THEME OF THE WEEK : THE PAIN OF WOMEN

Now, my only "cause" in life is to watch as many films that are humanly possible before I'm beemed to that big old film archive in the sky. However, one thing is for certain in this funny old world of ours, it's that women suffer. Oh don't get me wrong, so do men. It's just that women have a set of rather specific problems attached to being women. The films I have chosen this week are films that underline this fact, whether the heroines are trying to gain equal rights in the work place or just grow up (Attenberg). I am sure you will find them interesting and enjoyable but I also hope it will give you some food for thought...

have a great week and happy viewing!
Essie

PAIN IN THE WORK PLACE : "MADE IN DAGENHAM"

So, there was a film festival where I live a while back. I look forward to it the whole year round and every year I spend a fortune on movie tickets and for a full two weeks just devote the majority of my time to movie-going. Sheer bliss. Now this has its numerous pleasures and advantages, however, one can find it a tad difficult at times to motivate oneself to get out of the house, especially if it’s raining and it’s a late-night show. Which was the case for this one; mind you it was also the first film of the festival for me so motivation wasn’t at a high point either… By the end however, fear not, I was perfectly clear in my mind why I love the festival so much. Home systems and such are all very well but it can’t beat the real thing can it? I queued for four hours for those tickets – I really worked for them, and now it’s time to enjoy them… You have to be a festival go-er to understand…
Right, made in Dagenham. Now, I love British films. I really do. This had a little added “Easter Egg” surprise for me (You know, those little surprise features they put in DVDs sometimes. They’re called Easter Eggs. Oh never mind…). Anyway, in one of the secondary parts was one of my favorite actors of all times, Rupert Graves. (You may or may not have heard of him, here’s his imdb page). And although I AM a huge fan of his I repeatedly lose track of what he’s doing (heck I repeatedly lose track of what I’m doing as well so no one should be hurt by that fact!) so seeing him appear on the screen all of a sudden was a massive and wonderful surprise for me. Not that I needed to be any more positively disposed towards this one. Oh no. This is the amazing true story of 187 women machinists who worked in the Ford factory in Dagenham in 1968. And they had a problem. The industry (all industries in general in fact) payed women a lot less money than men back then. So the ladies were classed as unskilled workers and payed a pittance. So this group stood up and did something about it. They threatened to go on strike. No one took that seriously either – so they went on strike. They had everyone, from their husbands in some cases to the biggest manufacturers of the times against them but they stood up for what they believed in. But did they achieve anything? Watch the film and see…
This film is a wonderful critique of the woman’s place not only in the work place, but in the world in general, in the ‘60s. And we’re talking about Britain here folks, not a developing nation or the Middle East. I must say that the position of women in the workplace is still far from ideal, even in developed nations ( I won’t even begin on the developing ones). In a lot of big companies, the higher you go up the proverbial food chain the more testosterone is pumped around. I am a strong believer in equality and that this will change one day, not just in Britain but all around the world, so it gave me great pleasure to watch the story of the brave group of women who took on the world and unwittingly took the first steps to change the world fundamentally. And it reminds one, no matter what the issue is, that sometimes in life, in the film’s own words, one simply has to do something. It’s a very real and down to earth movie this one. About real people with real problems who had the guts to stand up and take real steps to solve them. And that, dear friends, is what I call real courage. Highly recommended.

PAIN IN A MARRIAGE : 40 M2 DEUTSCHLAND

Ok, for the next couple of weeks ( I may or may not have mentioned this point) most of the entries to this blog will be made up of the films I saw in my local film festival. Not the biggest festival in the world, that’s for sure, but it sure comes up with the goods! The newest and most talked about films of the year rub shoulders with time-honored classics – and some films that should be cited among classics but are not - and we, the movie-goers, sit there and drool. And lament minor details like the inability to be in two places at once. Now, this is one you probably haven’t heard of. It’s by a Turkish director, Tevfik Başer, and it was shot 25 whole years ago, in 1986. This being a festival, he was kind enough to show up after the screening for a question and answer session, to which I will not be able to help but touch on in just a couple of minutes, after I give you an idea of “the plot”.
In the mid-eighties, a Turkish couple, Turna and Dursun move to Germany. Dursun, the husband, is a factory owner, Turna, the wife, is a housewife. Both are uneducated people who have come here from a small village in Anatolia. Nothing “new” so far, right? Dursun, like any other husband, goes off to work each morning. However, before he goes off to work, he makes sure he locks his wife in the house, because “she doesn’t know what these Germans are like”. So, for Turna (whose name, ironically, translates as Crane (the bird) ) a life of imprisonment begins. Nothing she says or does can convince Dursun to let her out, or even take her seriously, so for Turna there is only one option left. Finding a way of communicating with the outside world from within the 40 m2 she is trapped in…
First of all, as I watched the film, I was saddened by its relative relevance even today. Assuredly, in Turkey many things have changed, this cannot be denied, but especially in rural areas, small villages were education is not as wide spread as it should be, women live in similar conditions. And of course, if the family decides to emigrate, it is not unimaginable that they live in much the same state as Turna.
Anyone who thinks this “unrealistic” may be interested to hear that Tevfik Başer based this film on a true story. He studied abroad for many long years before returning to Turkey, and some of that time abroad was spent in Germany, training to be a cameraman and studying media studies, specifically documentaries. He had observed one of his neighbors – a woman like Turna, locked in her house day in and day out – and had begun to try and conceive of a way he could make a documentary on the matter. This slowly mixed with fiction in his head, and thus his first script was born… He was 25 when he shot this film apparently. Very brave move I must say; the film takes place in the 40 m2 of the house with almost only the two main characters and a handful of side characters all of whom we see for under 10 minutes. You might think it would be “unwatchable” so to speak, in fact, it is not. As you get into the psychological development of the characters watch their stories unravel, you can’t help but get caught up in it.
As he spoke in the question and answer section, Mr. Başer admits to being heavy handed with the symbolism in parts – a fair enough comment. “I was young” he said (Or so I recall) “It was the excitement of my first film; I would probably have done a lot of things differently if I shot it again today.” This saddened me immensely, kind of like a child being abandoned by a parent. The symbolism IS heavy handed in places, but seeing as Turna is trapped in a couple of rooms and thus everything in it is “blown out of proportion” so to speak, does this really matter so much? I think not. It gives a good sense of claustrophobia. The claustrophobia both the characters are trapped by, in a sense. Turna is trapped in the house and Dursun is trapped by his prejudices and he is completely unaware he is trapped… Very sad… No, I reckon the film is perfect as it is.
During the session one much-lamented fact that the film is rarely shown and not really available on DVD except within a few German compilations… But I decided to review it anyway, you really must watch it if you get the chance, it’s a real little gem you would NOT want to miss out on…

GROWING PAINS : "ATTENBERG"

Now, a warning to all you conservative viewers out there. This is one of those “new fangled” films. You know, one of the ones that use abstractions and weird settings to get a message across. In my opinion, however, it does it so well that even if it does grate slightly at first (it didn’t in my case) you quickly get used to it (that’s what I guess happens any way). Now, much to my shame I haven’t seen much in the way of Greek cinema, this may in fact be my first Greek film ever. However, I found it deep and I found it thought provoking – despite the weirdness going on. Oh, talking of weirdness, there is quite a lot of nudity and sex in the film as well, personally I didn’t find it disturbing – partly due to the way it’s generally handled – but still, this is not one for the kids…
Now, meet Marina. She lives in a small seaside town in Greece. In this life she has two friends, her widowed father and Bella, a girl her own age. Now, Marina’s age is actually 23, but you wouldn’t know it to look at her. On the outside, towards strangers, she seems normal enough if rather quiet. On the inside however… Well, the lack of social contact, the closed community and her sick father who doesn’t have the time or energy to take care of her, her development has been rather stunted. Thus, at 23, she is still yet to “discover” boys. Bella, who is still awkward but slightly “better off” than Marina tries to teach her the basics but Marina finds the whole thing “disgusting”. There is a problem however. Spiro, her father is dying. Since her mother has already passed away, Marina must rather abruptly begin to learn all the things she has missed out on before Spiro passes away. Otherwise, there is really no telling what might happen…
Now, sitting from the comfort of the western world, the storyline may sound a little improbable to you but in fact, well it’s exaggerated but I can quite see what they are driving at. In developing countries, or in countries where there is a tradition of strict religious upbringing or just in small isolated communities, social relations are not what they should be. Things are often “more complicated” than they should be, and more sensitive issues like intimacy and sexuality are often not openly discussed and thus well… Stunted. Not as they should be. Not having the chance to run their course and develop naturally, the behavior patterns become far from “normal”. Marina’s relationship with her father for instance – she tells him everything, including “boys”. When he asks her why she’s telling him all this Marina replies “I have no one else to tell it to.” (Bella is a bit of a flirt and thus a threat). Her father also is more “at ease” in expressing his views to her; “Sorry” he says at one point “I keep forgetting you’re not my buddy.” “That’s because you don’t have any buddies” replies Marina. So in fact the lack of social interaction is affecting Spiro too. Just with Marina it has come at a more developmental stage, affecting her outlook on many things. This is somewhat where the name of the film comes in. “Attenberg” is actually Sir David Attenborough (obviously mispronounced), and Marina and her father love nothing more than crashing on the bed together and watching his documentaries – sometimes even imitating the animals (rather indicative of the fact that Marina doesn’t quite feel “human”, she is like a different species and thus unable to “mate” with humans). And in fact Marina is quite happy with her little tribe of three, but Spiro is dying and Bella, well… They may be tribe-members but she is a threat to Marina, it is high time for Marina to grow up…
Now, at this point I have to say I am not entirely comfortable with the process of a woman’s development and maturing being almost equated to sexuality (a bit like Black Swan in fact, don’t you think? Completely different contexts of course...) but then again, I guess it is one of the real “big” signs of growing up. It’s not called the “facts of life” for nothing. And besides, the film is a wonderful essay on loneliness, love (in many shades, not just sex – we also see Marina trying to cope with her beloved father’s death) and growing up… A bit in your face with the methods but beautiful messages…

A LITTLE BIT OF NOSTALGIA : WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY

“Oh yeah, I remember this one, Tim Burton, Johhny Depp, Freddie Highmore, right?” Err, wrong. 1971, director Mel Stuart, starring Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. Not that I have anything against the first movie mentioned, good Heavens no. Au contraire, I quite liked it, not that I remember it in any great detail. I mean, I do remember it but not the minutia. Anyway, I am taking a more studious view on films these days ladies and gentlemen, oh yes. Now, I don’t usually reveal a lot about myself but let me tell you this much, I will be going back to school this fall. Masters degree. In a foreign land too – foreign as in not the one I live in and have grown up in anyway. It’s going to be an exciting experience. The point, however, is that I will be studying Film Studies. Hence I am desperately looking round the cracks trying to salvage any major classics and directors that may have fallen through before the fall (notice the witty joke I slipped in there?) We wouldn’t want your friendly neighborhood film critic to get too many weird looks from her fellow pupils and assorted university professors, would we now? To get back to the point, I grant you, this is by no means a classic. I mean, it is, but there are bigger ones. Still, with the recent remake it’s a fascinating exercise to compare the two. Which I did, slightly (except for the minutia as I mentioned). The result was interesting. Not a bad movie, either…
Now, as Charlie and the Chocolate factory is a classic, a complete and utter classic, I will not go into the details of the story. Basically, in a small town there lives a young boy named Charlie Bucket. His father is dead, his family is poor and his four grandparents have been confined to bed for years. Hence they have nothing to eat but cabbage water and Charlie must work after school to help the house. In the same town there is the legendary Chocolate factory of Willy Wonka. Now, the factor y creates some of the most amazing chocolates and candies ever to be conceived of, but no one has gone in or out for years… The recipes are complete secrets. Until… Willy Wonka announces one day that he has hidden five golden tickets in Wonka bars all around the world. The people who find the bars will be taken on a tour round the factory and given a life-time’s supply of chocolate. Charlie is entranced, but with the whole planet competing for just five tickets and with the Bucket family lacking the money to buy bread for the table much less Wonka bars, does he even stand a chance?
And I assume pretty much all of you know the answer to THAT question. Now, there are big gaps, nay entire precipices between the Mel Stuart version and the Burton version of the film. I find it hard, however, to decide on the one I prefer. Now, in the 1971 version, I loved the setting. I mean, granted, in those days the technical abilities Burton used were non-existent. Thus it made infinitely more sense to style a more “real” town. I love the idea of the magical Wonka factory in the middle of a rather glum and very real little town in the middle of the United States. (though of course, Roald Dahl being originally British, the factory would have, no doubt be set in the UK originally this is a minor detail however. Anyway the general “gothic” and fairytale atmosphere that surrounds Burton’s version (as it does his version of pretty much anything) is fun. We all love it – that’s why the man’s a multi-billionaire. However, seeing a more “realistic” setting was refreshing. And the Wonka’s? Well, two entirely different interpretations… Now Depp’s slightly odd genius was brilliant – as usual – but I liked Gene Wilder better. True, Depp’s version suited Burton’s atmosphere infinitely better. Wilder’s Wonka is more “mad benevolent scientist” with flying hair and a top hat. A classic, you might say. On the other hand, Wilder’s version is EXACTLY how I pictured Wonka. Down to a t. so I’m on his side on this one and “Yaa, sucks booo” to anyone who says otherwise. There is, however a redeeming feature for the Burton version. And it is, in my view, a rather pivotal point in the matter. And that is Charlie. Now, the 1971 version introduces Peter Ostrum. A good enough little actor in his way. However, he is, I’m afraid, a little too much of an ideal of the times. Blond, blue eyed, fair skinned – not that there’s anything wrong with that – but also angelic, mild tempered to a fault and mature beyond the level any kid of his age would be. Unrealistic. Admittedly, Feddie Higmore doesn’t exactly turn the role on its head, but his advantage is that he looks and acts like he might exist. The 1971 Charlie could only exist in “Good Housekeeping” or TV Commercials. He annoyed me from the moment I set eyes on him. Not only that, the general attitude the film takes to children is well… I mean, I don’t want to give away too much of the end for the three or four people who have neither read the book or seen one of the movies, however, the 1971 puts a few twists and turns in the plot line. One last “little adventure” courtesy, supposedly, of Willy Wonka. Trouble is, I DO NOT remember this being in the original book. And apart from the fact that messing with the works of a genius like Roald Dahl is sacrilege in itself, they did it wrong. The main attribute of our hero, it seems here, is that he is a “good boy” who will “do as he is told” and not have his own opinions. On the one hand, having this attitude and then moving the film to the States, land of initiative and capitalism, is IRONIC. Secondly Dahl would NEVER want the hero of his books – the child heroes - to be “good as gold” and listen to their parents. Oh no, the kids in his books had spunk, character and they attacked the odds. I understand that this was just after the ‘60s, summer of love, political unrest and all that jazz. Possibly trying to impress the value of parental guidance on the next generation “at least”. They might have meant well but so not cool…
So the “battle of the Wonkas” is taken by a scarred but victorious Tim Burton. At least he stuck to the original ending. Depp will simply have to do as Wonka. Well, I’m not exactly heart-broken, he is rather yummy himself after all =)

A LITTLE SOMETHING THAT IS "ARTY": "ZELIG"

Now, Woody Allen is a tricky one. You either love him or you hate him. You either think he is utterly pointless or one of the wittiest directors alive. I am one of the fans. From the smallest thing to the largest thing, Allen’s films are choc-full of stuff. Real stuff you can get your teeth into whether to laugh or cry and as opposed to fluff. You know what I mean. Zelig was another film I “happened across” a while back. I watched it on a rainy morning when I was cramped for time, based solely on the two premises that I was short of time and I definitely wanted fill my “movie a day” quota. Zelig was 80 minutes long, so on it went.
It is, in fact a “mocumentary”. I mean, it is shot in the style of a documentary with “archive footage” and interviews with “experts and witnesses” but it’s really a story starring Woody Allen himself and Mae West. It is the extraordinary tale of Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen) an ordinary Jewish-American citizen with a rather extraordinary ailment… He “turns into” anyone he comes into contact with. Put him near Asian Americans, he starts speaking Chinese, African-Americans, his skin actually changes color. Put him in the same room as a doctor, he’s a doctor, confront him with an iron-monger, what do you know, he’s an ironmonger. The world doesn’t know what to make of him at first. Nobody except a young and beautiful psychiatrist Eudora Fletcher (Mia Farrow)She suspects Zelig’s transformation stems from his abnormally great desire for acceptance and love. Not only that, she also suspects she can cure him. Getting her hands on him, however, is going to be a good deal harder than she first suspected…
Now, I am a pretty smart gal as they go, generally speaking. But this being Woody Allen, I am still not quite sure what EXACTLY the film was poking fun at. But you can see the type, right? I mean, maybe it isn’t even a single type it’s a quality one can attribute to our society in general today. Preferences in society for instance (marked in the film by the public’s adoration of Zelig and their subsequent hatred of him), typical consumer society, we’re so phical these days. We want one thing one moment, two moments later it’s forgotten and we already have a new favorite. We change like “chameleons” with the times and we are led by advertising (let’s face it that IS what advertising is for but still…)
And then there are people like Zelig. On a more personal level they may be afraid to be themselves for fear of rejection (and that alone speaks volumes on where we are today as a whole if individuals are afraid to be themselves) or they may, a bit like Zelig, be rather “underdeveloped” (and this has nothing to do with age) as far as character formation is concerned. Or heck, they may just have an agenda, sucking up to all and sundry, making contacts, working their way up in the world. Whatever the case, you know the type. The people pleaser. Those who are what you want them to be. Who agree with everything you say. And it’s sort of ironic, because people like that are, most often, quite popular. So it’s funny – and well placed – that Zelig becomes the phenomenon of his age at first… A society of chameleons applauding the ultimate chameleon then? Mr. Allen can’t be thinking much of society today… Oh hang on, scratch that… I think we all know the answer to that one… =)

A LITTLE BIT OF SADNESS : "RABBIT HOLE"

“I don’t think I’ll be able to watch this” said one of my ex-colleagues known for her sensitivity, “My boy’s about the same age, I just…” “Oh poo…” I thought to myself as I settled down to the film. “Motherhood hormones eh? Guess I won’t get it ‘till I am one too!” I had been, however, slightly too dismissive of Rabbit Hole. After having watched it I can tell you with a clear conscience that it comes with a serious, SERIOUS disclaimer: “This film will seriously upset you. Watch on a sunny day.” Something like this. And this without even particularly liking Nicole Kidman...
It’s all in the subject you see. It’s the story of Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckheart). A loving couple going through one of the toughest patches a couple can go through. Their four year old son chased his dog out into the road a few months ago and the unfortunate driver of a passing car was unable to stop, hitting and killing the little boy. Ever since, their world has been turned on its head. The members of the help group they attend try their best – there are veterans who have been attending for a VERY long time there after all – so does the family; Becca’s brother has also passed away, that’s why her mother has plenty of advice to give as she suffers from the same pain. However life goes on – painful but true – and Becca’s sister is actually pregnant now and is settling down with her new and rather eccentric boy friend. Friends are around but understandably awkward, and though Howie tries to deal with the pain as best he can, Becca seems to have simply lost the will to live… Will she be able to “rejoin the world” or is she lost for good?
Losing a child is undoubtedly one of the greatest pains one can experience in this world… And this film gives us a sense-numbingly realistic portrait of the tragic event’s effects on the parents but also on the unfortunate driver as well… I am not a massive fan of Nicole Kidman – as I have mentioned at the beginning of this post – and I generally find her rather cold and unable to convey feeling. Of course, this sentiment comes into its own in this film – Becca is, in effect, completely numb. Unable to connect, unable to experience anything except her pain. You would have to not have a heart (emotionally speaking) not to be touched (hence, she was nominated for an Oscar with her performance and good for her!). Aaron Eckheart portrays a completely different way of coping; he tries to get on somehow, maybe the healthier outlook. This is not necessarily because he cares less or feels less pain but because he feels the need to join the world somehow to avoid the pain inside… Will their relationship survive this ordeal and their two very different coping mechanisms? Will they themselves survive this grave trial? You will have to watch and see…
Rabbit Hole is a brave film that takes on a difficult topic that is “not on the beaten trail” so to speak, if only because of its grave nature… It is a film about tragedy, and also about how life goes on… And that this not necessarily always a bad thing…

WHERE'S JOE BUCK? - OR MIDNIGHT COWBOY FOR THE UNINITIATED...

“The only x-rated film to win an Oscar®!” this film proudly professes in its trailer. And it’s probably true… No original story about how I got round to this I’m afraid… I was rooting around, I watched the trailer and thought: “X-rated with Oscar®? Dustin Hoffman?? Hang about, I’ve heard of this one… Ok let’s watch this today then…” I still have the film’s main musical theme “Everybody’s talking at me” going around in my head, that song really speaks to my state of mind at the moment (at the moment I write this post, not necessarily the day I post it… Ok it speaks to my state of mind at the beginning of March 2011 =)). As for the film? I’ve been telling ALL my friends to watch it…
Meet Joe Buck (the Oscar® winning actor Jon Voight) unless you have already met him… He’s a Texan, fresh off the bus to New York and he’s “one hell of a stud!” He has a plan, as do a lot of people who arrive at the Big Apple with their eyes full of stars. He has heard that “rich broads” pay good money for sex in New York. Now, “loving” is just about all he has felt he has been any good for all his life, so here he is. Ready for “action”, and to get rich quick… However the big city ain’t what he thought it would be. Even asking directions is an issue, much less finding the kind of business he’s looking for… Fate has it he crosses paths with Enrico Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) who seems like the first friendly face Joe has seen in New York but who is in actual fact a crippled short-con artist who survives thanks to petty theft and similar antics in a condemned building with no electricity. Rizzo rips Joe off well and good but later takes pity on him… The two will become friends and Joe at least has a friend to rely on as he mulls over his surprisingly traumatic past and his worrying present state, as he tries to see what the future might hold for him…
I have, as I am sure you have as well, seen A LOT of films on human nature and human psychology… And there are a lot of films about the various fates of various country bumpkins who try to make it in the various big cities. But rarely, if ever, have I seen a film so touching and deep at the same time. Joe’s attitude in the big city, his early life and the way he has formed his rather strange opinions of himself and sex, the way he interacts with Rizzo (or Ratso as everyone including Joe calls him, much to his disgust) they are all actually part of a “growing up” movie. Heck, the things Joe goes through in his short time in New York and the blows “real life” deals him are a bigger de-flowering than any sexual encounter ever could be… This is actually a story of finding your way, finding out who you really are and what you really want in life. To do that, the only way of doing that in fact, is following your dreams. You may see your dreams come true… You may, on the other hand, find that the road you thought led to your dreams actually ends up somewhere completely different. Somewhere you never would have thought of at first, but now you’re here you’re actually happy. Happier than anything you could have dreamt up before your journey… And this is the kind of journey we should all attempt to make, in my humble opinion…

THE HURT LOCKER (YES I FINALLY WATCHED IT =) )

Ok, I’m a bit late on this one aren’t I? The fact is that I sort of resisted the thing for months on end. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I quite see the importance of the film. First time a woman director has won the Oscar ® for Best Director and all that… I’m a woman, I welcomed the decision, heck, I cheered! But one cannot get rid of the feeling that it was mainly because the film was about the war in Iraq and the Oscar ® ceremony happened to be on International Women’s Day that year… Now I decided to be professional about this and watched the damn thing… I surprised myself by actually liking it. However, unfortunately, I still firmly believe that the above was the main reason for the film winning an Oscar®… Oh well it’s still a good film of course, so here it is in the blog J
Welcome to the Bravo Unit in Iraq. This is one of the toughest units on the grounds, they are bomb experts. The team leader is responsible for the actual diffusion of the bombs while his two subordinates provide aid and security. With 38 days left in their rotation, the team leader gets killed and replaced by Sergeant Will James. James is something the unit has never quite seen before. Excellent at his job, yet seemingly with no regard for his own life and personal security he takes situations head on in his own “unique” way, driving his team mates Sergeant Sandborn and Specialist Eldridge (who is already struggling to make it to the end of his rotation with his sanity intact) to their limits. Will the three soldiers survive their rotation mentally and physically? Will they grow to understand each other and become friends or is James too far gone in his own little world? Only time will tell…
The film is a very interesting one, I’ll give you that. It is deeply psychological and Sergeant James is categorically one of the most interesting characters I have seen for a very long time. It talks beautifully of the psychology of war, of fighting and the states of mind of the troops on the ground, not just in Iraq but all around the world. As we watch the film we are reminded that war is a terrible, terrible thing. We also see how “quirky” people cope with something as structured as the army – or try to, anyway…
However… Yes I’m afraid there IS a however. The film is full, FULL of war film clichés… I won’t even bother enumerating them; you’ve seen them so often you’re probably as bored of them as I am… It’s like the film almost was something very interesting and original, changed its plan half way, and the committee gave it an Oscar ® for effort anyway… Another thing is, you know how we are proud of Katheryn Bigelow for being the first woman to win the Oscar® for best director? The film is so butch, such a “guy’s film” that… That almost seems to “make up for it”, you know? There is one single female character in the film who appears right at the end (Ok, understandably, this is a war film), but this just adds to the… I don’t know like I said, it’s very much a typical, guy’s war film… A very good one, but not an original one…

"IT'S A FREE WORLD"... OR IS IT ?

Ah, the irony of the title alone… But then again, that’s Ken Loach for you… It is true he is one of the last directors who have taken it onto themselves to fight for equality and liberty throughout the world… This is what the critics like to call a “stinging criticism of modern society”. It is also, however, a very, VERY good film. So much so that my Mom got quite upset while watching it (because it was good not otherwise) and decided she “just couldn’t take it”, stopping watching it all together…
Well, meet Angie. She’s a common or garden wage slave like you or me but the thing is, her job is a little original. She works with an agency that places immigrants from various countries in the UK for jobs. It’s a tiring job, but she’s good at it and she needs to make a living for herself and her son Jamie (of whom her parents hold custody). But one fateful day, well to put no finer point on it, she is fired. Anyone who has been fired before knows full well this is NOT a pleasant experience. And in her anger Angie vows she has had enough of being a cog in the system, she wants to be a wheel. Heck, she wants to found her own system. So she does. Found her own company that is. Rose, her friend and business partner – and the more cautious one of the two – cannot quite believe Angie’s bravado, but the masses of money rolling in soon make the whole operation very real indeed… However as the amount of money and power involved grows, Angie just can’t seem to be able to stop… With human lives and thousands of pounds literally in her hands, Angie is no longer a cog, this much is certain, but what then, has she become exactly?
Immigration. I can’t think of a European country that is not “involved” in it first hand in this day and age… The populations of bigger, richer countries complain of the influx of hopefuls looking for a better life, the populations smaller ones dream of joining said influx… But as we complain of “Polish plumbers taking our jobs” we would do well to remember that the said “monster” would not be here “taking our jobs” unless he/she had to. Desperation is the buzz-word here, no doubt about that, and it is this desperation that the “system” or “systems” – like Angie – abuse. What is to be done about it? Well, it is hard to say, ideally the entire planet should be changed to make a fairer, more just system in the entire world, but obviously that will not be happening any time too soon… Still, that doesn’t mean that the plights of untold thousands who, for God knows what reason, set off into the world in search of a better life should be ignored… Call me a hopeless optimist if you will, but I believe it is possible to make the world a better, fairer place… And openly discussing our problems is a very, Very good start.

THE BLACK SWAN

As I watched this film, and subsequently weighed it up in my mind later on, I figured out what it is about Aronofsky’s films that doesn’t quite scan with me. I don’t quite know how to express the sentiment but there’s just… Too much of it. I mean, in a film, you obviously have various strati of emotion, sidelines and characters, it’s what prevents the film from becoming one sided, shallow and boring. But with Aronofsky, there is just too much of everything. Ok, this makes the film complicated, some may say even closer to life. His films are usually original – inimitable even – and packed with emotion that just simply knocks you out at the end, leaving you feeling as if you have been hit by a freight train… However, when you get to thinking about it – or rather when I get to thinking about it – I find that a lot of very interesting points just feel “not properly developed”. There is a lot of different stuff just packed in willy nilly. I mean, ok, one might argue that he is leaving some work to the viewer. I’m all for that, I do not want to be spoon fed. But you can have too many hints and mysteries in one film and wonderful as the result may be when you chase them down, I do not want to be Sherlock Holmes or have to have a degree in clinical psychology to actually “get” a film. I mean, you can have a few deep and mysterious allusions in a film, use them as a theme without completely explaining it throughout like Jarmusch for instance, I’m fine with that. It’s when you cram 20 such allusions into one film that I start to “tire” of the whole thing.
So, stripping all allusions aside, what is Black Swan about? Nina (Nathalie Portman one of our newest Oscar ®winners. Now hand on heart, I truly believe that hers was one of the best performances of the year.)is a ballerina. Now, ballet may look all floaty and beautiful to you and me, but in reality, it is cut-throat, like all art forms behind the scenes. Nina is among the best of the best, working for a Thomas Leroy, a very VERY tough taskmaster and head of company. To add to all that, her mother, who is her biggest supporter also used to be a ballerina. She was not nearly as successful as her daughter but because of this, she is determined to live out her dreams through her daughter, adding to the pressure. Now, ballet, as you know, like the opera, is one of those art forms that is sadly reduced to “clinging on for dear life” as far as popularity is concerned. So as the new season begins, there is no room for error and the competition among the soloists as to who is going to be the new leading lady / face of the company in Swan Lake, their new production is deadly. Against all the odds, Nina is chosen, but Leroy has a serious problem with her. She is perfect, he says, as the White Swan, but her Black Swan is very far from being convincing. She is “pure and good” and that’s very well, but when it comes to being “feminine and seductive” shy Nina is considered frigid and underdeveloped. Nina must change herself into the Black Swan for real and for the audience if she wants her life’s ambition to be a success but will her efforts and the pressure mounting up on all sides take a heavier toll than she can handle?
Looked at very simply, The Black Swan is the story of a woman discovering sex, sensuality and reaching “maturity” sexually. It is an important theme, I’ll give you that, but on its own, it would have done a lot better. It is possibly the aim of the director to make the film chaotic, mirroring Nina’s crumbling inner world, but really, I can’t help asking whether it was absolutely necessary to “crumble” the audience as well. There is a lot left “up in the air”, Nina’s relationship with her mother, her actual relationship with sex as a concept and the reasons for this point of view, her process of self discovery, feelings of jealousy, discovery and betrayal are all glossed over, started on but lead nowhere. I find it rather amusing to see that because of the profusion of women and sex in it, the film seems very popular with men yet not so popular with women. I mean, don’t get me wrong, the emotional climax is absolutely superb, why at the very end I had goose bumps (swan bumps even?) all over my body. My point is you are left unsatisfied. You’re left with hints and impressions of things, deep, important and striking things but… I don’t know it’s obviously a film to be watched more than once. I’ll watch it again and let you know if my opinion has changed but I definitely think it could have been done a lot better. Now don’t jump down my throat, I’m not saying I could do better. Maybe just that I would like to see a different director’s point of view of this script…

LA HAINE

I’m not quite sure how to begin this one… I mean, if I told you this film is a stinging critique of French society today, you’d probably run a mile… That, however, is EXACTLY what it is… The film is based around true events – or rather they have true events at their heart… Do you remember a couple of years back; France was scene to a series of violent protests around the Paris suburbs especially? These places were poor areas where immigrants settled and tried (and still try) to make lives for themselves in France. We are taken to those housing projects, and the day after the bigger of the protests, we follow three youths from the neighborhood around for a day and we try and understand what is wrong and what exactly they are protesting about…
Hubert, Vinz and Saed are the three youths. Hubert, Afro-French, is the worst for wear among the three. He has the responsibility of caring for his mother and siblings and his only way of doing that, his gym, was destroyed in the protests the night before. Saed, originally Arab, thinks the whole thing is a big adventure, not quite aware of how serious the situation is. Vinz – or Vincent, is the eldest son of a Jewish family and Saed’s best friend. He takes the protests really seriously and is frustrated with his friends for not “getting up and doing something” to change things in the projects… It only takes one day out of their lives to see the problems with society in general – much less that of society in France…
La Haine – Hatred is a film criticizing all global societies. In today’s brave new world, the old divides no longer matter… Saed and Vinz tease each other calling one another a “mock Arab” and a “mock Jew”, as far as they’re concerned, they are both French; they live in the same society. No, the new “us” and “them” is largely based around “have”s and “haven’t”s. The rich people in good neighborhoods, the cops (the “pigs”) who don’t give them a chance, they are the enemy. And the film does a strikingly good job of showing us the general sense of helplessness in front of this rather gargantuan and faceless enemy. You may have your feet firmly placed on the ground like Hubert, you may do Travis Bickle impressions in front of the mirror like Vinz, if you’re in the projects, well, the feeling is you never get out… The scene where Vinz is doing said impressions (in French naturellement) is quite touching actually. We are all actually so similar… And we dream the same dreams; we suffer from such similar things… The film has a great sadness about it which is possibly exacerbated by the fact that it is shot in black and white – in true film noir style. It will fill you with an overwhelming sense of injustice mixed with helplessness, but La Haine says a lot of things that truly need to be said and asks a lot of questions that need to be asked… I will not give too much away but just want to add, the end is one of the most striking I have ever seen…

DEV D

Film enthusiast as I may be, as I have mentioned before, sometimes important classics and sometimes entire genres pass me by without so much as giving me a jolt. Bollywood was one such genre. Well, it’s rather unfair to call Bollywood a genre as it is one of the biggest film industries in the world, but the point is that I watched very little – if anything – it had ever produced. This situation was about to alter when a good friend of mine brought me Dev D as a present, all the way from India. I was touched by the gesture and excited, Dev D is the modern remake of a classic Indian story apparently, it promised to be a fascinating experience. I am sorry to say as far as Bollywood is concerned, it turns out I am not a fan. (so sorry Kunal!)I have, after some deliberation, decided to include the film in the blog however, mainly because there are A LOT of people who are fans of Bollywood and they deserve to know about this rather brilliant example of the genre. Besides, I have nothing against the film itself, I can completely see its appeal, it just didn’t appeal to me…
So, so. Dev is the son of a rich businessman in the Punjab (that’s India folks, in case you’re not that hot on geography). His childhood sweetheart is Paro, the daughter of one of his father’s servants. Cast and creed do not matter to them, their love is true and their hearts are pure and they dream of marrying one day. However, they are torn asunder when Dev is sent to boarding school in London by his father. They keep in touch via the internet, though it is terribly hard of course. Time goes by and Dev, now an adult, returns to India, still dreaming of his beloved Paro. Once there however, evil tongs will not leave the two lovers in piece. Doubt is cast about Paro’s chastity (yes this is important in a lot of places in the world) and Dev, disgusted and betrayed because Paro didn’t wait for him, rejects her completely. Heart-broken Paro goes ahead and marries a rich suitor, Dev will understand his mistake but it is far too late… With Paro married, life has no meaning for him and he trails around the back streets of New Delhi, discovering drinking holes, bad men and loose women… On one such a night fate introduces him to Chandra, a young prostitute. Now, Chandra also suffered from slurs against her name when she was young, society rejected her leaving her no other option but prostitution. Will these two wounded creatures be each other’s salvation? Is there a way for Dev and Paro to be reunited? You will have to watch the film and find out…
This is basically a love story, something exciting (to a degree) and emotional. Bollywood songs are plentiful although the much- mocked massive dancing crowds do not show their faces much. Leaving the whole story completely to one side, the photography was interesting to watch. Not necessarily world-class performance but there is a lot of brilliant and colorful footage of rural India and the big city. And it is of course a cultural experience to watch the film and see the way the characters “traditionally” interact.
The trouble is that it is assumed (and in India at least this is often the case) that you watch a lot of this sort of film and you sort of “know” the characters already (luckily I come from a part of the world where similar storylines are plentiful so I recognized a lot of the characters too). However, character development is non-existent and some of the storylines (especially the dwelling emphasis on virginity) will be hard to “empathize” with in the West… I mean it is one thing to take something as it is and not think too much about it – which is precisely what should be done – but if, like me, you take to analyzing and mentally dissecting every film you watch, you might find it a tad tough to go through to the end. So, like I said, an acquired taste. Or something you have to watch when you’re NOT in the mood to think at all… That was possibly my mistake…