THE DEJA VUS OF MADAMDE BOVARY

Well hello there.

Firstly I want to appologise for not having  been able to get my output back up to three films a week yet. My life involves dissertations, job hunting, flat hunting and moving into temporary accomodation at the moment. And although my regular escapes to filmland continue unabaited, I need energy to actually write the things up to the standard I would like to present them to you. So bare with me a bit more. We'll be back up to three soon.

In the meanwhile though, we have some good 'uns this week. We have a tribute to Tony Scott in the shape of my favorite movie of his (and there will be more of this coming up by the way) and a breath-taking costume drama to sweep you off your feet besides. I'm confident about these two. I know you're going to like them.

By the way, a quick little "behind the scenes" moment. I rewatched one of my favorite films the other day. I was confident I had reviewed it here. Heck, I was sure I had. Turns out, I hadn't. I'm literally hopping with excitement. I can't wait 'till next week when I get to share it with you!!

in the meanwhile, happy viewing,
Essie

IN MEMORIAM OF TONY SCOTT : "DEJA VU"

Well, I would be no kind of cinema lover if the (newly) late Tony Scott didn’t get a mention in the blog sometime soon now would I? Think what you will personally of Tony Scott, the man was one of the greats. He is one of those rare gems who can actually walk the thin line between art pieces and popular cinema (I think we’re all in agreement that these are two totally different things, right? Right. ). Now, for some, this means that Tony Scott’s films were neither one thing nor the other, making him sort of a Jack of all trades  / master of none kinda guy. I think those who support that idea need to think twice about that statement. If you’re a creative person, it is hard enough, on some level, to constrain yourself to the “rules” of classical filmmaking (Oh come on, you DO know what I mean). But then again if you adhere too closely, chances are you’re going to be able to pay your rent and all that but just fade away as a filmmaker. It is notoriously hard to show originality without going off on a tangent. It is, as I said a very fine line. And Tony Scott, God rest his soul, was an artist and an entertainer who was able to revolutionize classic genres (notably the action film) AND create perfect art pieces at the same time.  I strongly feel that this film was one of his best, so here it is. 

Our story starts in New Orleans, when a ferry carrying the crew and families of a navy vessel is blown up. Among the first on the scene, is BATF agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) is among the first on the scene.  But if you thought all that can be done at that point is piece together the clues left behind to catch the culprits, you are mistaken. There may actually be a way to save them. Carlin learns this when he becomes attached to an as yet experimental FBI unit. The methods they use are dangerous and even the most brilliant scientists are unsure as to the full capacities of their machinery but the lives of hundreds are at stake. And among those hundreds is the woman Doug has fallen in love with. Without ever having met her… I would like to close my summary with the film’s tagline, which I find particularly poignant: “If you thought it was just a trick of the mind, prepare yourself for the truth”…

And if at this point, you’re going “Oh, so what, they’ve invented time travel” err, no. It’s a tad more complicated than that. What the heck do I mean by that? You’re simply going to have to watch the film and find out. First of all, respect for Tony Scott. In the first place, the film is a class A action film. All the ingredients are there, charismatic hero, wild chase sequences, the pyrotechnics, special effects… Every box ticked. Then, there’s the sci-fi part of it. Now, like I said, it’s not just about sending agents back in time “Terminator” style. It’s more complicated than that. And Scott does NOT just gloss over the explanation. He actually explains it. I mean, we watched the film as a group, there were moments (more than one – and we’re all postgraduate students by the way) where serious explanations to the question of “what just happened??” were necessary. So it’s a genuine, serious and intelligent sci-fi movie too. And on top of that of course, there is the romantic angle. And I mean, first of all , come on peeps, it’s love. That’s NEVER a cliché. Secondly, Denzel Washington and Paula Patton (who you may remember from such films as Ghost Protocol and Precious amongst other things) are spot on with the chemistry. For one minute I want you to now stop and think about how hard it is to take three almost completely unrelated genres (not two, three. Two might work – it usually does. Three is where it gets complicated) and mix them in such a way that the result is smooth, classy and nail-bitingly, arm-of-the-chair grippingly exciting. Just “sticking them together” simply does not work out. You have to watch this one to know what I mean. 

TRUE PASSION IS TIMELESS : "MADAME BOVARY"

Say what you will. My theory is that deep down inside, we all like costume dramas. It’s just a matter of how cool you want to look. I know it’s not considered “in” to like costume dramas but still. The often luxurious settings, the romance, the passion, the emotion… I mean of course, it has to be a good adaptation say the BBC or some-such good quality production company, any old thing simply won’t do. But when it’s well done, I feel there is nothing better than soaking up the emotions and the atmos of a good old-fashioned costume drama. And come on. Clever quips and depth of meaning are important, but passion… Now that’s something we all need in our lives on a regular basis. And you can ask Emma Bovary if you don’t believe me.

A lot of young women in Emma’s place would be grateful for a man like Dr Charles Bovary crossing their path. She is an orphan and a convent girl with very little knowledge of the world or much in the way of prospects of rising a lot in society. Until, that is, Dr Bovary not only crosses her path but falls madly in love with her and proposes to her. The one thing Emma wants out of life is passion. She wants love, she wants excitement she wants, above all, the glow of the big city. As far as she is concerned this marriage will be the first step to all of this. She is proved sadly wrong. Dr Bovary is every inch the country doctor. And although he worships the very ground Emma treads on, passion and adventure are not at all high on his list of priorities. Sadly disappointed in her new life, Emma starts looking for adventure elsewhere. This much may not have been a problem if her search wasn’t accompanied by a steadily mounting debt at the hands of the wily and ruthless merchant Lheureux. As Emma digs herself deeper and deeper, both emotionally and economically, her chances of survival seem to get slimmer and slimmer. Unless, of course, sheer determination and strength of character can actually save her.

First of all, a touch of disambiguation as there is an absolute ton of Madame Bovary adaptations out there. I am talking about the BBC adaptation of the novel as a miniseries. It’s starring Frances O’Connor as Emma and Hugh Bonneville as Dr Bovary. It was nominated for both Golden Globes and BAFTAs. And it is a very worthy adaptation, both of the company and of the awards it was nominated for. The acting is absolutely top quality, the cinematography something quite impressive (director Tim Flywell has got quite a few very striking shots in the film) and the art direction, well… Just takes you right back to the 19^th century. I used to have the impression that Emma Bovary was a bit of an air-headed teenager (to be fair I hadn’t read the book) and I put the DVD on simply as an accompaniment to my dinner. I ended up going through and watching the whole 2,5 hours of it in one setting. The series does a brilliant job of exposing Emma’s true drama  - and Charles’s too. In short, it’s wonderful, full of passion – just as Emma would have wanted – and a perfect chance to indulge your inner romantic (go on, you know you have one)… Preferably watch with tissues. And chocolate. 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF THE 24 HOUR PARTY SQUIRRELS

Well hello there!

I'm at that stage where there is light at the end of the tunnel. Or, equally possibly, there is a speed train hurtling towards me and I am about to have an encounter of the third kind with said (metaphorical, naturally) train. I do escape though. I escape into movies. The said theme of escape may well be the reason behind the presence of surrealism and clubs and things (not necessarily in the same film - although of course that would not be undoable at all) in this week's updates.

So here's to trying to escape, in time or in space. Enjoy your movies and the week, see you next thursday!
Essie

THE TRUE STORY OF THE BIRTH OF THE "24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE"

This, my dearies is for all “I was born too late” generation out there. It’s a brand of music popular with people born in the ‘70s really, but us, the early ‘80s generation just about caught onto its tail. And of course, there are some exceptional young people out there (although not that many these days) who recognise the genius of bands such as the Sex Pistols. Joy Division. James and the Happy Mondays (although this last band was a bit of a British phenomenon. Still.). Anyway, this is their story. The true story of the Manchester music scene in the ‘80s and ‘90s and more pivotally, of the one man who made that magical atmosphere possible : Tony Wilson.

Tony Wilson (played nothing short of brilliantly by Steve Coogan) is a journalist. A Cambridge graduate, he has high hopes of his life. The stories he is sent out to cover do not always match these expectations. Except one. One event that will change his life – and in fact the lives of many others. Now, the event in question is the first concert the Sex Pistols ever played in Manchester. This was back in the late ‘70s, before they actually took off you have to remember, so there were only 42 people there. Now, this looks more like a flop than a historical moment, I know. But as Wilson points out throughout the film, whether it’s crowded or not does not necessarily mean it’s not historical (I love his metaphors so I’ll let you discover them for yourselves).  So Wilson’s life changes. He opens a club. A record label. Signs bands like Joy Division and the Happy Mondays. Thus begins an absolute whirlwind of a night job for Wilson. His style is both unorthodox and not entirely sound economically. The changes he makes to the Manchester music scene however? Ground breaking.  The question is, does he have the stamina to see this whirlwind to the end? Or will the only end he actually sees end up being his own?

This film is brilliant on so many levels. Director Michael Winterbottom – and I’m sure Coogan as well as he’s quite the master of formats and such like – has made a film a bit unlike any other I have seen before. First of all, especially at the beginning – and I’m rather sad they didn’t follow through on this tendency but can see how it would be impractical – the film’s footage is interspersed very cleverly with actual footage of the great bands of the time singing. There are a lot of references to real life, a lot of celebrities of yesteryear (including, amusingly, Wilson himself – the real one that is - , don’t worry about missing him though, he gets pointed out to you) have cameos. It is very evidently a very affectionate film made by a crew that loved that music and / or that era. What is also original and  good, however, is the fact that Coogan will, every now and then, turn to the camera and explain what is going on. Not as Wilson though. As Coogan. It’s a brilliant device, a sort of Brechtian distanciation that pushes us to think about what we’re watching, and the fact that it is not actually fiction. Well the film is fiction, but you know what I mean, the events really happened. Most of the time. But don’t worry, Mr Coogan will explain that to you as well…

THE SECRET LIFE OF "THE RED SQUIRREL" / LA ARDILLA ROJA

Allrighty. Time for a bit of Spanish spice and salsa methinks. But this film is NOT your typical Spanish film. Nor was it directed by Almodovar. Now, I specify that because in some circles, I am getting the impression, Almodovar’s name and Spanish cinema are getting entangled in a way that Depardieu and Reno’s names are getting entangled in French cinema. As in, we don’t seem to see a film from France without one of the two actors in it. This, however, would be slightly unfair on the rest of French cinema. The same is true for Almodovar and Spain. Almodovar is one of my categorically favourite directors, but there are some really good films out there that he didn’t actually direct. This is one of them. And I really want to share it because this film really impressed me. It starts off looking as if it’s going to be something quite mundane –a very dear friend and I were watching it for a lecture and were unsure as to why the lecturer would ask us to watch it in the first place – but as the film progressed, it turned into something so exciting and so extraordinary that it made its mark on the entire year (not least because, much to our frustration, the film was slightly longer than our slot in the viewing room so we had to fast forward the end first, then watch it properly later).  But anyway. Enough talk. Let’s get on with this thing.

Having broken up with his girlfriend of many years, Jota has decided that life, all in all, is really not worth living. He is on a bridge contemplating ending it all when he witnesses a motorcycle accident. The driver – who turns out to be a young woman – is badly hurt so Jota calls an ambulance. When the young woman tells the doctors she cannot even remember her own name, Jota steps in. He invents a name and a past for her, pretending her name is Lisa and that they have been living together for many years. Soon, when her physical injuries heal, Lisa is discharged with no apparent sign of her memory returning… The couple decide to take a few days off and go camping. Which is where the whole thing begins to fall apart. Not only does Jota begin to suspect Lisa may actually remember things she is not telling him, other characters begin to appear on the scene that begin to cast doubt both on Jota’s story and on Lisa’s. The rest is such a surreal masterpiece that I really do not want to give more away but believe me, you will NOT see what is coming.

This film manages so many things at once. First of all it is a world class thriller. Seriously, Hitchcock himself would be proud to sign his name under it, it’s that good. Another director that supports the film is, the internet informs us, Kubrick who apparently said it was among his favourite films.  I have not actual proof of this statement but I would not be at all surprised if it were true…  Because seriously, it is THAT good. You may think, for example, that sticking surreal bits into a thriller would  be a bad idea  no matter how good the thriller was – or possible especially IF  the thriller is that good. No. When it is done well, it is done well. Serving venison in chocolate sauce does not sound like a good idea on the surface either but it is a delicacy (ask Gordon Ramsey if you don’t believe me) served in very expensive restaurants. Same here. You may also think that the plot is a little too cliché to be as good as I say. Ah but you see, to every story there is a kernel of cliché, no matter which way you slice it. It is the original treatment of it as detailed above, coupled with the great acting and the intelligent plot twists that mean that this film is something properly special. On the other hand, let me just point out that when I say surreal, don’t think it’s going to go all arty on you and shy away. Oh no. It is very tastefully done, at just the right amount. Besides, you’ll be so caught up in the story that I’m pretty sure that even if you positively loath surrealism, you could forgive it, just to get to the bottom of things…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF THE GHOST THAT COMMITED THE BANK JOB

Well howdy folks! I hope my posts find you well!  

Well the Olympics have come and gone in London town and yours truly, proud but exhausted to have plated some minor part in the proceedings, has returned to her real life. My real life includes dissertations, finding a new place to stay and job hunting at the moment. The only way to escape the stress and madness is movies. Lots of movies. Coming at you right, now.

Well I have two of my faves to share with you today. One is a spine-chilling thriller by one of my favourite directors Roman Polanski. And if that brand of excitement proves a little too much for you, take a trip back to the ‘70s and get stuck into a good old gangster movie. Well, this is me you’re talking to. Of course there’s a twist to it.

P.S There is a reason the title of this post looks a bit off. I have to stress at this point that neither of the week's entries has anything remotely to do with absurd comedy. Read on. I'm sure you'll get it :) 

Enjoy!

Essie

FACING "THE GHOST (WRITER)" OF HIS PAST...

I am not quite sure where this borderline obsession with Roman Polanski stems from. It  wasn’t a “wow” moment for me. Like Kubrick for example. I saw Clockwork Orange and the film shook me up so much that I simply had to watch everything he did. Same with Tarantino. I saw Pulp Fiction – I had to see them all. Not Polanski. Of course his “reputation” usually precedes him. You hear the stories, the arguments back and forth. You decide to watch a film or two he did, just to get a view into the mind of the man. Then another. Then, oh incidentally another seems to come your way. Oh, there’s another Polanski in the bargain baskets – shame to leave it there really… Before you know it, you turn around and you’ve actually watched almost everything he has directed. It’s like that moment you look down at the box of chocolates you had on your lap to find that you’ve actually finished the box without realising it. Or a typical Captain Jack Sparrow “Where has all the rum gone?” moment.  Polanski is a versatile director with a great many talents but I think suspense is very much his forte.  So I honestly think this political thriller plays to his strengths and coupled with some rather brilliant acting from actors like Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan, it makes for the kind of thriller that makes you wave your arms and squeal at the television set at key moments. (Yes, this really happened. The fact that I was alone in the house at the time only adds to the um… Atmosphere…).

Ewan McGregor plays an ordinary ghost writer with an extraordinary assignment. He has been hired to complete the memoirs of a former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) after the tragic suicide of the former ghost writer on the job. Mr Lang has retired to the USA and lives on an island with his wife and core staff. The ghost (whose name we never discover, rather poignantly) starts doing a good job on the memoirs, but soon their work is interrupted by Lang getting embroiled in a political scandal. This affair obviously stirs up a lot of emotions and events, from which The Ghost begins to glean, firstly, that his predecessor may not actually have committed suicide. That secondly, he may have discovered something that meant that he now “knew too much” and had to be disposed of. Then, he realises what his predecessor has discovered… The question is can he “survive” the consequences of this discovery?

As I said, one thing Polanski is a master of is racking up the suspense. And his method, I have found, very much lies in his minimalism. You see, there are hints. Subtle hints. But that is just what they are, hints. In some more mainstream films, one has to admit, the “hints” take the form of large neon signs and arrows. No, these are tiny. So in the first instance we are hanging onto the edges of our seats desperately scrutinising the screen trying to figure out where the next tiny clue might be. We know it’s there somewhere we’re just not…quite… And then there is another thing. A lot of Polanski’s films are very much based on dialogue. There is A LOT of talking. And not necessarily much in the way of illustration of what is being said. Now this is a risky method, it has to be said, but as Polanski often works with the best actors around; it almost never blows back into his face. But the result is, of course that not only are we desperately searching for clues, we are hanging on to every word that is being uttered to figure out the next twist. Then we catch something. We follow it through into the next sequences… Oh my God, hang on, NO!! The reason this is so successful is that Polanski’s world is, in its subtleties, very close to the real world. No massive, weird coincidences, no  “neon lights” pointing the way, little clues. And these little clues make us all the more uncomfortable. So no, you will feel no surge of adrenaline or wave of fear. You will, however, have millions of niggling little questions. You will, with a growing sense of dread, piece them together with The Ghost, picking up an answer here and an answer there. And as you go through your discoveries with The Ghost, who at some point becomes your partner in crime (Metaphorically) I defy you not to wave your arms at the television at certain key moments… A truly brilliant watch. Do NOT miss it.  

A BLEND OF BRITISH FACT AND FICTION : "THE BANK JOB"

As you know by now, I’m all for innovation and trying new things. Be it different genres, directors or countries of origin, variety is the spice of life and never more so when it comes to movies. But then again… There’s nothing really like re-visiting old favourites is there? I personally think that old favourites in matters such as this are specifically to be re-visited not “had” every day. First of all, if you consume said favourite every day (in whatever form it happens to come in), it will be “the everyday” thing. Part of your routine almost. And slowly, it will cease to be a favourite. You will, undoubtedly, become bored of it. However,  if you have it there, shining like a gem in a whole selection of different  “things”, it will always be special, your enjoyment will always have that edge to it. For me, as you know, there are several favourites. But nothing really beats a good old gangster movie. Especially a heist. I don’t know what it is about them, especially because the element of surprise is not always at the forefront of the creators minds.  (And I mean, let’s be fair, there are only so many directions the plot can go in, right? Actually wrong when it comes to this film, but you know what I mean. ) But anyhoo. That’s my guilty little treat. A bit like that totally kitch ‘90s tune you have on your mp3 player that you only play on the train when no one can see your screen (come on, you KNOW the one I mean…). And I’ll tell you something else. I don’t even care if its stars Jason Statham. Again. Because he is good at heist films. Period.

The Bank Job is based on a true heist. Of course “based on” means that there is a significant amount of truth in it with some imagination to fill in the gaps thrown in. This is the story of a group of petty criminals (the leader of the gang being, as always, Jason Statham) who are handed the opportunity of the bank job of a lifetime by an acquaintance (Saffron Burrows). The idea is to tunnel into the bank from the empty shop that they have leased almost next door and empty out the safety deposit boxes. This is, of course, a brilliant opportunity to get rich quick for the friends because, as the acquaintance points out, a lot of people hide compromising stuff in there. They may not even want to risk reporting it stolen. The friends think about it for a minute, and then pounce on the idea. But there are complications. First of all, the acquaintance is not as innocent as she may have first seemed; she is acting on the part of MI5 (or is it 6??) because there are some VERY compromising pictures of VERY important people that need to be got back NOW.  Secondly, like we said, there indeed is compromising material in the bank, put there by rather unpleasant people. And while it is true that they will never report it missing, this does NOT mean they will not come after it themselves... Have our friends finally bitten off more than they can chew? Will this heist actually turn out to be (literally) the last thing they ever do? You’ll have to watch and find out.

Now, I did a bit of research on this one as I jotted down my thoughts and considerations. First of all, the heist bit, as far as we can ascertain, is spot on. Down to the details. It occurred in 1971 and there was, according to one website, actual talk of compromising photos being found but of whom they were and how they compromised them remains a mystery to this day. I will not go into the details of the robbery as yet seeing as you haven’t watched it yet (probably) but I found it especially amusing to find out that the “discovery of the walkie talkies” as it were was also spot on the money. Nothing as queer as folk, eh?  All other connections (including “the photos” and the connections to the intelligence services) are more a matter of speculation but still, stranger things have happened in life…

The film itself is about as British as they come. Not surprising since, it turns out, it was written by the co-creators of British classics like “The Likely Lads” and “Porridge” (I apologise if that means nothing to you, but Porridge is one of my favourite sit-coms and I had to give it a plug). The humour is British, the characters are VERY British and well, it’s a 1970’s period film to boot. Now, this is my filmic equivalent of chocolate cake with chocolate-fudge sauce (and if, like my mother, you hate chocolate, I mean this as a compliment). But if it isn’t yours, I have to add that the combination of extraordinary real life events and some really creative writing and directing has meant that this is one heist movie you will NOT see coming. The plot twists come left and right when you least expect them and the characters are so charming, you end up rooting for them without quite understanding what happened. I mean, I started watching this after a very tiring shift, just to unwind for half an hour with every intention of leaving it half-way and going to bed early. I ended up watching the whole two hours and completely upsetting my own sleep patterns for a week. Totally worth it. 

FAMILIES AND NOSTALGIA... ESSIE SPEAKS OF UNEXPECTED DISCOVERIES

OK. There is actually a theme that unites the two films I posted today. It's just that I don't quite know what to call it. These films looked, on the surface, set to be quite unimpressive. They looked like clichés. But on watching them, I was bowled away by both, for different reasons. What I erroneously assumed would be quite superficial accounts turned out to contain massive emotional depth. So much so that I glad it's just the two of them in a way. It's a better showcase for the two films, since despite their differences, for me they embody the same sense of discovery and surprise. We move away from the Anglophone branches of cinema this week. We pay a visit to French cinema where veteran actor Gerard Depardieu does an excellent job of reminding us that sometimes hanging on to older values are really important. And in a rather brilliant example of modern Turkish cinema, we are reminded how difficult managing marriages and families can be... happy viewing! Essie

FAMILY LIFE CAN BREAK YOUR HEART : "CAN"

You all know by now, that from time to time, I like giving Turkish films a bit of a plug. And I was especially pleased when this little number actually got an award from the Sundance film festival this year – the jury special award no less. Not that a film needs to have an award to be good, oh now. Like most people, I believe that there is some unfairness going on in the allocation. In addition to that, there are a lot of good films and only so many awards. So, the difference may be about the width of a gnat’s eyebrow, the end result may well be that the film ends up without an award. In short, I am glad Can got award. It thoroughly deserved it. Back in the day, melodramas and comedies of much the same ilk (including cultural differences of course) as the British “Carry on” films were just about all Turkish cinema could / chose to produce. This has changed over recent years thankfully and there is a lot more choice and variety in the output. But this does not mean, however, that neither melodramas nor comedies should be sneezed at. Can is a perfect example to this. The film is, without doubt or discussion, a melodrama. It doesn’t have anything corny, cheesy or just generally “stale” about it though. It is a modern melodrama, very much set in our day and dealing with the problems of our times. Even though, bizarrely enough, the story is not that “new” at all. Can is the name of a little boy. But before we get to him we must meet Ayşe and Cemal. They are a poor couple, obviously from rural Turkey, who have moved to Istanbul with big dreams. And these dreams include a family. However, disappointment quickly mounts when doctors inform them that Cemal is infertile and that he cannot have children. The couple is distraught, especially Cemal, who both really wanted to start a family and considers this condition a slur on his manhood. There is only one solution – to adopt. This adoption however, must be carried out in the strictest secrecy. Ayşe must, for nine months, pretend she is pregnant. Everyone must think that Can is their own little boy. The adoption – that consists basically of buying a baby of a poor family that cannot afford to keep him – takes place and Can comes home. And although Cemal is ecstatic about the new addition to the family, Ayşe finds herself completely unable to warm to the child… The tension in the little house grows and grows until it pushes all our characters to a point from which there is no return… As I said, this film is a melodrama, there is no discussing that. The overflow of feelings, the dramatic events, the sadness all pervade the film and give it its own air of melancholy. However, what makes it different from your common or garden melodrama is the fact that it uses very modern tropes and modern character building with these rather classic elements. Neither Cemal nor Ayşe is painted in black or white, and this may seem like a given in modern cinema but we have to remember it is not necessarily the case. Especially in a genre like melodrama where we are used to the “pure hearted mother” vs a possible “femme fatale” or alternatively a hard – hearted man who wants to take advantage of her. Here we see something that we are not really used to seeing : the mother – classically the nurturing, caring one – rejects the child (for a very long time I might add) and the father – typically the cold and heartless one - looks after the boy, changes his nappies and cares for him. In second place, not only are the characters more realistic and further from the norms of the genre, they also develop. They learn and they change and they do so in a realistic fashion, not in the rather abrupt way characters tend to “grow” – fitted neatly into 90 – 120 minute slots (although I cannot tell you how this happens without also handing out some quite serious spoilers, so you’ll have to watch and find out for yourselves hehe). I know that some people think melodramas are too corny, too cheesy or just plain too sad. But if you want to see a modern, up to date version of the genre that showcases some great cinematography and some brilliant actin to boot, I’d say don’t be put off by the quite foreign language and give Can a whirl. Those who are a bit more familiar with Turkish cinema will find it even more interesting because I found – as someone who found the “old school” melodramas borderline unwatchable – this film was a great experience and a big development in Turkish cinema. And this alone makes it worth watching…

LIFE WAS A LOT SIMPLER WHEN I WAS A SINGER / "QUAND J'ETEAIS CHANTEUR"

Ok, as you know, this year, because of my degree, I have been lucky enough to watch a huge number of films. And as I had small “details” in my agenda such as essays to be written and dissertations to be worked on, although I did my best I couldn’t keep up with reviewing them all. Oh I was full of good intentions at the beginning. I even did a pretty good job at keeping up. But by the end of the year it had, to put it in a nutshell, gone to pot. Despite this sorry state of things I did however have the presence of mind to make a list of the films I desperately wanted to review but didn’t have the time. I was inspired to revisit this one when I finished writing about Can (see above), not least because on first approach it had inspired in me the same dread that I was about to see something very, very cliché. True, it starred veteran actor Gerard Depardieu, however, if one is as prolific with ones acting as M. Depardieu, there are, undoubtedly, some films that are not as good as others. This one is an understated visit to the past. It is, however, the kind of past you want to disown if you’re, you know, cool and all that. It is neither hip nor trendy. However, when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, you actually have a soft spot. So soft, in fact, that you will probably usher it into the back bedroom and tell it to be quiet while the guests are here rather than throw it out. Ok, that analogy was slightly weird. Allow me to explain. Alain Moreau (Gerard Depardieu) is what the French call a “chanteur”. And by that I mean an old-fashioned crooner that sang in the dance halls back in the day before the “discotheques” and all that. Well, the dance halls are all but gone now and those that still survive are frequented by a different generation, not the youth of today but the youths of yesterday; the older people who are out on the town. Alain himself is no spring chicken either, now in his sixties, he is quite content with his life and with being “out of fashion” and in fact a little cheesy. He has his audience – who love him just the way he is – he can pay his bills and frankly doesn’t want more out of life. Until, unexpectedly one night, Marion walks into his life. Marion (Cecile De France – one of France’s most promising young actresses) is beautiful though emotionally scarred and distant and – perhaps more to the point – young enough to be his daughter. Despite all of this however, there is a very real attraction between them. The problem is that Marion’s own battle scars are preventing her from committing to anything, so it is up to Alain, albeit using the “tools” of a previous generation to show her that the two of them can make a go of it. The question is, is he finally out of his depth in this new, high tech world? Or are some things really timeless in their translation to real life? I think now you see what I mean. The storyline, in itself does not seem to hold that much promise. The role of Alain itself is actually a tougher one than would first seem, it takes a lot of skill – and then some – not to come across as a lecherous old man. The truth of the matter is, simply, he does not. Not one teeny bit. Herein lies the mastery of Depardieu, Alain is not so much clinging onto a youth that has passed him by but sticking to what he knows and does best. And, as we have specified above, he is not unpopular, in the little town of Clairmont-Ferrand he is quite a celebrity even if there are less than a handful of music halls left to sing in. I think he is a very refreshing character in today’s fast-paced modern world, and I mean let’s face it, it can feel tiring just keeping up sometimes and much more so if you work in an industry where you have to strive to “get ahead of the game” (i.e. three quarters of the business world). It is refreshing to find, be it in real life or on the screen, characters who are not following “the herd”. Not constantly trying to “keep up”. They do something well, they stick to it and who cares what the fashion magazines / latest trends say. To Alain, it doesn’t even matter that he is seen as a bit of an old fool. He does have the emotional depth and wisdom of years but he doesn’t necessarily show it that clearly to everyone. And the enigmatic Marion is definitely not just anyone. I defy you not ending up feeling a great love and sympathy for Alain by the end of the film. I have great respect for those who follow their own unique path in this world. And as you watch him, you may well get that feeling of nostalgia, you know, as if you’re watching a parent or a friend’s video from 10 – 20 years ago. It’s all about the melancholy of keeping something that is almost dead alive – and doing it mighty well. Although this is something older viewers (not that much older mind you, I’m only 29) will understand better. As a side note, it turns out Depardieu actually did all his own singing in the film – and boy can he do it well! My favourite is the song that gives the film it’s title – quand j’etais chanteur – that he sings right at the very end (along with the credits). Anyway, give it a whirl and see what you think.

LOVE, LIFE, AND ALL THINGS CONNECTED TO GOING SIX FEET UNDER

Now, heads up. The theme of this week does not sound the most promising there ever was. But hear me out, it's a part of life and I have approached it in as novel a way as possible. You see, the theme for this week, is death. By this I do not mean horror films. That would be too easy. Or war films as such. I have, over the past couple of weeks watched a few positively amazing films /TV series, the common thread being the grand presence of death. I know this is now a topic we really prefer not to talk about but as we all know, it's pretty much unavoidable. So I reckon, if we must talk about it, we need to take a look at those works / artists that discuss it in the non-conventional ways. I reckon everything in life merits a fresh angle from time to time, so why not death? Here are a few works that have done just that. Happy viewing, Essie

A MATTER OF LIFE, DEATH AND "A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT"

I know we did say that the theme of this week was death. And yet, I hear you cry, this is a romance! What the blazes is it doing here? Well, I reckon it fits. First of all, a lot of it is set during the First World War, in the trenches. And honestly, history teaches us that it doesn’t get much more death filled than that. But apart from that, this is the story of Mathilde, who refuses to believe that her fiancée is dead – even though there are multiple clues to the contrary. So it kind of fits. Death is constantly present, hovering over us, even though the theme of the film is love. Does it prevail or not, however? Ha ha. As if I’d tell you… =) For Mathilde and Manech it has been true love from the very start. Since they were children. So when the authorities come to fetch him away to go to the Somme in 1917, it is truly heart-wrenching but they know their love is strong and will keep them going over distances and difficulties. Come 1919, Manech has not returned. Official reports make it quite clear he is dead. Soldiers claim to have witnessed his death – or something pretty close at any rate – as he was left to die with four other men in no man’s land for self-inflicted wounds. Mathilde, however, knows otherwise. She and Manech are connected. If he were dead, she would know. Thus starts an amazing journey, searching for the truth. Mathilde seems to be seeking to overcome death itself but the question is, is she simply being overly hopeful? Or is her heart actually leading her to a truly amazing truth? This film is another brilliant example of the story, the director and the actress fitting together almost perfectly. Audrey Tatou, who a few years before the film had carved out a bit of immortality for herself as Amelie is extraordinary. The role suits her very well, as she needs to be a bit “extraordinary” like Amelie, yet Tatou manages very well to combine this quality with a more serious note that is demanded by the film. In this 20th century fairy tale, she is a very realistic and very believable, sympathetic character. As for Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the director, I am well on the way to becoming one of his greatest fans. What I admire him for most is his ability to give a fairy-tale / other-worldly feel to every single set he touches. And he makes it work. It is the same quality but slightly different every time, and in my book it is this ability to keep the basic quality while adapting ever so slightly to fit the situation that makes an artist great and Jeunet (and Tatou incidentally) have this quality by the bucket-load. We are all told how impossible to imagine the horrors of trench warfare are. I think this is exactly why Jeunet is such a good choice as the director of this film. He is able, I would say, to convey the “unrealness” of it all without falling into melodrama or clichés. The trenches he creates, the story he tells are so horrible they are actually completely believable. And probably, though very few people alive today would know for sure, quite close to what actually happened. In the same way, the love between Mathilde and Manech is so extraordinary it is quite believable. After all, falling in love is one of the most unbelievable things possible. And this is possibly why it is so hard to find really good quality love films that are not “gooey” or clichés. This, I am glad to say, is one of them. P.S. I had spotted the odd celebrity face here and there throughout the film but it was only when I was preparing to publish this and saw the whole list "en masse" as it were that I realised how monumental the cast actually was. See how many of them you can spot, some of them are just side characters :)

LIFE CAN BE HARD WHEN YOU'RE "SIX FEET UNDER"

Ok, it has been a while since I’ve shared my opinion on series as opposed to films. And, even though films are truly splendid things, nothing really beats a good series to take your brain out to of an evening. I have born this in mind and have decided to share one of my more recent discoveries, Six Feet Under. Now, you may point out that the series is, give or take, ten years old and many people have already discovered it. You may even ask yourselves how the heck I managed to miss it the first time round. Well, these things happen. Life happens. And I am pretty sure I am not the only one who loses track of all the series coming out these days. So much so, it can be a bit of a challenge to tell the good from the bad. So here is one, for those who want to get stuck in, that is definitely one of the best around. As the name itself implies, Six Feet Under is very much about death. And the life that inevitably surrounds death. The only thing is that in this particular case, it surrounds it from a little more closely than usual – our story is set in a Funeral Home. A funeral home that has been run by the same family for generations and who “live above the shop” as it were. Now, living almost if not completely in a funeral home is both depressing and has its own challenges but the whole family is thrown into utter disarray when Nathaniel Fisher, the father of the family and the person who runs the funeral home, dies unexpectedly in a traffic accident. Now, the family has to both get over their own grief and get the business of its knees. The business is on its knees mainly because of big cooperate competitors – as are a lot of small businesses today. But each and every family member has their own demons to fight alongside the big cooperation. All this, and the need to keep the business going means that every single family member pretty much has their hands very, very full. So, what can I say about Six Feet Under? Created by Allan Ball (the guy who created True Blood among other things) and starring Michael C. Hall (this is the guy who played Dexter. Before he played Dexter that is) the series already had a lot going for it, but supremely good quality writing has really made Six Feet Under something special. Of course, the film is depressing on certain levels. Death abounds, it is everywhere, as is a really dark brand of humour. The thing is, I love dark humour so I got into it straight away. The other wonderful thing about this series is that every single one of the characters is so real. Not only is the acting good (and it is amazing to be fair) but the storylines, their actual characters are very real. Flawed, yet basically good. No “baddies” and “goodies” here; the characters seem to incorporate flaws, fears and goofs we all have in real life but very rarely actually see on the big screen, much less something as mainstream as an HBO series. This, in turn, makes it so easy to sympathise with the characters that you will find yourself glued to the screen from beginning to end. And I don’t mean the episodes, I mean the seasons. Definitely give it a whirl. You’ll love it.