Essie Speaks - mostly about movies - but also of books, countries, life. Mostly movies though :) (Updated every weekend - sunday night latest ^-^)P.S. ALL THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ITS WRITER - AND THAT WOULD BE ME!
I know... In the first place, why on earth am I updating the blog on New Year's Eve and secondly, could I not have at least found something a tad more festive to update it with.
Well... I mean first of all, for me films, movies, thinking about movies and talking about movies never stops. Like, ever. I'm heading out about town tonight, I'll end up talking movies at some point. I mean heck, I spent one party having a 3 hour discussion on the cinema of Terrance Malik. We were swigging Jaegermeister from the bottle if memory serves (or was that a different party). It's one of those people I haven't looked up in an age and really should - who knows they may beat me to it! :)
But enough about me. For some of us, New Years Eve is not about joining a milling crowd - my flatmate much refers being on his own (although that's not happening if his 9 year old has anything to do with it). And honestly, if I were staying in, I can't think of a better series to sit down and marathon. I mean, it'll definitely keep you u all night. You know... For the New Year...
I have been
away from the “TV series” scene for a while now. I watch a lot of moves and go
to the cinema quite a bit but haven’t “got into” the whole series thing for a
while now. I mean, I’m quite picky with these things anyway, and I have been
craving something original for a while now. This was recommended to me by a
friend, I decided to check out one episode on the insistence of friends. What
started out as me just checking out one episode quickly turned into a seven
episode marathon that I had to literally force myself away from. I am fully
aware that I am waay behind in proceedings – season 4 for this baby being
broadcast and all. But have no fear, I am two seasons in and ploughing on as
fast as I can to catch up! In the meanwhile though, I think I have a good
enough grasp on the whole thing – and you DEFINITELY need to hear all about
this one!
So,
American Horror story is an anthology of horror stories. The stories are linked
principally bt their themes – these are all “classic” American horror stories
we all somehow know and love; the first season tells the story of a haunted
house, second, a mental asylum where more than one kind of monster lurks
beneath the surface of normality, third a selective boarding school that is
actually coven of witches and the fourth current one an old fashioned freak
show.
The second
element that links the anthology is the cast. Not the whole cast – that would
be slightly impractical and not a little weird, but quite a few actors from the
first season also turn up in the second season playing completely unrelated
characters (unrelated to their previous role that is). And other actors that
were in the first series but side-stepped the second series turn up in the
third. You get the picture. It is such a brilliant showcase for the versatility
and talent of the actors – and just the right shade of spooky, perfectly
suitable to the eerie series – body snatchers anyone. One constant that needs a
mention is, without a doubt, Jessica Lange. The talented actress makes any role
she takes on her own and our emotions soar and plummet even through the series
as the plotline twists and turns – much less as we cross through different
stories of the anthology together.
Speaking of
the storyline I really need to say, I think anthologies may well be the future
of TV series. I mean, I have always felt that the major virtue of a good series
is to know when to stop. I mean sure, we moan and cry when our favourite TV
series finishes, we may empathise with this character or have a crush on this
actor – actress… But admit it, there is a sense of disappointment there when
you realise that the writers are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel
just to keep the series going, because hey, the ratings aren’t that bad so you
know, let’s keep milking it. I’ve walked away from a number of TV series for
this self-same reason, it doesn’t “hook” me if they’re doing stuff just for the
sake of doing stuff (I’m thinking particularly of True Blood here – I was told
the series did improve but once I lose interest I rarely go back). I mean, the
series I reviewed last week, Black Mirror, is basically united by theme alone –
but Charlie Brooker’s very original personal mark in each and every story helps
one make a very clear link.
But of
course one thing is absolutely certain. As fascinating cinematically the
casting and the whole “anthology” type storylines are; you will not enjoy this
one unless if you are a big fan of the horror genre. But conversely, if you are
a fan of the horror genre you’d be a fool to miss it. Series one played host to
simply one of the most terrifying haunted houses I have ever come across (and
believe you me I have come across some GOOD haunted houses in my day) – to the
point that a few episodes in I was jumping at creaks and squeaks in the house
(I live with three other adults and two cats so there were plenty of creaks to
jump at, I’ll tell you that for nothing). The second series, looking back,
seems very improbably when you describe it on paper. I mean, there seems to be
waaaay too much going on. An asylum is a fertile ground for potentially all
manner of horror story weirdness ranging from alien abductions to possession –
it seems a bit risky to stick ‘em all into the same story and then throw in a
few more curveballs besides… And yet, they do, and somehow it works. They even
throw in a few actual old fashioned medical practices for good measure and it
STILL works.
So if you
want a chill or three down your spines you guys – definitely take a gander at
American Horror Story you guys! As a horror fan my only regret was not having
started before – check it out! J
Oh don't get me wrong, Christmas in my family (all the branches, all around the world) is pretty much as traditional as they come. Family get-togethers, food , drink and leftovers on Boxing day...
But with a proliferation of "Christmas Movie" lists around the net, I reckoned you could do with an alternative Christmas tale or two.
And it really doesn't get more alternative than Charlie Brooker. Scroll down, you'll see what I mean.
In the meanwhile, have a very merry little Christmas you guys!
Sedef
I know. It’s
kinda unfair going on and on about something mainly shown on British TV. But
you know, the internet is a wonderful thing these days, as is Amazon, Ebay etc –
you can easily find the DVDs for this and order it – and oh my darlings, you
should!! I mean, yes it’s really not to everyone’s taste – not really. But you
guys have been around for a while now. I assume you know and like my taste. So
let’s just dive in, shall we
Now, I’m
thinking “anthology” type TV series are becoming a thing – think American
Horror Story (I definitely will be in the coming weeks, I am officially obsessed
with the series – you know, series where every episode (in this case) or
every series (like American Horror Story) is a standalone story. There are
various ways of tying the series together, in American Horror Story it’s the
cast – it’s the same cast, they just play different parts every
series. In Black Mirror it goes even further. There are a few actors who move
around from part to part (though not “consistently” in every episode),
and there are songs and details tying them together for the wise, but basically
every episode is its own story. What unites them is the theme.
The creator
of these unholy little darlings is British Tv personality Charlie
Brooker. Those who are in the know may already be a fan of his dark humour and
his pessimistic outlook as to the future of the media generation for
which he is, rather ironically, such an icon. If you are a Charlie Brooker fan
I’m assuming you’re already a fan (either that or living under a stone). If you’ve
never heard of him, ask yourself this, do you need a series full of dystopias
about an overly technological world, dark humour and not overly fond of “happy”
endings in your life. You know you do. Step right over and take a look
in the Black Mirror.
Every episode
basically takes a look at some form of technology “gone too far”. Be it an
Aldous Huxley type world where people have to pay
to not watch commercials, electronic “eyes” that allow you to rewind the future
and review it or using the internet to topple presidents…
Every episode serves up a goodly portion of “what could happen
if it all went too far”. The series is not, however, completely devoid
of Christmas spirit – a special feature length Christmas episode
– “Black Mirror White Christmas” – has been aired and is not available on 4OD.
I have to say, I loved it. I really did.
This episode
stars John Hamm of Mad Men fame alongside a British cast in a haunting
Christmas tale. In a barren looking snow scape, two men seem to be ensconced
in a cabin with no other company for miles around. With nothing else to
do, the two men begin swapping stories about their lives before
the cabin. Now, those who know the series know better than to try and find out
more. And unfortunately, as the series functions mainly around “shock value”, I
will be giving you little more than that there blurb as far as the story goes. Like
good movies (QT for example) and good horror stories, the whole thing
hinges on gut-wrenching plot twists and I wouldn’t spoil it for
you for the world!
Here, however, is a spoiler-free taster:
I will
tell you this much, this is definitely a Christmas special. The way the
series operates allows a sort of “two stories in one” type of
dealio. John Hamm is absolutely brilliant (but he’s one of those actors who I personally
think always is brilliant hehe) and the premises of the stories are both
imaginative and spine-chilling as always… Ok here’s one for those who
watched the episode though. Did you think John Hamm’s characters punishment
ended up being a little too harsh… I mean ok maybe that’s the point
but… I mean those last scenes really,
really hit me. Not to mention Potter basically being punished for
something he didn’t do. Not really. Think about it – or just hit me up
on Twitter if you don’t get what I mean by that.
So my
darlings, have a spooky Christmas and a haunted New Year! I’m off to
Cambridge to visit my family for a few days but I will soon be back with
musings on movies!
Christmas is fast approaching and the events industry is going slowly but surely mad. I mean it. If you had stepped behind the scenes at a articular high-brow pop up dining venue in London this week, you would have found the staff jousting with mop handles at one point. Yes, we're all over 20.
That makes the movies even more important for me. I have millions of things to write to you about once I've gathered my scattered wits - and have had a decent nights slee which is VERY rare these days - I'll be coming at you with multiple newbies, including my current obsessions Black Mirror and American Horror Story.
But let's talk about this week. Well it's not entirely a non-Christmas movie. There's whiskey - a lot of it - angels, road to Damascus experiences and redemption. So the themes are there, even though the Christmas decorations aren't. Check it out.
Well folks,
as some of you know I spent a good few weeks ın Turkey catching up with some
much missed sunshine and my somewhat neglected family. Of course this does not
mean I stop watching films, oh no. It just means that, partly thanks to my Mom,
it becomes just a bit more eclectic. It`s almost like a return to the blogs
slightly untidy origins. It feels homely and natural. Which is, coincidentally,
what our next film is all about as far as style is concerned.
There may
come a day when each and every one of us needs a fresh start in life – you know
the old adage; every saint has a past, every sinner has a future. Robbie is
just such a sinner, in dire need of a new start in life. He has a lot of what
he would need for that new start in place: His loving partner, Leonie and a
little one on the way. He also has a criminal record a couple of yards long, a
scar on his face that puts off those rare potential employers that get past his
criminal record and a father in law who would not stop at physically injuring
him to ehm ``convince`` him to stay away from his daughter. In short, Robbie is
full of genuine good intentions but his entire universe seems intent on
preventing him from going on the straight and narrow. But allies come in many
strange shapes and forms in this life and for Robbie no one is surprised as he
is when the little group he is doing his community service with after his
latest fight and the long-suffering social worker Harry who is in charge of
their merry band. Harry does not realize this himself but has actually put the
entire band, but especially Robbie well and truly in line for a road to
Damascus experience. Salvation can truly come in the strangest guises…
This film
also marks my Mom`s introduction to a more realistic brand of filmmaking. “What
I loved about it” she said, “ıs that it is almost like watching a documentary.
Like watching something happening on the street.” Which is of course completely
true of Ken Loach`s realistic style of filmmaking. The film takes place ``up north``
as do so many others of his films; the accents are pronounced and Scottish (so
much so that my 91 year old grandmother just gave up on being able to
understand them and went to bed early) and the characters are raw, day to day
folk that you might well come across in a group doing social work. Even the
visuals are unpolished, oh expertly done , of course, but it really does give
the impression that Loach literally picked up a camera and followed a band of
mates throughout the streets of Scotland – the exact and feel he is so good at
capturing. It really goes to show that if you have a really good story and some
strong actors to bring it to life, you don`t really need technical bells and
whistles to make a really great film. I mean, I say that but there is a risk of
underplaying the whole visual aspect when you go down that route. It is much
like women`s fashion and getting the ``smart casual`` look just right. The
whole ``studied`` casual look is so hard to achieve – it is almost easier to
dress up completely formally and get it right because there at least we are all
100% of the rules. It is when you start dropping rules here and there when you
actually have to sit up and take heed, because you actually have to know all
the rules very well to be able to make a good film by using less. There lies the real territory of directors who
try to play around and ``bend`` the rules without having a clear idea of what they
are bending. It comes from being overly ambitious, overly confident, dreaming
too big… It comes from wanting to run before one can crawl. But it actually
takes a master like Loach to get simplicity completely right.
It is also
incredibly refreshing to see such completely real characters in film as opposed
to Hollywood cut-outs. I do lean more and more towards indies and non-Hollywood
productions for my personal entertainment these days but of course one cannot
completely avoid ``mainstream`` cinema and I despair sometimes at the sameness
of it all. Robbie is, of course a type in himself. He is the criminal fresh out
of jail who wants to make a fresh start. This is a character played and
re-played by so many of the grates and not so grates – but in this specific
case I am thinking names like Al Pacino, Robert De Niro… Robbie is not a grand
character of cinema. He is a lad off the streets, a small time thug who just
wants to live a quiet life with his partner and his son. The mastery of Loach and the cast is that
they make him come so alive that we get completely enthralled with what will
happen to him next during the two hours of The Angel`s Share.
Curious about this little number - then just scroll down! The trailer is at the end of the page!
As a lot of you know, this is a very, very busy period in the events industry - where I work during the day.
This leaves limited time for films (sadly) but oddly, it does leave a lot of time for books. The London commutes would not be bareably without them and yes I STILL don't have a smarthone so what else is there to do!
Besides, as you guys already know, I love getting stuck in a good book. If nothing else, a good book like this is tantamount to a trip through time and space to Chine before the Cultural Revolution.
I was a
little dubious when I saw this looked like a
typical “women’s book” about an acupuncturist. I was a little worried it
might turn out a little too “Jilly Cooper” – and there is absolutely nothing
wrong with that, it just isn’t really my cup of tea. But Lin Hong has an
intriguing style and oh boy does she know how to set up a mystery… I love a
good mystery… I dove right in.
This is the
story of Lin Jung. She is an acupuncturist trying to make a new life for
herself in a small clinic in rural England. She is a foreigner in this land and
acupuncture is definitely a foreign concept in the little town. Dr Lin tries
her best to settle in but caught between her traditional beliefs and her pushy
boss, she is not sure she is going to settle in very well. Her clients aren’t
really any better ; some are there just out of loneliness, some out of
desperation, but some, like Lucy, seem to venerate her and her science like a
new religion. Dr Lin doesn’t know what she makes of it all, especially Lucy.
But there is something about Lucy that makes her different from the rest. Is it
that they are close in age? Is it Lucy’s unwavering and slightly naïve belief
in herbal remedies? Or is it something altogether different that reminds Lin of
her past… A past that Lin would much, much rather forget…
I think
this little book is a real bargain; it’s one of those books that actually
present you with two stories for the price of one. The story of Lin’s present
day life is intercut with reminiscences of her childhood in rural China and her
impressions of a very important part of China’s history – the Cultural
Revolution. Chairman Mao is now well and truly settled at the helm of the
country and the effects of the Cultural Revolution have begun to seep out into
the provinces, into the day to day lives of the regular people. Little Lin is
sent to live with her grandfather, a renowned acupuncturist and herbalist of
the region. Lin learns his arts and the traditional cures he uses, but is also
able to observe, sometimes without understanding, the clash of this old way of
life with the new. Lin captures the outlook of a child so perfectly in her
writing it is very hard to believe it is not, at least in part,
autobiographical. The little girl is faced with a lot of adult dilemmas, family
secrets that she doesn’t quite understand and clashes between people she thinks
should be natural allies. The books spells out very little for us in an “adult”
way. We are left to puzzle out what is going on for ourselves for the most part
of the book – and this, for me, is the true charm of the book. We feel as if we
have stepped back in time and are walking though rural China, quietly observing
the goings on.
I have
become very partial to this kind of book recently. It reminds me of another
bestseller I have recently read, Child 44 byRob Smıth . The book is a murder
mystery loosely based on the antics of prolific Russian serial killer Andrei
Chikatilo but the main conflict of the book is not between the hero (a
policeman, obviously) and the serial killer but between the policeman and
Stalinist Russia. The writer beautifully captures the oppressive atmosphere of
Stalinist Russia, the eyes everywhere, the fact that you can trust no one… The
atmosphere in China is similar – but different in some ways; here we feel there
is less subterfuge, less of people sneaking behind bushes out to get us. No,
the people aren’t behind bushes they are there, out in the open, with big
sticks, ready to really hurt you at the least slip up. Little Lin describes the
red flags everywhere, the big black crosses over the “shamed” houses and
establishments. The public “self-criticism” sentences where people are forced
to admit their “crimes” publicly and shame themselves. It must have felt like
being hemmed in on every side, unable to breathe or move, even in one’s own
private life. It must have been even more confusing in places like rural China,
where things like traditional medicine, and various other traditional practices
and beliefs had been alive and well for centuries. The villagers are abruptly
told that the way they had been doing things for generations is now prohibited.
They have a completely new, “modern”,
“scientific” way of doing things, that is “in keeping with the principles of
Chairman Mao” that they must adopt. The pace at which modern life changes is a
bit scary at the best of times, having it forced down one’s throat at gun point
must be a hundred times worse.
Then there
is Lin’s modern life, the trials and tribulations of settling in a new country
and adapting to a new culture. All this may well make you think that The Touch
is a rather sad book. It actually is not. It is a wonderful, tender, emotional
book about family secrets, a painful past and coming to terms with it all. The
book teaches one a lot, about acupuncture and also about the Cultural
Revolution and does it beautifully and subtly, mixed up in a rather
extraordinary mystery story, resulting in a rather extraordinary book. Definitely
one not to be missed.
Hey there ladies and gents! I trust you all head a wonderful week!
The real world is hot on my heels but I continue my forays into various worlds of fantasy - and continue to reoprt back! I am making a concentrated effort to keep up with the reading - although my reading list may seem a little odd to some - and I continue to share the highlights with you!
Feel like checking out my cinematic endeavours - then head to...
This week I'm chatting about Latin American Cinema! And don't stay limited to my stuff will you - the site is bursting with interesting news and reviews!
Speaking of film chat, what do you guys make over that ungodly fuss made over the new Star Wars trailer? More specifically, I mean the reactions to John Boyega, the first black stormtrooper. Come on guys, it's the 21st century for God's sake - the fact that he's black hadn't occured to me as a "thing" until I head the fuss made about it! All those haters need to get with the programme!
Another trailer out is, of course the Jurassic World trailer. I must say I'm slightly... Thingied... I mean I don't know, you know how you revisit a childhood haunt after you're an adult and realise it's a lot smaller than you remember it... Yeah, that's kinda how I feel. I think the younger generation will love it, but for those of us who remember the thrill of seing the first film in the cinema... Not the same...
I am a
strong believer in bargain basements, as you probably already know. I am the
same with books; you will often find me scanning the bookshelves marked ``two
for the price of one`` with an intent expression trying to work out if there is
a bargain to be found in there somewhere. I often do this at airports. It
passes the time, there are often special ``airport editions`` to books
otherwise only available in hardcover and well… Everyone loves a bargain. This
is how I came to pick up Mayhem by Sarah Pinborough and came to discover a new
writer and series that will no doubt afford me hours of enjoyment. You see I
love fantasy and magic in my books. I also love crime. But if I come across a
successful combination of the two… Well that is by far the best… J
Dr Thomas
Bond is a normal police surgeon living in abnormal times. It is London, the
year is 1888 and that mysterious killer called Jack the Ripper is prowling the
streets of Whitechapel. Dr Bond is known for his success and ability in such
cases and thus starts working on the case when another series of murders starts
taking place in Whitechapel. Bodies, brutally mutilated, missing limbs and
internal organs, more brutal than the Ripper has ever been… But why are there
suddenly so many predators prowling the streets of London? And more importantly
are they the real problem or the symptoms of something, much, much worse to
come…
I really
loved the way this story wove the strands of the story together. Of course,
thanks to television and DVDs, we are no strangers to the concept of merging
crime as a genre with fantasy. Neither are we unfamiliar with the concept of an
everyman brought face to face with a gang of supernatural crime fighters and
villains who turn out to be bona fide monsters. So in a sense, Pinborough has
taken on a rather daunting task – not only must she write an example of a genre
tried and tested multiple times, thus creating very fixed expectations in the
fans, she must also somehow achieve the same effect without the aid of special
effects and on screen ``magic`` that makes it that much easier to suspend
disbelief and dive straight in.
This has
largely been achieved by structuring the novel pretty much in the same way one
might structure a TV series. Every chapter is narrated by a different
character, you know, in the same way the camera follows first one character and
then another in those series where we have multiple heroes and heroines. Of
course, here (as in most such narratives), we have one main protagonist, but we
have a quite a few secondary characters knocking about who get a good dose of
``page time`` too. The flip of perspective is most refreshing and gives, in my
opinion, a much more all-rounded sense of where the story is going. The other thing
is that of course the setting is 19th century London. Opium dens are
``all the rage`` and suffice to say that said dens play quite large parts in
our story. Not only does the way the story flits from character to character at
some point begin to resemble those rambling dreams brought on by the drug and
so aptly described in the book, it also adds a completely new dimension to the
character of Dr Bond, who is the ``hero`` of the book and at the same time, a
bona fide opium addict. This makes him a bit of an anti-hero in a way, as
Pinborough makes a very, very good job of describing his mental process as the
addiction takes a firmer and firmer hold – and that in itself is an interesting
portrait. But on the other hand, it also adds a dreamlike quality to everything
Bond experiences, adding another dimension to his disbelief. I mean, I need to
add that a lot of the other, secondary characters are not exactly painted in
black or white either. There are a lot of greys, a lot of unusual traits and
questionable attributes… But then again, that`s a bit like real life I suppose.
The ``good guys`` often have their own scars and crosses to bear, and may not
seem as ``snow white`` as prime time TV would have us believe.
Another
thing I admired in the book was the mastery with which the true stories of the
epoch were mixed with fiction. Jack the Ripper enthusiasts will find it
interesting reading in parts, possibly not because they will discover a lot of
new information, but because Jack prowls the pages of the book along with our
own killer, as large as life, and if the information about him is not new
(because in truth, unless some historical artefact is unearthed, I don`t see
how there could be any new info on him at the moment,)it is very well redacted
and very well melded with the fantasy world of Dr Bond and Mayhem.
In short
Mayhem is a sensitively written book where reality and fantasy collide to form
some truly breath-taking results. It`s the kind of book that would make you
miss your stop on the tube. Just sayin`. J
First of all, the old. Scroll down to check out a wonderful little "vintage" number from the '70s. I absolutely loved it, this is time travel on celluloid, I mean, I didn't even see the '70s live and found it endearing, I definitely reccomend it to anyone who was alive around then!
Ok, the new thing. I imagine you guys guessed (if you didn't know already) that I watch trailers on quite a regular basis, even though they don't get too many mentions on the blog. But this morning I watched the new trailer for Pan and I just had to share my feelings! I mean, don't get me wrong, the film has just about everything you could want from a "backstory" movie (now officially a genre and a genre I'm getting a little sick of); wonder, magic, a "Jack Sparrow" look alike in the very unlikely character of James Hook, and a rebel who stands u to the bullies that run the orphanage... Hang on... What orphanage...
I don't know who's bright idea it was to merge Peter Pan with Oliver Twist but even though it may well work for the young, for me it was just unnecessary. I do like a good story every once in a while, it works like soemthing like Cinderella (Ever After is one of my favourite films to date) but this is officially the realm of fixing things that are not broken.
Watch this space for movie news I feel "emotional" about.
I was
constantly surprised by this film. I mean , not least because it seems to have
received not one honour nor nomination… I don’t know why I let that surprise me
really – there is a lot of talent and good artwork out in the universe that
doesn’t get recognition. Besides, I don’t think Walkabout is one of those films
that will appeal to everyone these days…
It has some classic ‘70s themes running through it, but also some very
accomplished acting from the young cast and some touching messages…
You know
how life is all about the journey and not the destination… That’s why it’s
kinda hard to give a blurb of this particular film, so I will give it a go.
Through circumstance, a teenage girl (a young Jenny Agutter – you know, Sister
Julienne from Call the Midwife!) and her young brother (played by Luc Roeg,
director Nicolas Roeg’s son!) get stranded in the deserts of the Australian
outback all alone, with no mode of transport and very little in the way of food
(I know, how the heck do you pull that one off, right – that’s what I asked
myself when I first read the blurb. But fear not, the film actually pulls this
off with remarkable little need for suspense of disbelief. I was impressed). So
there they are, basically, stranded and lost in the desert with no way of
getting home and very little in the way of means to survive. All seems almost
lost when they come across a young aboriginal man who is on “walkabout” (an aboriginal
rite of passage where the young men of the tribe are sent forth into the world
to live off the land alone for a certain period of time). It is the start of an
unusual friendship, not least because there is no common language except body
language between the two groups. And yet as the walkabout in the outback
continues, it quickly transpires the two groups have much to learn from each other…
Looking
back on the last paragraph, it’s not quite a fair description of the end – it
is mainly the brother and sister who learn from their local guide and this in
more ways than one. The film makes it very, very clear what its theme is from
the start. It is all about man’s relationship with nature, how far what we call
“progress” has taken us from our original habitat. The point is made over and
over all through the film - starting from the fact that the children are
actually English and already “strangers” in this foreign land. Apart from that,
like in many children’s films (not least among them Mary poppins) the younger
brother is the one who is more in touch with nature. He still instinctively
“remembers” how to be in nature and can actually communicate with the
Aboriginal boy after a fashion – but he has to act as interpreter for his
sister… The radio they carry about with them (and that can, bizarrely enough,
still receive signals and broadcast perfectly clearly in the middle of a
desert) is a nice if rather forced contrast with the silence of the desert. In
fact the film walks a fine line – it could very easily have had a bit of slip up
into the realm of the didactic. But it does not.
One especially
interesting theme pursued (and a very, very ‘70s summer of love one, may I add)
is how our teenage heroine slowly bWALKABOUT
I was
constantly surprised by this film. I mean , not least because it seems to have
received not one honour nor nomination… I don’t know why I let that surprise me
really – there is a lot of talent and good artwork out in the universe that
doesn’t get recognition. Besides, I don’t think Walkabout is one of those films
that will appeal to everyone these days…
It has some classic ‘70s themes running through it, but also some very
accomplished acting from the young cast and some touching messages…
You know
how life is all about the journey and not the destination… That’s why it’s
kinda hard to give a blurb of this particular film, so I will give it a go.
Through circumstance, a teenage girl (a young Jenny Agutter – you know, Sister
Julienne from Call the Midwife!) and her young brother (played by Luc Roeg,
director Nicolas Roeg’s son!) get stranded in the deserts of the Australian
outback all alone, with no mode of transport and very little in the way of food
(I know, how the heck do you pull that one off, right – that’s what I asked
myself when I first read the blurb. But fear not, the film actually pulls this
off with remarkable little need for suspense of disbelief. I was impressed). So
there they are, basically, stranded and lost in the desert with no way of
getting home and very little in the way of means to survive. All seems almost
lost when they come across a young aboriginal man who is on “walkabout” (an aboriginal
rite of passage where the young men of the tribe are sent forth into the world
to live off the land alone for a certain period of time). It is the start of an
unusual friendship, not least because there is no common language except body
language between the two groups. And yet as the walkabout in the outback
continues, it quickly transpires the two groups have much to learn from each other…
Looking
back on the last paragraph, it’s not quite a fair description of the end – it
is mainly the brother and sister who learn from their local guide and this in
more ways than one. The film makes it very, very clear what its theme is from
the start. It is all about man’s relationship with nature, how far what we call
“progress” has taken us from our original habitat. The point is made over and
over all through the film - starting from the fact that the children are
actually English and already “strangers” in this foreign land. Apart from that,
like in many children’s films (not least among them Mary poppins) the younger
brother is the one who is more in touch with nature. He still instinctively
“remembers” how to be in nature and can actually communicate with the
Aboriginal boy after a fashion – but he has to act as interpreter for his
sister… The radio they carry about with them (and that can, bizarrely enough,
still receive signals and broadcast perfectly clearly in the middle of a
desert) is a nice if rather forced contrast with the silence of the desert. In
fact the film walks a fine line – it could very easily have had a bit of slip up
into the realm of the didactic. But it does not.
One especially
interesting theme pursued (and a very, very ‘70s summer of love one, may I add)
is how our teenage heroine slowly becomes aware of her own sexuality. Her lithe
teenage guide, after all, goes around with practically no clothes on (mind you,
their school uniforms are getting pretty ragged at this point – yet another
signifier of their contrast with their surroundings) and the implication is
that her time spent in nature is liberating a sexuality that is repressed by
modern society.
In short
this delicate little number is very much a film of its time. The lack of big
action, a workable soundtrack and any kind of special effects will probably
mean it will not survive the scrutiny of the average movie-goers today that
need a film to viscerally grab and shake them… But for those who want to step away from the
man-made (or rather films that absolutely scream “man made”) and towards the
more naturalistic, Walkabout has a wonderful treat in store…
This week, first of all, we have moved into the realm of books. Oh don't worry, it's just for this week. But I have been doing quite a lot of reading recently - some of them were quite good! - so I wanted to share the fare with you... This week we muse about things that have the capacity to bring us both the greatest comfort and joy, and the greatest pain... Sometimes, ironically enough, they are the source of both... Scroll down to see what I mean... happy reading! Essie
As some of
you who know me offline might already know, my mother has been suffering from
ill health until recently. This has meant that she used to find it rather
difficult to read for any length of time, a torment for her as she was (and in
fact still is) a true blue bookworm. Recently however, Moms health took a turn
for the better, which has meant she can read again. We are a family who
strongly believes in doing nothing by halves; therefore, when I arrived at our
ancestral home for three weeks, I was greeted by a veritable mountain range of
books on every conceivable surface. A little Mont Blanc had been born on my
desk too ``for you to take back`` Mom explained with a grin. I was not
ungrateful, if a little taken aback by the sheer quantities. This ``geoliterary`` formation was largely
due to some books leant by a family friend. This meant that there were a few in
this number that I would not initially have chosen myself, and I have to admit,
this book was one of them. However, what started out as me casually flipping
through the book that just so happened to be at the top of the pile turned into
me promptly getting glued to the book and finishing it practically in one fell
swoop.
Family and
Friends traces the fortunes of the Dorn family, starting in the years preceding
the Second World War and the period shortly after it. There is Sofia (Sofka)
Dorn, the widowed matriarch who rules and forms her young family with velvet
glove and iron will. Frederick, the debonair darling of the family, a dashing
flirt whose every fault seems to be somehow forgiven. Then there is Alfred, the
younger brother, serious and bookish. Then there are ``the girls`` Mimi and
Betty; Betty is the one with the ``artistic`` temperament while Mimi is a quiet
girl who is happy pleasing her mother. If only they could stay quietly under
Sofka`s wing always – however, life does not quite work like that. Soon they
will need to make choices in life, or they will elect to not make any choices
at all… It is indeed quite amazing what different paths the exact same
beginning can lead to…
Here`s the
strange thing about me and this book. I did not like the characters. In fact a
few of them quite literally annoyed the heck out of me. If I met them in real
life, I would probably end up slapping quite a few. But of course, it is the
fact that the book is extremely well-written that elicits such a reaction from
a reader. And Anita Brockner`s use of language is something else altogether. It
takes a bit of getting used to at first though, as the book is written almost
entirely in the passive tense. But this by no means subtracts from the
vividness of the descriptions, the attention to detail and the beautifully
woven story. Brockner is very apt at analyzing that subtle force, inter-family
politics, and through her, we not only follow the various choices and decisions
of the four Dorn siblings but get a clear view of how Sofka effects each of
them in separate ways and how they are effected by each other, by the rest of
the family, by ``society`` (and the all-important question ``what will people
say``) to arrive at four very separate destinations. And of course this gives
us ample opportunity to reflect on ourselves and our own families. It`s a funny
one, family politics. I am pretty sure we would all like to believe we are
completely immune to it, that we are (or at least we are perfectly capable of,
should we so want) breaking completely free of an ancestral influence and
marching boldly forward, forming our own fate. But more often than not, the
strands of fate are woven with more strings from the family bow than we may
care to accept. If we have not adopted some subtle way of thinking or acting
based on those around us, we probably have taken to doing the mirror opposite
of what our family did, as a reaction. It can affect anything from the way we
speak, the way we dress, the food we eat, our political convictions… And of
course more subtle things, like the way we interact with others, the way we
view ourselves… At the very least, our family and our past are present in us with
their absence, in the way we are trying desperately not to be like ``them``.
The other
thing Family and Friends points out is that the family is no `monolith`. It may
sometimes (especially at occasions such as Christmas dinners, at that point
just after the traditional almighty row) feel as if it is unchanging and will
stay like this for ever and ever, but people are constantly changing and the
balances constantly shifting, sometimes subtly, sometimes in the shape of great
tempests.
I can
guarantee you will find something of yourself, something familiar in this book,
no matter what your relationship with your family is. And by the way, don`t you
think it is rather comforting to know that we all suffer the same qualms and
quandaries when it comes to our families?
Howdy folks! Well I'm really sorry about the delay - the real world intervened... I hate it when it does that... But I'm back with a nice long rant about Interstellar, just as promised. What did you guys make of the movie - are you a lover or a hater I'm on the fence to be honest... I mean yes there were some brilliant moments but then again there were some questionable bits too... Bits I question if you just scroll down... have a good weekend folks! Essie
Well this
was a big one – in so many senses of the word! Not least because it was yours
truely’s first ever IMAX experience! I did smirk slightly when the usher
warned the audience to look away if they felt disoriented or sick – but I did
actually feel quite sick during one portion of the film (although,
ironically, telling you which bit would constitute a spoiler) and I felt
as if my head was full of cotton wool for quite a while after the film… I still
loved IMAX though… Especially with a highly visual film like
Interstellar, it’s almost obligatory to have it either in 3D or in IMAX… I
mean, there are some films (*cough* Gravity *cough*) whose entire USP is based
on its visuals and being viewed with “advanced” technology. Interstellar’s aim
is to be a bit more than a pretty face though. And Christopher
Nolan being Christopher Nolan – the film has plenty to say for
itself. Is it all coherent – I hear you ask – or does the film actually deserve
the hashtag Interstellarplotholes Well…
In a dystopian
world where “the system” has been destroyed and everyone have become farmers in
a desperate attempt to keep
the world (and by that I mean the entire planet) from starving to death,
Cooper, once an astronaut, is restless… His children have known nothing
different but he remembers a world where mankind was adventurous and exploration
of the final frontier was still on the cards… That is why he is delighted to happen
upon a top secret space mission run by what remains of
NASA and headed by Dr Brand Sr (Michael Caine) and his daughter (Ann Hathaway)
Cooper gets the chance to return to his vocation, and possibly
save the world while he is at it… However this is a mission like no other, Cooper
is headed for truly uncharted waters and picking the new planet
humanity is going to live on is a tricky business at best…
Now, this
film has, you may have noticed, a huge number of fans. This is because the film
is ambitious, incredibly ambitious, on so many fronts… First of all, visually…
Well what can I tell you the film is a stunner… There are so many so called set
pieces of space, the planets and (mild spoiler
alert) the wonderful visuals of the galaxy beyond the wormhole and (major spoiler
alert for like one sentence) the universe actually inside the worm hole (this
is the point at which I started feeling nauseated by the way) are
wonderful feats of technology and imagination. Best viewed with some form of
HD, you will definitely be visually satisfied by Interstellar…
You will
also be emotionally satisfied by it. Nolan produces quite a few very successful
full-blown tugs at your heart strings. Even the toughest in my group
welled up a couple of times during this one. I cannot state examples
without giving spoilers as a lot of the most emotional moments come at
crucial parts of the story – sort of jump cries as opposed
to jump scares if you will…
But on the
third hand (I appear to be an octopus for the purpose
of this review) the film is also very, very cerebral. Nolan puts in a
lot of science and a traditionally complicated storyline, successfully
blending quantum physics, theory in a dystopian space
context… Or I mean, does he really? This is where the hashtag Interstellarplotholes
comes into play… Because Interstellar is a thing to be felt and enjoyed,
sure… But if you start actually thinking about it seriously, holes begin to appear…
I mean it starts from the smallest things – how, for example, in a world
where purportedly nothing grows except corn, does mankind
still have beer? How come Cooper never loses his tan for the
duration of his “decades” in space? And – this is a big spoiler
so look away now if you’re sensitive but I need to get this off my chest it’s a
big pet peeve of mine -
why oh why oh why does this wormhole somehow magically end up behind a
bookshelf? I mean I get the whole circular storyline thing, much like
the Alchemist of Paulo Coelho we find the answer to the mystery we were
searching for back where we began as it were but… I mean why of all things
behind a book case?? I mean I get the importance of
circularity. I really do. It’s the whole Humanist mindset of human beings “not
needing any mysterious beings to take care of them”, that we and all the
resources within ourselves are the only guides we’ll ever need if only we realize
our own full potential. And I have to say, this is one of the more
beautiful and intelligent ways I have seen of putting this message
across. But I do wish Nolan had paid a bit more attention to the science as he
went along. I mean I’m not even getting started on the fact that the only explanation
we have of a wormhole is the same old folding a piece of paper
thing every other sci-fi movie seems to do. Nolan either wants to mystify the
viewer or, and I feel this may be the actual answer, this is not necessarily
about “accurate science”. It’s a parable of love, humanity and life in a
science fiction context and we should follow what our heart is picking up
and not get “entangled” in the whole scientific context making sense to the “t”.
Then again, it is the 21st century and there are people
out there who have made a bona fide hobby out of hunting for plot holes
so I’m not entirely convinced this was the best way forward for this film if
this was indeed what Nolan was after…
Whatever it
was, true to form, we will very obviously be chatting about Interstellar for a
good while yet…
I had meant to put something slightly more Halloweeny on the blog this week but... See I watched this movie. And I already started off having a rant about Lucy last week. And this film also brought out a real rant in me. So I was like you know what, let's not interrupt the flow, let's go with it... Besides, if you want my Halloween suggestions you can always check out my stuff on Critics Associated...
In this particular entry I ask questions I express frustration and confuzzlement... See what you make of it. And let's see if you have any possible answers to my questions - I would genuinely love to hear from you if you do!
The moment
I found out that Cloud Atlas was a story involving reincarnation, souls meeting
in different lifetimes etc. I felt a worry beginning to brew in the pit of my
stomach. I know this kind of film only too well. Full of grandiose messages
about life, “the truth” and the universe. So packed full of metaphors and
similes you need a dictionary of filmography to work your way through it all. Coming
out way too pleased with itself at the end. This kind of film often annoys me
because, well, firstly I don’t believe there is a single, easy “unifying theory
of everything” so I get annoyed with films that claim they’re it. Secondly,
while I do appreciate double meanings and depth in a film I certainly don’t
think I should need to actually have to do research to figure out what exactly
is being said.
Now I will
not say Cloud Atlas is easy to follow. I mean there are six stories, separate
yet interwoven, with the same characters (or rather the same souls) changing
bodies, sex and race in practically each one and the stories are of course in
true Buddhist style, repetitions, variations or rather, on the same theme, each
one evolving with time, adding something, taking something out, some mistakes
being repeated through the ages, other ones being changed, and changing
history. I have gained infinite respect for the Wachowskis, not least because
it must have been a complete mind-f.ck to write, never mind to film. But shall
I tell you something? Unlike Donnie Darko (who I watched once and then discarded
on the basis of having entire websites dedicated solely to deciphering the
story) I will watch Cloud Atlas again. The Wachowskis have tried something
rather daring and, would you believe it, they have pulled it off. It comes
together beautifully, just like a symphony.
The film
is, of course, full of grandiose emotions – but we all expected that, right? Concepts
like eternity, everlasting love that survives death, immortal souls that death
cannot separate… But never fear. It never reaches the point where it begins to
get sickly, and we do go to this kind of film precisely for a dose or two of
this kind of emotion, after all. In short yes, there is a certain amount of the
preaching mentioned in the introduction, but not too much. Just enough. The
same actors are often used, especially in the minor roles, as the same “type”
of character, or rather the character that has the same role from one story to
the next. Our heroes however, seem to almost change with every story, which
doesn’t seem to make sense, but then again don’t try and read too much cold logic into it. The whole point of
the story is to give us a feeling of transcendent love, and this, the film
manages very well.
I need to
re-watch the film to clarify this point, but one thing I am not entirely sure
of. As the same actors are not always used to represent the same souls, I did
not quite get the pattern in how the bodies changed around. I am pretty sure
the Wachowskis didn’t simply pull names out of a hat. There is, for example,
the curious case of Tom Hanks. Now I know he’s meant to be the bad guy who
evolves into a hero in the last story – or at least I think that’s what he was
meant to be – but then there are discrepancies. I mean Ok, up until the very
last story but one (chronologically that is) (and here it starts raining
spoilers so look away now if you’re sensitive) – i.e. the one with Sumi, the
clones and the Purebloods etc – I have to presume he is the third party who is
trying to thwart our couple, the one who is trying to ultimately harm or use
the protagonist (whichever character who was born with the shooting star mark
in that particular story). If we follow that pattern, we have to assume he is
the government official that Sumi “turns” just before her execution at the end
of her sequence. Well ok, then it makes sense that he would be reborn as a good
person in the next chronological sequence – you know the post-apocalyptic,
cannibalistic humanity bit starring Tom Hanks and Halle Berry. I mean ok, sure,
he evolves, he becomes a hero, he gets the girl in the end and that’s all very
nice but here’s the problem - what
happens to the other protagonist? You know, the love interest. And if you tell
me that was Halle Berry, well what happens to the original hero then? Ok
another thing, let’s assume he has been evolving through the story, in the
sequence in the ‘70s, he is the scientist who actually decides to help Halle
Berry (as Lisa Ray the journalist) so I mean, ok, he’s becoming a better person
etc, right? Wrong. Fast forward to the ‘90s, he murders a book critic in cold
blood and then, albeit as a different character in a comedy sequence clearly
inserted for comic relief more than anything else, he is also the brother who locks
our protagonist (Jim Broadbent) up in the first place. There has to be
something I’m missing here. Because we KNOW Tom Hanks is the protagonist of the
(chronologically) last story as he has the birthmark. But then, THEN, the whole
premise of love everlasting falls apart as he was the bad guy in like, 4 of the
other 5 stories (in the ‘30s story the main big baddie is Jim Broadbent, Tom
Hanks is the inn keeper, not a nice guy but not a major player either). So ok,
then it was completely random, in fact he doesn’t evolve at all, the bad guy
Tom Hanks was playing somehow just vanishes and they put Tom Hanks as the last
hero to make it a nice, Hollywood-style beautiful couple for the closing scene
with the shooting star in the sky and all that… Because, I would like to point
out, that the 6th story does not actually have a proper, focal “bad
guy”. You might argue the cannibalistic tribe, but no, their actual equivalents
in the other stories are the “muscle” baddies, you know the racist captain in
the first story, the hit man in the ‘70s sequence, the CEO in the Sunmi sequence,
Nurse Noakes in the comedy sequence…
So yeah. I
mean maybe we’re not meant to puzzle over it too much. But worst case scenario,
the 6th story only kinda fits in with the other five. A good job as
been done with hammering it in, but it is still a square peg in a round hole. One
thing we can stop and admire is the commentary made on the universality of
love, as the souls seem to change body indiscriminately, Forbischer comes back
as a young black woman, Lisa Ray and actually sees her/ his true love again. I found the sequences
where she puzzles over the letters she herself wrote in her previous lifetime
particularly touching. She is then reborn as a clone waitress – making a rather
neat comment about artificial intelligence and the future of machines.
Like I said,
I’ve got every suspicion that I am missing something here and it will all come
clear if I watch the film a few more times. Either that, or I am really loosing
myself in details. But in any case, rest assured the film is an incredibly
enjoyable and emotionally charged way of spending a couple of hours.
So, you know I like my films with a bit of bite to them. Getting emotionally swept away and not giving too much thought to its lack of depth or inconsistencies are well and good on some nights, but... Well first of all when Luc Besson does it, it just upsets me.
My Mom always says I should make a bit more of a "thing" of the movies that disappoint me and not just concentrate on the ones I liked. And while I can respect its good qualities Lucy hit so many of my wrong buttons so... Yeah, I thought it was as good a place to start as any...
scroll down and see what you think... And do let me know if you disagree!
When I began
bemoaning my utter disappointment upon watching Lucy, I was met with loud
protests from my male friends. I was amused by their argument : “Did you watch
it on a small screen? Well that would be it then. It’s an action film, you’re
supposed to watch it in cinema!”. I do realize that action as a genre is
supposed to be heavily visual. You know, don’t ask too many questions. Enjoy
the spectacular fight scenes and the big explosions. OK fair enough, the genre
has its fans, and I am just as capable of appreciating a good explosion as the
next man. But when putting Lucy into this context, two questions spring to
mind. Firstly, since when have “pretty action sequences” been a legitimate
saving grace if the rest of a film has gone awry? Secondly, my main point would
be that Lucy is actually trying to be more than that. It’s just… You know…
Failing.
The story
of Lucy is told quickly enough. “Baddies” have discovered a new drug. Oh the
kids are going to love it! It is the synthetic form of a hormone produced naturally
by pregnant women and induces growth. Lucy is the typical “innocent stander by”
roped into a dastardly situation. She, along with a few other randoms, are
chosen by what looks suspiciously like the Yakuza (but we are in Taipei so
possibly not) to be the couriers of this drug to European capitals. The thing
is, Lucy’s trip goes horribly wrong, the packet she is carrying in her abdomen
bursts and the drug starts seeping into her body, which in turn allows her to
unlock the “unused” parts of her brain. This… Well… It has unexpected results…
Now, here’s
my argument as to Lucy trying to be more than just an action movie. I mean,
before I get into it let me underline this, the action sequences are nothing
short of stunning. I am not; as you may know by now, the biggest fan of one
single hero steamrolling every single opponent without so much as breaking a
sweat but… You know. Let’s not get lost in details. It’s a genre, and in its
own way its very well done – it’s just not to my own personal taste. But come on. This is Luc Besson we are talking
about. Since when has he been into making “just” action films?
From pretty
much the get-go we are surrounded by hints that the film is trying to ground
itself very firmly in science. The action in the film interspersed with what
appear to be stock images from a David Attenborough documentary that “cleverly”
parallel the action. You know, we cut from Lucy just before she is attacked in
some way to a group of deer grazing in the Savannah, then she is attacked and
we see a lion attacking the group of deer. That kind of thing. Rather too much of it at that – but ok, you have to be
blind to see what the film is trying to do, we are grounding ourselves in
natural history, disenchantment of the world and all that jazz, humans are
animals, predators in fact, and we should not “separate” ourselves from it by
pretending any “mystic” side. Okey dokey. Then we get a looong explanation of
the whole “humans only a limited percentage of their brain… Let’s imagine what
would happen if we could use it all” theory. The saving grace of the whole “lecture”
(both as a filmic device and in the actual storyline) is that it is delivered
by Morgan Freeman. By that time, of course Lucy is now rampaging around the
globe, able to control electronic devices from a distance (I’m still not
exactly sure how that conversation between her and the doctor from Taipei to
Paris actually worked on a technical level but ok, moving on) and her aim is to
get to the Professor so she can pass on the “information” she has gained to the
next generation just like any other mammal. OK HERE COME THE SPOILERS. Then she
spectacularly kills all the baddies, she reaches 100% brain capacity, this
makes her immune to the concepts of space and time and we finally see that she
is tantamount to becoming God, as she sends a last message to the cop who has
rather ineffectually being “assisting her” (he at least has the good grace to
point out that he is not being much help) “I am everywhere”. Yeah, so she
becomes God. It’s a wonderful atheist / humanist parable of how God is a
construct of our own minds and if humans would only unleash their own
capabilities they would be the only God they would ever need… There is even a
slightly Nietschean rant in the film about how men limit themselves from realizing
their true potential etc , just in case you missed the actual point of the film.
To make a
complete aside for two seconds, in an age where we are seriously debating
uploading our consciousness onto computers this is definitely a matter to be
discussed. I mean the concept isn’t even new, think of Ghost in the Shell,
think of Neon Genesis Evangelion – the Japanese, true to form, saw this coming
20 years ago. My point is that Lucy tries to clunk a very complex ontological
concept onto a very flashy action movie packed with clichés and add it weight
with a mock- David Attenborough documentary. Oh and to get this whole thing
across in 80 minutes. Err… Yeah.
And if you
thought that our final “God” is a woman is some kind of saving grace, think
again. Lucy is pretty much the only speaking female part in the film (her
flatmate hardly counts, she is only on for 2 minutes and has about 20 lines,
almost all, incidentally about her date the previous night so yeah. It barely
passes the Bechdel test because Lucy ends up giving her some advice about her
health – but does it count if the other party doesn’t respond? Weigh in here
someone… ). We barely get to know her anyway, apart from one conversation with her mother and the mention of exams, so she is some form of student... So yeah, she is the only woman literally surrounded by male
gangsters, academics and police officers and she can only “outsmart” them by
becoming less and less human and decidedly less feminine. So her whole
empowerment actually amounts to beautiful blonde beating up a bunch of guys
which, I believe, is considered a fun night out in some circles…
We have had quite a few ones about
computer-human hybrids and how we as humans would cope with consciousness levels amped up infinitely, haven’t we? There
are clues in this film that it is possibly meant as tongue in cheek, ranging
from the very fact that Morgan Freeman’s iconic voice is used to lecture us to
the fact that the secrets of the universe actually end up on a USB stick… I
dunno, maybe I’m taking this a tad too seriously… But… I mean lay aside the
pretty action sequences… You do see what I mean, don’t you? Go on… I know you
do…
The more trivia-minded amongst you will have noted that last week marked the 22nd anniversary of the release of Reservoir Dogs. You may have thought the lack of activity on this blog was a sign of my having forgotten this. You were mistaken.
I have been gushing as happily as ever about how great I think Reservoir Dogs is, and I thought I'd post the links here in case you wanted to check them out!
Ah love... Life would not be worth living without it. In every season, at ever time of life, love is one of the greatest things that brings warmth and cheer to our lives.
And indeed, while love may provide warmth and shelter from the cold - physical and metaphorical - in the autumn... What happens in the autumn of our lives?
Scroll down to find out Michael Hanneke's answer but be warned... It is not for the faint hearted.
Those of
you who know me in real life know, I have quite a number of nonagenarians in my
family. So it may be said of me that I think of old age and the things it will
bring a tiny bit more than the average 30 year old. We tend to put it off, live
as if we will be young forever and old age, if we think of it all, is a
slightly more romantic vision of growing old with our significant other (if we
have been lucky enough to have found them) happily sharing memories of youth
and going through life a bit slowly perhaps, but gracefully, hand in hand. We
very well may be lucky enough to have such a blessed autumn in our lives.
Reality, however, as Amour not so very gently reminds us, is often much, much
less sugar coated than this.
Meet
Georges and Anne. They are retired music teachers in their eighties. They both
enjoy a healthy interest in music and culture and their bond of love is as
strong as the first day they have met. They have one adult daughter who has a
family of her own in the UK who they keep in touch with. All in all they are
preparing to end their years peacefully and together. Their peaceful world
however is shattered when quite out of the blue Anne has a severe stroke. The
condition claims first her body – rendering her an invalid – and then her mind
leaving Georges quite alone. Georges is now left with the mere shadow of what
his wife used to be and has to come to terms with becoming her carer. He also
needs to cope with one of the severest tests their love has received.
Michael
Haneke presents us with a typically unflinching and unforgiving stare at old
age. Anyone who has at some point had to care for elderly relatives will
testify to the realism of the depiction. Veteran actors like Emmanuelle Riva
and Jean Louis Trintignant skillfully show us the horrifyingly sudden way
Anne’s mind unravels and Georges’ trauma, confusion but above all undying love
for his companion of so many years. It is no coincidence that the characters
are music teachers – the contrast between Anne before the stroke – an able and
knowledgeable housewife but also clearly a very capable music teacher who has
raised musicians of world renown in her time – to Anne post the stroke towards
the end of the film, inarticulate, screaming wordlessly like a baby, unable to
tell Georges what is wrong and unable to understand what he or her daughter
says to her. Quite apart from being incredibly difficult to watch, it is a
stark reminder that it may be our very own future; Anne is peacefully having
breakfast when the stroke strikes and has no previous symptoms whatsoever. Or
indeed we might end up as Georges, left with only the shell of our loved one;
trying to accept that for all intents and purposes the person we fell in love
with has died.
And of
course the way Amour is filmed is as big a factor in its message as what the
story actually tells us. The camera is often static and placed at a
“respectable” distance that is often beneficial for us, the viewer to take in
the house as it changes from Anne and Georges’ home to a house that needs to
accommodate an invalid and all of her needs. The sedate and minimal movements
of the camera match Georges very well as he presents a relatively calm and
almost matter of fact exterior to his daughter, the carer and even us the
viewer, while it is the tiniest cracks that show his real emotions boiling up
all the way up to the breath-taking finale which I will not spoil for any of
you.
Another
interesting point is that the film takes place almost exclusively within the
confines of Georges and Anne’s home. This is actually a very effective mirror
of life in old age. In developing countries especially it is true that a lot of
older people enjoy quite active lives, for one reason of another it is very
easy for an octogenarian to become housebound. So we get a real taste of what
old age may be like, but contrariwise we also bear witness to the ever-changing
universe that can exist within four walls. This means of course that details of
the film that take place outside the four walls get missed – we must use our
heads to follow the story, although the effort will not be so great. We even
miss some things that happen within the same house, but hey, that’s a pretty
realistic depiction of real life as well…
Amour is,
in short, a wonderfully sensitive and insightful look at the “happily ever
after” of love. It shows us what happens after the sun we previously happily
walked into with our other half has truly set. It is an incredibly sad film but
not a hopeless one. Love, Amour tells us, doesn’t really die in events like
this, It merely changes form…
Now, we spoke of actual fairies last week. This week we are on to metaphorical fairies. Or fairy tales.
This was most definitely one I was interested to see because it seemed to have so much going for it. I mean it's a true story and a proper "behind the scenes" moment in a quite well known period in history. It should have us riveted, and yet... And yet...
You'll have to scroll down to find out "and yet" what... Comment or tweet me or something with what you made of the movie people - I'm always interested in a chat about movies and I'd love to hear from y'all!
I decided
to see this one (again on a plane) because I was rather bemused by the overall
“mediocre” reviews of it. It was set as an extravaganza after all, opening the
Cannes Film Festival no less, a clearly opulent, highly visual film about a
modern fairy tale; the story of Grace Kelly, who left the glamour of Tinsel
town to be the Princess of Monaco.
However,
the fairy tale, we quickly learn, is not all it seems. Grace misses Hollywood
and her old world, Rainier ( Tim
Roth) is distant and increasingly stressed about Monaco’s increasingly tense
relationship with De Gaule era France and no matter how hard Grace tries, she
can’t seem to get it right, every single thing she says and does seems to be
wrong. When Hitchcock offers her the leading part in his latest film, Marnie,
Grace reaches crisis point. She has the perfect opportunity to return to the
stage – but with a crisis brewing in Monaco and her new family to consider…
Which way will Grace turn?
I mean we
have the advantage of hindsight here, we all know she stayed with Rainier,
never acted again and was her Serene Highness the Princess of Monaco for the
rest of her life. And herein lies the problem with this film. There is no real
crisis, because most, if not all of us know what Grace decided to do. The
interest of the film lies – or would lie – in portraying her psychological
process in getting there. It offers an interesting opportunity to look into the
mind of a woman forced to choose between her career and her family. What we end
up with, between Grace’s wise father figure Father Tucker, the elocution
lessons and the French lessons (complete with the now rather stale parody of
Americans being unable to pronounce foreign languages) something akin to the
Princess Diaries, or, you know, all those tweenage films about regular girls
learning to be princesses. And on the other hand, I mean come on. The dilemma
is between being a famous actress or an actual princess. It’s not exactly an
easy dilemma to sympathize with.
The second
point, which I actually read in another review is that the same is valid for
the Monaco deal. It is, of course, absolutely tragic for any country to lose
its sovereignty but at the end of the day, in real terms, they would simply
become French citizens and lose some tax privileges. It’s bad. But it’s not
exactly being put to the sword either. And just as it was in the case of
Grace’s story, we actually know what happened. Monaco still exists. The end. In
fact the whole “danger” is largely economic, the long discussions (and the
explanations thereof, as given to Grace who plays the role of the Everyman) are
basically a lot of men in tuxedos round a board room table. Again, very hard to
sympathize with.
In both
crises typical Hollywood tricks are used to heighten emotion, extreme close ups
of faces (and eyes and mouths quite a few times), tense music, suitable
sequences of both Nicole Kidman and Tim Roth looking tortured…. But in
the end, the moment you take a step back, there is no real “crisis” there, not
for us. I would have found a much more deeply psychological behind the scenes
angle a lot more interesting.
It’s a
shame really, because there is a really
good opportunity there, something akin to what we discussed concerning CallasForever – an actress, playing an actress, playing a part. Or rather learning to
play a part. I mean we do get hints at that, I rather liked the vignettes of
Grace Kelly rehearsing Marnie in front of her bedroom mirror. I do wonder how
Kidman approached that; did she do it the way she herself would play Marnie or
try and figure out how Grace Kelly would do it? Both maybe? But I mean even
that is marred slightly, there comes a moment when Father Tucker holds Grace’s
hands earnestly and says – as deep down we knew he would : “Grace, learning to
be the Princes is the role of a lifetime”.
I mean
yeah, the film is beautiful, opulent… But for all that, it falls short on the way
the story is told. I know the whole idea is the “backstory” of a typical fairy
tale being exposed, but if the fairy tale is typical, this doesn’t mean the way
we tell it has to be as well… So I’m afraid I have to say yes, I totally see
why so many people just turned around and said it was just… “Meh”… I feel sadly
obliged to join their ranks…
Ah yes, that old classic. A new twist on an old tale.
This week we take a look at Maleficient - the long awaited "behind the scenes" Sleeping Beauty story.
Incidentally, I did yell you about my second new home, Critics Associated? I'm sure I did. If you head over to the website and you will find myself and many other writers holding forth about films, festivals and other cinematic fare. This week was all about the Raindance Film Festival for me - but you need to head over to the website to hear more about that :)
But of course that is not to say Essie Speaks will stop in any way, shape or form - oh no! We shall continue unabated. Pray scroll down for this weeks' fare!
What a sensation
this one caused when the trailer first hit the web. It came in with a whole
wave of “backstories” for fairy tales although we can sit down and argue how
good of a job the various Snow White variations did. So Maleficient is the
story of Sleeping Beauty. But of course, true to form, it’s the story of “what
really happened”. Starring a particularly striking looking Angelina Jolie, among
other things, Disney has done a good job of bringing a new angle to a very
classic fairy tale.
Maleficient
(Angelina Jolie) was not always an evil fairy. She was, once, young and strong
and good. So good in fact that she became the protector of the fairy folk. However,
like most of us, she had an Achilles heel. Her heart belonged to someone else,
a human boy called Stefan, to be precise. The fairy folk are different from
humans in many ways and do not understand the lust for power and riches, but
Stefan is ambitious. In fact more ambitious than most. In time, Stefan’s
political ambition turns him against Maleficient. Love turns to hate and so
begins a supernatural war between the lovers that spans decades and draws the
lives of other innocents into its midst… Has Maleficient’s heart turned to
stone? Or is there a spark of good left in her to allow her to put things
right?
I mean ok,
as far as the storyline goes this is a pretty bog standard Disney film. I mean
all the questions in the previous paragraph are, as we all know, rhetorical. We
all know what’s basically going to happen in the end. But I still love the way
Disney frames and ends it. Maleficient (and here comes a spoiler) actually holds
the key to Aurora’s cure, and quite easily pushes aside the “love interest”,
Phillip, proving that the only true love that is possible in this life, comes
from our families. This is, of course, in part a response to the success of
Brave with its play on the bond between mother and daughter. I mean, of course,
Aurora is the daughter Stefan and Maleficient SHOULD have had (incidentally,
was it me, or was it slightly unfair the way Stefan’s queen was so summarily
gotten rid of without us having so much as learnt her name?). And if we had any
other doubts left, Aurora has taken to calling Maleficient Godmother (which is
almost Mother anyway), so there we are. Of course the other twist in the tail
of this tale is that, in the same way that Prince Charming turns out to
definitively NOT be the answer to Aurora’s problems (the film rather cynically
stresses “there is no such thing as true love” throughout), Stefan who actually
should be the one we sympathise with, in a way, becomes the unadulterated
villain, so much so that we don’t really feel that upset when he falls to his
death at the end. But I can’t help but wonder – if it’s about parental love,
would a kiss from Stefan woken her up too? Hmm… I think I may have found a
loophole.
Angelina
Jolie is, it has to be said, rather magnificent as Maleficient. Of course she
is a story book villain for quite a bit of the film and the effect does rely a
bit on the visual. But we do see glimmers of her actual talent here and there,
so it is not just built on posturing and posing. And of course, apart from
giving us the rather liberating message that a woman’s salvation does not only
come through finding a man (incidentally, there is something about
Maleficient’s turning good being parallel with her regaining her wings that
begs an analogy of women finding their own feet, love giving you wings and the
like but the exact wording escapes me), there is another message in there. An
important one in our divisive times. Namely, that no one is actually completely
black. We are all grey. Some are a darker grey than others, but we all have
streaks of white along with the black in us and in life, these are the streaks
one should aim for. This is why you can, in life, find the most unexpected
people become your friends through the most unlikely circumstances, much like
the case of Maleficient.
Incidentally
there is a wonderful cast of side characters in this one too, I was so happy to
see Sam Riley (who I just LOVED in Control) as Diaval, the voice of Maleficient’s
conscience (and also her servant but let’s not get lost in details) and the
trio of pixies led by Imelda Staunton also provide a good giggle.
I can
safely say that Maleficient is the perfect combo of serious food for thought
and family friendly fun. I mean heck, I watched this on a plane, with no
“excuses” in the shape of kids around and I loved it J
Kayıtlar
