book; a well-made film however will stick in our minds. Secondly, because basically, we simply mustn’t become cold and callous to this kind of thing. I have a nasty feeling we are getting more and more immune to violence as a general concept thanks to the excess of it in films and video games and the media. This, I think, is not a good thing. Seeing the stories of real, actual people like Shanberg and Dith Pran remind us of the human side of the whole thing. It reminds us why war and violence are terrible things. And even though we all know this in theory, there is no harm in being reminded once in a while, right?

ESSIE SPEAKS OF GREAT DIRECTORS

Now, I need to clarify one point. I am not an "auteurist" per se. That is to say, I do not view films solely as the product of the director's mind - if you see what I mean. But then again there are some directors whose talent you simply cannot ignore. Who stamp their mark all over the film. Their style is so definitive that if you are by any definition a serious cinema viewer, you will probably know their films a mile away. And enjoy them.
This week is dedicated to three such directors. I am doing my best to make the selection as wide as possible but I may have veered slightly towards my favorites. But I mean, who doesn't like Hitchcock? And a bit of Asian cinema is almost compulsory for every serious viewer... As for Almodovar... Well... I mean even if you don't like him, you have to watch his film to make the argument as to why... Right?

I hope enjoy - happy viewing!
Essie

LET'S START WITH A CLASSIC FROM A MASTER - ALFRED HITCHCOCK - "VERTIGO"

I think we are all in agreement as to the greatness of Alfred Hitchcock. Not only did the man almost re-invent camera technique single handedly, to this day he has yet to be toppled from his throne as the king of mystery and suspense. Of course his great mind has given birth to many masterpieces, too many to name here, but Vertigo is surely, surely one of the greatest. I had watched this film when I was a very little girl, I recall. I mean I recall I watched the film, to my shame however, I do not recall a single thing about the film itself. It was before my “awakening” to cinema no doubt…
John Ferguson (James Stuart) has a successful career as a detective when a tragic incident forces him into early retirement. While giving chase to a criminal across the rooves of some houses, a sudden fit of vertigo makes him the inadvertent cause of the death of a colleague. However, no sooner does he leave his official job than an unofficial one land in his lap. An old school friend contacts him in great distress; he claims his wife to be possessed with the spirit of a dead woman and wants Ferguson – or Scottie as his friends call him – to follow her during the day; just to gain more information on her actions and keep her safe to help him decide what course of action to take. Scottie first pooh-poohs the idea, but then decides to follow Madeline (Kim Novak), his friend’s wife, anyway. To his amazement, Madeline does seem to enter trances and mirror the actions of a young woman who died 100 years ago. Scottie becomes fascinated with the young woman in more senses than one… Whether all his experience at policing will be enough to save the woman he loves however, remains to be seen…
In a lot of Hitchcock’s films, the story throws us curveballs. Seasoned viewers are used to it by now. However even in Hitchcock’s work, rarely are these curveballs so well hidden. I defy you to figure out what will come next, right to the last 30 second. And even if you do figure out what is going on, there is the typical trick of suspense Hitchcock uses in his film; you bite your nails as you wait for the characters to catch up, fretting whether they will put two and two together in time and trying to figure out where the story will take us. And a word must be said about the short side-line Scottie has with his friend Midge; a young woman who is very evidently besotted with Scottie but whose love goes completely unnoticed and unrequited. I enjoyed their dialogues as much as I did the dramatic tension between James Stuart and Kim Novak. In short, and as usual, there is nothing bad to be said about Hitchcock’s work of art. I mean, if it still features so high in “must watch” lists to this day, there must be a reason for it… Right?

A HINT OF LATIN - PEDRO ALMODOVAR - "VOLVER"

In hindsight, I like these two films together. Not just because both titles begin with the later “V” and are made up of single words either (although one is tempted to add on “V for Vendetta” as a third film and make this “V week” instead :D ) . I like it because Hitchcock and Almodovar are so different and yet both are so great in such different ways. This is a typical Almodovar film with passions (albeit of a different kind than usual) running high and pushing his characters to do extraordinary things; while Vertigo is a film shrouded in mystery and full of surprises of quite a different kind lurking behind every corner. The two styles are almost variations on a similar theme if you see what I mean. Ok you probably don’t, but if you think about it and watch these two films in quick succession believe me you will…
Raimunda (Penelope Cruz) and Soledad are two sisters from a small town. Although they both carry on their own separate adult lives in Madrid they have never lost touch with their friends back in their small hometown. Their rather senile old aunt also lives there; they visit regularly and listen to stories about how their long-dead mother helps her around the house. Funny thing is, the little town is most superstitious and it seems that most people believe that Irene, their mother, “takes care” of their old aunt. Well, imagine Soledad’s surprise when one day, soon after their old aunt’s death, her mother actually appears in her flat, claiming she is back because she has unfinished business to attend to. Soledad doesn’t quite know how to take this but one thing is very clear, the whole family has one heck of a lot of sorting out to do.
As happens some weeks, I was in two minds about putting this one in. But there were more reasons than one in its favor. First of all, no one can actually dispute the fact that Pedro Almodovar is a great director. Secondly, Vertigo (see above) and Volver share some themes – and I don’t just mean the things discussed at the beginning of this post. You may be surprised to hear this, but it is completely true. Both hint at the super-natural, both storylines include many secrets that are progressively revealed and although romantic love doesn’t enter Volver, love between mothers and daughters can be pretty darn strong too (believe me I know) I think I can let this one slip in. My “problem” with this film is that I feel that Almodovar, in a sense, “pushed it” ever so slightly. And in all honesty, I am not quite sure how I’m going to explain this without giving the end away. Ok, I mean, we all probably know that a shocking revelation is usually an integral part of any Almodovar film, but squeezing more than one into that, making one more dramatic than the other and to boot, not “showing” the second big revelation but just have characters talk about it (I mean I think it’s surplus to requirements in the first place) takes away from the potential of this film. But it’s still a good ‘un. Just not as good as it could be.

AND A LOOK TO THE EAST - TAKESHI KITANO - "KIKUJIRO"

The following film does have a gangster in it, but it is better qualified to be a parody of gangster films; it definitely isn’t a “typical” gangster film. Then again, it does spring from the imagination of master director Takeshi Kitano, so it would be quite surprising if it was typical. Those of you who are into Japanese cinema will know Takeshi Kitano well, and those who follow popular entertainment will know the rather surreal TV show he runs called “Takeshi’s castle”, where contestants have to negotiate one of the most fantastic obstacle courses I have ever seen… Even if it does kinda violate my rule of disliking films that have the director as the lead. This film reminded me of the show somehow, because it is shown largely through the eyes of Masao, a rather sensitive and introverted 12 year-old. The way the film is narrated, the little surreal touches are so well combined with a quite serious theme that personally my mind boggled at the success of the combination when I thought about it later… But let me get ahead with the story first.
School is out – it is time for every student’s favorite time of the year! No more lessons, going on holiday with the family… That is all very well and good – if you actually have a family that is. Masao lives with his grandmother. His father passed away, his mother works in a city far, far away and so for Masao, summer holidays mean being left home alone by his grandmother (who also works) and watching his friends leave town one by one. Masao is a quiet and obedient boy, but he is fed up. He packs a little bag and sets out to visit his mother, armed with an old address he has found. Luckily however, on the way, he is spotted by a neighbor. The neighbor, a kind woman who understands Masao’s frustration, decides to help out. She gives her husband, the good-for-nothing gangster Kikujiro some money and sends him along with Masao to accompany him to see his mother while she “covers for them” with the grandmother… At first, things do not go according to plan. The lazy Kikujiro has his own ideas as to how the money his wife has given him should be spent and the odd couple is thrown from one adventure to another on the way, much to Masao’s mortification, but in the end they arrive… Masao, however , will not receive the warm welcome he dreamt of… Kikujiro, for all his faults, has a heart. He feels bad for Masao and about the way he treated him on the way there, so he decides that at least on the way back he can show Masao a proper good time…
I have to admit one thing, if you are not used to Japanese cinema, you may have some trouble watching this one at first. The first half of the film is made up like the most surreal road-trip you could possibly imagine. It is funny, very funny indeed, but the type of comedy employed is very much “Japanese” comedy. Kikujiro, I felt is very much comparable to Leon, the character from the epic Luc Besson film; both are gangsters and very much children in adult’s bodies… And Kikujiro’s laziness and lack of logic (considering he is in fact a Yakuza judging from his tattoos) makes for a hilarious film – for those who are used to that kind of humor. But then, the second half of the film begins… And the whole atmosphere of the film changes the very moment Masao meets his mother. I will not give details of why it goes badly, so as not to spoil the surprise, but we are brought down to earth with a firm thud along with Kikujiro. He has been acting rather selfishly from the start and feels distinctly bad about the way the whole trip has gone for the little boy. He gathers around him a couple of allies and puts all his strength into making sure the little boy has fun, and since the imagination of Takeshi Kitano comes into play, these make for, if it were at all possible, even more surreal and absurd adventures and tableaus. You might start off thinking it is a touch lacking in substance for your taste – I did – but it is so well balanced-out with the second half, where a more sober air combined with Kikujiro’s surreal efforts (comparable to Roberto Begnini’s equally surreal Life Is Beautiful in a sense) make for a film about an extremely unlikely friendship that knows neither age nor background but exists for its own sake, and that will warm you right down to the cockles of your heart…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF THE LATIN WORLD

Hello there!

I hope all is well where you are. Here, winter is approaching and fast. Ok, who am I kidding, it's right here on top of us. Which makes it very opportune indeed that this week's theme is Latin week. The balmy beaches and samba in Brazil, the sun of Spain, some cinematic classics, some unknowns, and an "appearance" by famous Spanish director Carlos Saura.
And if nothing else, we can look at the beaches of Brazil and dream we were swimming... Right?

Happy viewing!
Essie

A MAGICAL JOURNEY BACK TO BRAZIL : "BLACK ORPHEUS"

Honestly, I am not sure how to categorize this film. It is a Brazilian “phenomenon”. This is true in more senses than one; back in 1960, the year of its birth, the film made off with every prestigious award available from the Oscar for Best Foreign film to a Golden Palm at Cannes. It is an adaptation of the story of Orpheus to Brazil of the ‘60s. Now on hearing that, you may or may not be sure how well it will work out. Believe me though, director Marcel Canmus makes it work.
Now, first and foremost let’s have a quick re-cap of the myth of Orpheus; it is rather important to remember it seeing as the film is an adaptation. Right, so, pretty much all of you have heard of Kybele, right? Greek goddess, that took care of the earth, harvests and seasons and such like. Right, so, she had a daughter, Euridyce. And Euridyce was as beautiful as can be, the most beautiful maiden there ever was. So much so that even Hades, the god of the underworld (death) fell in love with her and decided not to wait for it to be her time to take her and thus one day he snatched her and took her away to his underground kingdom. Kybele was, as you can imagine, distraught, as was Orpheus, Euridyce’s lover. Orpheus was so distraught that he decided to enter the kingdom of Hades and fetch back his beloved. So off he set, had many adventures (we can cut that bit short) and in short reached Hades. Hades was not best pleased with the insistent young man; however, his emotion, and Orpheus’s brilliant singing voice, touched him. So he decides to set Orpheus a challenge. Euridyce can follow him up above ground, however, she will walk behind him, unable to make a single sound and Orpheus may not once turn round to check if she’s still there. If he does, the deal is off. This seems easy, right? But the way back up is long and human curiosity overcomes, Orpheus does turn back and Euridyce is snatched back underground. Now that seems an opportune point for a tragic finale, but no, it’s not. Hearing of Orpheus’s failure (and no doubt muttering “If you want something done properly do it yourself, my fault for trusting a man”) Kybele intervenes. Hades is even further moved by the distraught mother and decides to make a deal. So to this day, Euridyce spends half the year above ground, half the year below. Kybele’s mood fluctuates accordingly, she is overjoyed when her daughter is there (spring and summer) and distraught when she is gone (autumn and winter) and hence we have the seasons. Nice story no? I may have omitted details but this is it basically.
Now, Black Orpheus has a slightly different slant on the story, obviously. The whole thing takes place in the slums of Rio. It is carnival time, music, dance and madness is in the air; everyone has laid aside their daily cares and is preparing to show off their dance skills and costumes. Orpheus is a tram conductor. His girlfriend Mira wants to settle and marry, and although he agrees in principal, in practice he uses his last money to get his guitar back from a pawnshop, not for a ring. And carnival time brings romance in the shape of Euridyce, the cousin of his neighbor Serafina, who has arrived to visit Rio. Now Euridyce and Orpheus fall madly in love; however, Euridyce has a problem. There is a maniac after her, trying to kill her. Orpheus swears to protect her, but sadly fails. Unable to accept the death of his beloved, Orpheus then sets off on a quest, (to the Rio morgue) to retrieve his beloved from the jaws of death.
On reading the blurb on the back of the DVD I was worried on a number of levels. In the first place, given the various influences in this film, I reckoned it would be too tragic. I mean a Brazilian soap opera crossed with a Greek tragedy if you see what I mean. Yes, I quite agree. Yuck. First of all, let me soothe your mind if you have had the same worry. The overall tone of the film is quite joyous, and the theme of rebirth that dominates the finale of the myth (you know, spring returning every year and all that) is definitely kept up – although I can’t explain how that is done at this juncture. And not only does the film take place during carnival time, but from what I gather most of the actors of the film are professional dancers (which, it has to be said, makes the acting a tad stilted in places and in the case of minor characters, but the film somehow carries this through..). And there is a reason for preferring dancers to professional actors, because in the film there are long sequences of characters (or in fact extras!) just singing and showing off their samba skills, much in the style of old-school musical “numbers”. And shall I tell you something? I watched entranced. The talent and the beauty of the dancing is so great and conveys the joy of carnival so well that you cannot help but be imbued with the pervading joy. However, just as skilled is the complete change of tone of the same scenes as Euridyce’s killer appears on the scene. The dancing crowd suddenly becomes sinister as the chase begins. By the way, yes the unexplained killer is just a touch iffy. I’m letting that one slip. But even if the film is a good one for the most part, the true mastery begins in the last 15 - 20 minutes and Orpheus’s quest into the underworld. High running emotions meet some quite stunning cinematography to make a film that merits every single award it gets… Keep an open mind and give this little monkey a spin. Be it the dancing, the cinematography or the canny way the myth has been adapted, you’ll find something to impress you.

SAURA AND A DARK SPAIN : "CRIA CUERVOS"

Although he is a director of world-renown, I know very little indeed about the works of Carlos Saura before I watched Cria Cuervos. I knew he had done a lot of work about dancing, films about dancing and films with a lot of dancing in it but that was about it. So when I read the topic of Cria Cuervos on the internet I didn’t know what to expect – except that it probably wouldn’t contain much dancing that is). I can safely say that whatever else it does the film takes one by surprise. It also comes with a bit of a caution; it is not an “average” film, it leaves a lot of running to the spectator. But I found it worth it in the end. In the end is very much the key-word here, but let me get to the plot without digressing much further…
As for the plot, I don’t know how much to tell you or how to begin… After the death of their father, their only guardian their mother being dead, three sisters; Irene, Ana and Maite enter the custody of their aunt. Their aunt and their old grandmother come to live with them in their old house and a new period in their lives begin. Maite and Irene, the youngest and oldest respectively, get on with the business of living. Ana the middle child however, has a tougher time adapting. She lives literally surrounded by memories of the past and her childhood, the death of her father brining back memories of the death of their mother and of other times when she was alive, not such happy times either…
Ok, so as far as setting the mood is concerned the film goes straight to the top of the class. The film’s entire atmosphere is of one of those long, austere afternoons we all remember from our childhoods. Usually we are visiting somewhere, we don’t have much to do, and we want to go home. The afternoon stretches ahead of us, dark and unpromising… That’s what this film feels like. This is not a criticism in any way because this is exactly what the film is meant to feel like. Ana is not happy. She wants to go back “home” but home here is not a physical place; especially since technically she hasn’t left the house she grew up in. Home for Ana is a place where her mother is still alive. And her mother, played by a hauntingly beautiful Geraldine Chaplin, is present in her day to day life almost as if she were still alive. Be it flashbacks (that, by the way, are constructed in such a way that at the beginning one is often not sure whether what we are watching is “actually happening” or not) or her imagination her mother is always there. Her father, Ana is obviously less pleased with. But he “has his place” at home too. What Ana doesn’t want is to live with her rather overly austere aunt. And it is only when she actually takes action to do something about this state of affairs that we actually understand what the film has been about from the start… Now, is leaving the “surprise” so obscure right until the end a good thing or a bad thing? I couldn’t rightly say. All I can say is that I only watched until the end out of a sense of duty and then, only after I had the afore-mentioned “a-ha” moment did I appreciate the beauty of the film. So, if you want to watch something original, go for it. Be patient though. Saura doesn’t give a way an inch more than what is necessary; you will have to put two and two together for yourselves…

AND LASTLY, BRAZIL TODAY : "CIDADE DOS HOMENES"

Honestly, I don’t know as much as I should about Brazilian movies. When I picked this up I only knew that I had heard that it was a good movie. Yeah I know, not much to go on. The thing is, I was reading a book on Brazilian films at the time (which reminds me I really should finish it someday) and I thought this would give me perspective one way or another. Since I’m actually actively learning about films at the moment, I watch some films purely out of a sense of duty. This is how this one started, but it ended up as one of the films I have enjoyed most in the last few days…
Ace and Wallace are two 18 year-olds who live on one of the many hills in the favelas around Rio. They have been best-friends since they were very small; Ace’s father was killed when he was small, Wallace doesn’t know who is father is so they have just looked out for each other, getting into and out of scrapes pretty much their whole lives. Now Ace is married and has a young son, Clayton – but this doesn’t stop the two mates hanging out. Not least because now he is almost 18 Wallace has to get an ID card. And he doesn’t want to put “father unknown” on it. As his grandmother, and all the rest of their friends and relations for that matter, seems to refuse point blank to tell him anything about his father, he and Ace set out on a quest to find him. They will not, however, like the answer when they find it. As the shroud of mystery surrounding Wallace’s father slowly dissipates, the boy’s friendship will be tested to the limit, and thanks to the gang war raging round the hill they live on, their very lives will come to be at stake…
What I loved about this film is the raw realism it contains. I don’t mean that it is especially hard-hitting or dramatic, it is just, you know, real. Even though, to be fair, I know nothing about the favelas in Brazil personally, the characters are believable and down to earth. From the gangsters down to the innocent passers-by, no one is black or white, just different shades of grey like real people. It is true, some really dramatic events will happen down the line in the story, but they don’t stick out. It is a film that calls a spade a spade, but it doesn’t embellish. That is why, I think, even though there are some truly heart-rending scenes it doesn’t seem contrived in anyway. It’s a credit to the actors of course, but also the lack of things like “emotional” close-ups and a “heart-rending” musical score… This film feels like a window into the real favelas in Brazil. You come away from it feeling as if you have seen, and learnt something important and real. It is refreshing to see a film intent simply on telling a story and showing things the way they are as opposed to harping on the poverty of the people or the gang-fights (and there are some horrendous scenes of gang fighting don’t get me wrong, they’re just not the main point of the film). It holds its head high and says, “Well, this is the way we are, and here’s our story, we don’t want your pity, we want you to listen.” You feel emotionally involved, but I guess I mean you don’t feel pushed to do so… And that, I think we can all agree, is a very refreshing feeling indeed.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF CLASSIC GENTS!

Well hello there.

Sorry for the minor delay; real life kinda intervened today but we are back on track now, as are these weeks films...
Right, so, what do we have for you this week? I thought we'd talk men this week. Now boys, don't let that statement send you running, although these gents are pretty darn good looking, I am focusing on their acting (honest!). I have tried to pick some interesting and thought provoking (or just plain funny!) films that showcase good acting by talented classics such as Ben Kingsley (my favorite) and Daniel Day Lewis (Mom's favorite).
There's something in there for everyone and I hope (as I do every week) that you enjoy these films as much as I did...

happy viewing!
Essie

AN EMOTIONAL ROLLERCOASTER : "THE HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG"

We all just about know by now that the heart of a good film is a good story. If there is a good story there, the rest will somehow pull along of its own accord. The same is actually true of the reverse. If the technical side of a film is good, “holes” in the storyline and plot may be forgiven. I mean take Avatar; it is, for all intents and purposes the story of Pocahontas with a few twists. Oh and special effects in three dimensions the like of which had never been witnessed before. When I left that particular film, my first reaction was “That was NOT a film.” Well it wasn’t. An experience, certainly, exciting, you bet, fun – are you kidding I wish I had the budget to see it a second time – but NOT a film. Something that was closely related to a fairground ride, crossed with a film. This is why, although I tend to tell people who exclaim “But it has no story at all” that they are being a little harsh, secretly I do know where they are coming from… Gosh I’ve swerved off topic on this one but I am actually trying to make a point… The point is, that House of Sand and Fog contains some of the best acting I have seen in a long time (hence it was nominated for various Oscars® in the field), the story is full of emotion and desperately gripping, but there are holes in it the size of the state of Texas. And yet, strangely enough, the rest is so good, you are gripped, by the story, by the performances and let yourself be carried away with it. And the rest of it is SO good in fact that one almost hasn’t the heart to mention them, but there you are… Let me just tell you the story and we’ll get to the matter properly…
Colonel Massoud Behrani (played superbly by veteran actor Ben Kingsley) is one of many Iranian citizens who have immigrated to foreign lands after the revolution of 1979. He and his family have settled in the United States, they are citizens now, and they are doing their best to start a new life there. Life is not easy, however. All their resources must go into keeping up appearances so their daughter may marry well – a task they succeed in – and after that, there is their young son’s education to think of. Colonel Behrani must work; keep down two menial jobs despite his advancing age to keep the family afloat as his wife barely speaks any English. Then he spots what seems to be a blessing from God Almighty himself. There is a house, a beautiful bungalow out in the woods on sale; it is to be auctioned off it appears, because the previous owner hadn’t paid her taxes. For the colonel this means one thing only: buy the house, renovate, sell at a profit, make a killing and thus have the money for Eshmail, their son’s college. What he doesn’t know, however, is that if the house has been seized, it is partly due to an error on the part of the government, Kathy (equally expertly played by Jennifer Connoley) is accused of not paying her business tax, but she in fact has never owned a business in her life; she has merely been lazy and ignored the government warnings until too late, partly due to her own personal problems. Thus she strongly feels the house is hers by right. And she will go to great, great lengths to get it back…
“Americans, they don’t deserve what they have. They have the eyes of small children forever looking for the next source of distraction; entertainment, sweet taste in the mouth… We are not like them. We know rich opportunities when we see it and do not throw away God’s blessings.” This is a direct quote from the film, something Colonel Behrani tells his young son at some point in the film. And this is, in fact, the whole point of the film really. Throughout the film you will note parallelisms being made between the “Caucasians” and the “Iranians”. One of the most striking is between the Colonel, who despite his sometimes undue strictness is a devoted father and Les, a sheriff’s deputy Kathy has an affair with and who thus begins to take evicting the Behranis a little too seriously, who doesn’t hesitate when walking out on his wife and two very young children without any explanations, just for Kathy who he has only known a few days. Another striking parallel is between Mrs. Behrani, who may not speak English but is the epitome of what it is to be a “lady” in the true old-fashioned sense of the word, not hesitating to wash Kathy’s foot (much to Kathy’s surprise and humility) when she has an accident. Kathy on the other hand is a mess, in many senses of the word, and seems to have a mildly illogical emotional attachment to her house, wanting to turf the family out at all costs, right until the very end… In short, some people seem to consider the “immigrants” the savages no matter what, but in fact when the behavior is analyzed, sometimes, the old fashioned “foreign” values trump it over good old fashioned, individualist, consumerist and in short capitalist society.
Which is where the bits of the plot I find mildly unbelievable come in. For example, quite quickly we find out that Kathy is a recovering alcoholic and her relationship with her parents is problematic. Yet, despite having joint ownership of the house with her brother, even after the house is foreclosed on and taken from under, her she doesn’t call her brother, stranger still neither do the authorities. Kathy then prefers to be homeless rather than go to her family for help, her family, from the little we hear from them, are not hostile to her in any way, just a typical, busy scattered and slightly egocentric family. That aside, the whole matter of the house being foreclosed on is a touch too sketchy for my liking too. We figure out that there is a matter concerning business tax involved and that this is in fact a mistake because Kathy has never owned a business in her life but then, we must believe that she has done almost virtually nothing about it since finding out about this situation; I mean, someone might have forged her signature, there is an ex-husband in the picture; he might have been trying to pull something but no. She is simply so negligent she just lets it slide. Then again, later on in the story, I will give no actual details but injuries are sustained in the house, yet it occurs to no one (until the finale where the ambulances vanish into the fog) to call an ambulance, and believe me, they are situations where you or I would be on the blower like a shot…
And then again, this is a film with a purpose. It is a film full to the brim with emotion and with some of the best acting performances I have ever seen. Incidentally, I would like to say that Ben Kingsley is probably one of the actors I respect the most in the entire industry, from Mahatma Ghandi to hired assassins, throw at him what part you will, he carries it off to a sterling standard. In short, the film is definitely worth watching. And it is definitely thought-provoking… I mean, just for example, how justified is Colonel Behrani in his criticism of Western society that I quoted above? Take a minute to think about it before you answer…

A TOUCH OF POLITICS WITH "THE BOXER"

The troubles. Do you remember what they were, readers? We don’t see them so much in the news these days as thank God those days are pretty much behind them in Ireland, but there was a time when the news bulletins every day were pretty much bound to contain some bombing or retaliation by or to the IRA. We have, naturally, had a lot of films about these bad times. And the political side of it is of course vital in understanding the problem. It is also interesting however to have films about the human consequences of these political uprisings. The Boxer is not, of course, the only one of its kind; it is however one of the better examples. Well, some combinations are just known to produce good results. Like pasta and cheese. Or coffee and chocolate. Or Jim Sheridan and Daniel Day Lewis.
Danny “Boy” Flynn (Daniel Day Lewis) used to be a professional boxer in East Belfast. But like a lot of young man in his gym, he threw in his lot with the IRA. He was one of the luckier ones in the sense that he was not killed, but he was sent to jail. When he is released 14 years later on good behavior, no one quite knows where he stands. Because although he has been true to the cause inside, in that he refused point blank to name names, he completely ignored the other IRA prisoners too. All he seemed to be interested when inside is keeping fit and keeping up his boxing, when he gets out all he seems interested in is building up the old gym, starting boxing again and hopefully turn the (already non-sectarian) gym into a place where Protestants and Catholics alike can come together and enjoy the sport. He also has another agenda: getting back with his former girlfriend (Ellen Watson). This however, will be tougher than it seems as she is now married, a mother of one and the wife of a political prisoner. Danny Boy Flynn however, is not going to give up on any of his dreams without a fight.
Danny Boy Flynn is a fascinating character in this story. He is in the strange position of being caught up between his heart and his heart. He believes in the IRA, that’s why he joined and that’s why he never gave anyone up for a cushier deal. He is, however, above and beyond anything, a boxer. And that’s really all he wants to do in life, box. Faced with endless time to think in prison, he decides that when he gets out, his heart will rule above and beyond anything. So no matter how impossible a task it seems ( the gym has gone to rack and ruin, most of the previous boxers are dead and his former trainer, now an alcoholic lives on the streets) he gives it his all. Then there is the matter of ??. She is married, and they live in a Catholic community making adultery a dangerous thing anyway; there is the added danger stemming from the fact that her wife is in jail for the IRA. And the prisoner’s wives are supposed to be above reproach in every way. Especially if they also happen to be the daughters of high-ranking IRA members. Daniel Day Lewis is brilliant as Danny Flynn; slightly awkward socially when he gets out of prison, not very good at communicating and slightly bewildered by the world outside, but at the same time doggedly determined. He is just as passionate as some of the others portrayed, who are a lot more vociferous about their beliefs and opinions, but unlike them he has a quiet determination that carries him far. Whether this is enough however, is something you will have to discover for yourselves…

AND TO FINISH OFF, SOME VINTAGE BRITISH FARE : "THE ITALIAN JOB"

Here we have before us two great British classics. Michael Cane is undoubtedly one of the best known and most liked British actors and The Italian Job has its own place among immortal British movies. I am not (in fact and in all fairness cannot) dispute the charisma of the young Michael Cane. And The Italian Job is no doubt a really funny movie, well worth a spin of a weekday evening – but I can’t really say I wasn’t disappointed. I mean, I expected more from this fella for some reason, possibly because of all the hype surrounding it…
So, a lot of you probably know “the score” but I’ll quickly run through it for those of you who don’t. Charlie Croker (Michael Cane) is a smooth-talking professional criminal. He is just out of jail and already onto the next big job. The idea is stealing four million dollars’ worth in gold while it is being transported through the crowded and congested streets of Turin. A lot of things seem to point to this being an impossible feat, not least because the mafia have got a hint of what the Brits are planning and have taken a personal affront to this daring stunt on their own turf. But Charlie, along with a little help from a randy computer expert Professor Peach (this character is first time I’ve heard Benny Hill speak!), the support of British crime-boss Mr. Bridger (Noel Coward !), three minis (appropriately colored red, white and blue), a couple of vans and a whole host of petty-criminals is determined to give it a shot. And get away with it.
Credit where it’s due, this film is one of the ones that is responsible for the birth of a whole host of hilarious heist movies, the modern and most successful incarnation being Ocean’s 11. And I was rather surprised to see that even this early ancestor was sure to involve the latest technology and computers. We have almost all probably watched the modern Ocean’s 11 and remember how highly computers figure in the film – here they have a place too. Admittedly, here the computers look more like walk-in freezers crossed with old magnetophones and the computer programs look like old and massive reels of film, but still. A nice touch. And of course there is the famous car-chase scene with the three minis and the Italian cops; now that one completely deserves its place in movie history, I’ve never seen anything like it! Michael Cane is dashing, funny and witty. There is a lot of witty repartee and word-play, common to British humor; the only problem you WILL have is if you do not like British humor… But I love it, so am biased.
I have to say however that; first and foremost this NOT the most original plot in the world. Benny Hill is a nice touch, but it’s classic, typical Benny Hill, just with a soundtrack. And I love Benny Hill, but in a film that bases itself on rather cool British humor I think he was a tad out of place. I don’t know, like spaghetti in chocolate sauce – nice in their own rights and separate, slightly “icky” when they come together. Another thing is, the whole film leaves a lot of loose threads at the end, and I don’t just mean the “cliff-hanger” ending, the whole darn thing is untidy – I thought so anyway. You just have to “suspend belief”, accept “that’s the way it is in the film” and get along with it. It just doesn’t bare too much scrutiny. So just don’t scrutinize it (with me it has become a professional hazard) just sit back and enjoy, and you should be ok. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you.