ESSIE TWEETS

Darlings did I mention that I'm on Twitter?

Proof of it - scroll down to the bottom of the page to check out my Twitter feed, now live on the website! (Yes I do realise the whole scrolling to the bottom of the page thing is not the most practicle solution to things, bear with me a bit - it shall be sorted out)

Oh and right now I'm in the middle of a very interesting discussion with Count Dimitri, the son on of the previous owner of the Grand Budapest (I need to stress at this point that Dimitri is a character from a film and the discussion would mean little and contain spoilers for those who haven't seen the film).

But yeah, feel free to join us :)

Essie

A WARM WELCOME BACK!

Hello there folks.

Sorry about last week. The real world happened. I will do my level best not to let it happen again. I mean the real world is a thing one cannot avoid of course but I will keep it seperate from the blog.

And talking about "different worlds", this week M. Gustave, a character who will without a doubt go down in cinematic history, bids you a warm welcome to the Grand Budapest Hotel.

I am super-psyched about this week's update. It's one of those films that you watch and just plummets into your top 3. I love this film. I really want you to love this film too.

happy viewing you crazy kids!
Essie

"THE GRAND HOTEL BUDAPEST" WHERE SIMPLY EVERYONE FINDS A LITTLE BIT OF HOME

I saw the trailer for The Grand Hotel Budapest a while ago. The moment I saw the trailer I wanted to see the film then and there. Right away. You know the feeling. The anticipation has been toe-curling but at the same time, as I always say, slightly daunting because the higher your expectations are the further they have to fall. But the Grand Hotel Budapest came up and beyond my expectations. Not only has Wes Anderson come up with another masterpiece, he has done something rather extraordinary in the person of Monsieur Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the hero of the film. Allow me to endeavor to explain.

See I work as staff. You may even have seen me – I may have served you drinks, lunch or dinner. So I know first-hand what it means for staff to be “invisible”. A well-staffed establishment runs smoothly and it looks as if things are magically falling into place. In actual fact it’s a bit of a “swan” number going on – mad paddling underneath to keep up the appearance of calmness above. In a hotel, the beating heart of this phenomenon, the keystone connecting and directing the staff and liaising with the guests at the same time is the concierge. And the Grand Hotel Budapest – once one of the most celebrated hotels on the continent – was once the area of operations for M. Gustave, one of the best concierges known to the hotel industry. Now, how magnificently well things are running is worthy of lengthy praise – but it doesn’t really make for a brilliant story. What does make a good story is what is going on behind the scenes, and this is precisely where Wes Anderson is taking us. Because if you think the front of house at the Grand Budapest was amazing, you may not be able to take what is going on back of house…

First of all, rest assured, Wes Anderson fans are going to love this. It’s his dry sense of humor running through the film through and through and through. And if you’re not sure what that means, this is the film to try. Anderson builds a wonderful, surreal, colorful world filled with characters who, bizarrely perhaps, are some of the most believable we have ever met. I think it is the author’s (a wonderful, almost cameo-esque performance from Jude Law) straight faced every man approach to everything  that makes the whole semi-modern fairy tale just that tad more believable. But then again poker-faced absurd comedy has always been a very Anderson thing. It’s basically what I love about the man.

But we must, simply must spare a paragraph or two for M. Gustave. It’s an absolutely stellar performance from Fiennes, one of his most “fabulous” characters to date. And the best and most historic part of it is, he’s bisexual. Now, openly bisexual heroes are thin on the ground as they are. The whole concept of bisexuality is generally linked to something fishy. They are generally villains that stab you in the back in 1980’s movies. This of course is linked to the lack of comprehension of the fact that a person can be sexually attracted to two genders. It sounds… Fishy. My point has always been that one shouldn’t really have to fully understand something to accept, live and let live and even love a person. But then again, that’s my inner old-fashioned hippy. That said, M. Gustave makes no bones about using his sexuality. He charms and beds the older female clientele to make them “regular” clients. And yet at the other end of the spectrum Anderson makes Gustave openly camp in places; be it his obsession with romantic poetry, his cologne, his appreciation of delicate pastries or his effeminate gestures. But the fact that he is effeminate does not mean he is “ineffective”. That’s another thing that really annoys me about the “effeminate” hero is the incompetent one. You know, the one that falls on his face, not strong enough to do whatever it is… You know. The screen needed an openly effeminate action man like Gustave who can single-handedly (yet quite realistically) outsmart the villains and win the day in the end. This film is just about all the proof you need that if you keep a straight face and act natural you can pretty much make the most outrageous suggestion look normal - which is what Gustave does. My especial favorite is the fact that, just in case anyone is confused, one of the baddies yells “You’re bisexual!” at Gustave. Gustave’s answer is a facial expression but amounts to “Yeah, fair enough.”

I could write for pages and pages and still could not convey the atmosphere of The Grand Budapest. You really have to visit it yourself to understand. You will definitely fall under Gustave’s charms. I mean, there’s a reason it has barreled into the IMDB Top 250. 

ESSIE APPOLOGISED PROFUSELY

Guys I am so sorry about this lack of updates. My day job has just been really, really REALLY busy but I am hoping to post at least one update tomorrow. If not I will definitely find a way to make it up to you.

have a great weekend!
Essie

ESSIE SPEAKS OF PUBLIC ENNEMIES

"Public ennemy Number One! You hear that? Number one!" Mesrine chuckles and raises his glass to the television set. That for me is one of the scenes that really encapsulates the spirit of Mesrine. He is much, much larger than life, therefore he gets not only two films (because honestly he wouldn't have fitted into a single one) but an entire spotlight to himself on the blog this week. I have a bit of a soft spot for French cinema as you know folks. That's why I push it a little from time to time. Hopefully it's working :)

I am sorry for the delay folks - my "real" job is keeping me on my toes and messing with my blogging commitments but fear not there will be a new post every week possibly late but never actually never if you see what I mean.

happy viewing folks,
Essie

AN EXTRAORDINARY DOUBLE FEATURE ABOUT AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN : "MESRINE (PARTS 1 AND 2)"

I have a bit of a confession to make. I have a bit of a thing about French films. And not in a good way. I mean don`t get me wrong, I love French cinema. But I spent my ENTIRE education with the exception of primary school in French establishment. So the prospect of reading something in French or watching a French film… Feels like homework. I mean no, once I get into it I do love it (sometimes). One doesn`t read the entire works of Emile Zola in French merely out of a sense of duty for God`s sake. But so, yeah, if I hear a film is in French, something in my brain cringes and goes ``can`t we do this later?``  And Mesrine especially, I  mean not only is it a French gangster film (and Alain Delon really didn`t make enough of those, right?) there are two of them. The whole story is almost 4 hours long. I am aware I have prejudices and do tend to make an effort to push past them, that said, I didn`t expect to feel compelled to suddenly sit down and do a `Mesrine marathon` either. Then again, maybe I shouldn`t be that surprised. Mesrine was quite a piece of work. One time France`s public enemy number one, he was as charismatic and funny as he was ruthless. And love him or hate him (you rarely did anything in between) you found it hard to take your eyes off him.

Back from special duties in Algiers in the 1960`s, the young Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) is at a bit of a loss. He tries a ``good honest job`` in a shop, but after the life in Algiers it doesn`t really suit him, neither in pace nor in economics – if you see what I mean. He starts off by making a few ``bad friends`` and petty crime. But soon his ``talents`` have him rising through the ranks, making connections in the then notorious OAS… Mesrine is well on the way of becoming a truly international name in the world of crime. These two films tell the story of his career spanning 20 years and 2 continents…

First of all let us stop for a second and just praise Vincent Cassell for his magnificent portrayal of Mesrine. Mesrine is a complex character and he is so violent, so cruel and such a ruthless gangster it must have been hard to put the effort in to make him likable. Because likable he was. As the film progresses we get the impression of Mesrine as being a lot more immature than one might initially think. I mean, definitely more immature than you would expect a bank robber and kidnapper to be. The films portrays him at virtually delighting in seeing his face in the papers and bursting with pride at becoming public enemy ``number one``. And while he can often bulldoze his way out of most situations – because it would seem if you have a specific brand of courage bordering on stupidity you can bulldoze your way out of most things in the crime world – his overconfidence in his own talents is what lets him down. And his bigheadedness is what loses him countless business partners. It is this childlike quality that makes him think he can throw a bagful of money across a river, fail and lose millions of franks. It is also this childlike quality that enables him to have the audacity and tenacity to escape from maximum security prisons multiple times. But try as he might to present himself as a charming thief who only steals from the big banks, Mesrine is not above threatening the mother of his children at gun point in front of his son who is barely a toddler. Nor is he above kidnapping and mistreating the elderly and the infirm. In short Mesrine is, maybe not in body but in mind, a rather bright teenager brandishing a gun. AWESOME combo and brilliantly depicted – one swings between thinking him hilarious and promptly feeling guilty about your laughter all through the film.

The film itself is a first class example of its genre. If you were ever even remotely afraid it may prove too ``arty`` or some such, you really do not need to worry.  Car chases, tense stake-outs and bloody gun battles are a-plenty all through the film. In fact at several points the tension mounts so much I almost found it hard to watch -  oh no, this film does not lack anything in adrenaline.

Nor indeed does it lack in testosterone. I mean I do realize this is the thing with the time depicted and the genre. I`d hazard a guess and say that there weren`t that many female main players in the ganglands of 1960`s and `70s France. Any women we see are either prostitutes (and to be fair we see quite a few of those) or Mesrine`s partners (sometimes also prostitutes) who invariable end up getting threatened, chased and knocked around by him but staying with him nevertheless. I mean I don`t blame anyone on this last bit. When he pulled a bank robbery off he used to lavish himself and his ``flavor of the month`` in extraordinarily expensive gifts. Common sense dictates you stick with it. But then again I don`t want to be overly cynical - like he said Mesrine was an incredibly complex man, maybe there was real love there, we`ll never know I guess. The point I want to make is that the only women we see are the `molls` in one sense or another.  I mean you know that has never bothered me. But for some reason I noticed it more than usual. Possibly because I ended up watching the entire 4 hour saga in one sitting.

In short, not only is this a shining example of the gangster film in general it is a fascinating true story of a rather complicated man. Like many films that stick strictly to their genre, you probably may want to give it a miss if you absolutely loath gangster movies. But if you don`t, you`re in for a treat. 

ESSIE TREADS THE BOARDSS

Well, not literally but metaphorically.

Something a little different this week. But what can I say... It could be a life changing thing for me. I mean I always loved theatre but this may well be the one that pushes me to go out and see more of it "in the flesh"

And it has everything I love in a good yarn. A bit of maddness, intreague, murder... I mean there is a reason John Webster got called the Jacobean Quentin Tarantino... Scroll right down to find out what that is...

Happy viewing!
Essie

FROM THE "QUENTIN TARANTINO OF THE 16TH CENTURY" : THE DUCHESS OF MALFI (as broadcast by the BBC)

Well, this was an unusual one.  Recorded at a perfect reconstruction of a Jacobean theatre with a live audience this is a rather glorious performance of a classic by one of the greatest rivals of Shakespeare himself. I`m not quite sure if this one qualifies as a film. I`m not even sure if this is on DVD or not or how anyone based outside the UK will potentially get to watch it. Of course there have been films made of the story. But this is not a film, not strictly speaking. Then again, I loved it. It tempted me into putting money aside so I can go to theatre. And watching in Jacobean style, lit only with candles and with no backdrop, was a real experience in itself. I mean not to mention the fact that televised and recorded artistic experiences (be it museum tours or concerts) are more and more of a ``thing``. So… I reckon it gets a place in the blog. Besides, in the scheme of things these days John Webster is often overshadowed by his more famous contemporary. It`s high time there was a spotlight on his talent.

So what is the story? Well, our heroine, as you may guess, is the Duchess of Malfi. She is quite young and newly widowed, so she naturally has quite a few suitors milling around. The duchess however loves one man – Antonio. Unfortunately for all concerned however, he is not a nobleman but a steward of the household. Her feelings are quite requited and Antonio and the Duchess marry and have three beautiful children. This joyous state of affairs does not please the duchess` brothers. Her older brother the Cardinal is one problem. Her twin brother Ferdinand, whose ``brotherly`` love borders on obsession, is a completely different one. And they have their own ideas as to how best to ``retaliate`` to this ``act of treason``. 

The ``true crime`` fans among us will be fascinated to find out that this is, in fact, a true story. It is the story if Giovanna D`Aragona and her two brothers, Ludovica D`Aragona, the cardinal of Santa Maria in Cosmedin and her fraternal twin Carlo D`Aragona, the Marquis of Gerace. While there is no historical evidence of any actual foul play; there is evidence that Giovanna (who, to put things into perspective was married off at the tender age of 12 and widowed at around 17) lived in terror of her brothers` retribution. There is also historical evidence that the duchess, her two youngest children and Antonio were murdered in quick succession. Only their eldest son survived the carnage and, thankfully, lived a long and successful life. I think you can probably see where the inspiration for this particularly ghoulish play comes from…

And don’t get me wrong the play is bloody – one of the experts in a documentary I watched on the play described Webster as a Jacobean Quentin Tarantino – but for me that is not where the true horror of the play lies. We learn that the play comes after years of disappearance on Webster`s part – as in he just drops off the existing records for a number of years – then he just reappears and writes this. Whatever happened in the meanwhile, it clearly was not pleasant. Because we have eerily accurate descriptions of madness and depression that, combined with a strong cast, are fit to give the strongest theatre-goers the chills. In this performance we have a very striking character in the shape of Bosola – brought to life by  Sean Gilder – who is the catspaw for the Cardinal and Ferdinand. He is clearly depressed (and I mean clinically people, not just having a bad day) from the moment we are first introduced to him. It is the state of mind of a man who, thanks to the Cardinal’s dirty dealings , has already been sucked so deep into a world of blood, intrigue he just does not see a way out for himself.  Watching him fight himself and suffer as he gets sucked deeper and deeper into the two brothers plans is harrowing within itself. Then, of course, there is Ferdinand. Ferdinand is unstable from the word go, and I don`t just mean about his sister (although that is a massive part of it of course). As the stress on his system increases we find him incapable of coping and he transforms from the arch-villain to a tragi-comical character. It’s quite a natural progression really. Consider the villains we have seen in the past, the wild stares, the maniacal laughs the typical ``mad they called me, mad!`` Does it not follow that one of them should just fall over the edge at some point DURING the narrative? I`m rather amazed this hasn`t been done before really. I know it would spoil the ``dichotomy`` as far as Hollywood were concerned (you know, the hero wouldn`t have an opponent at his own weight category and that would kinda throw the film of kilter). But surely some of the indies could have done it? In this story the problem of the ``missing baddie`` is easily solved through the presence of the Cardinal who is the archetypal “evil priest”.  The Cardinal is nothing short of a psychopath by the way, in a way a lot more frightening than the unstable Ferdinand or Bosolo whose hands are steeped in blood but I’m going to let you guys discover that for yourselves later. And last but not least, a word or three must be said for Gemma Arterton who does a spectacular job as the duchess. The duchess you understand is neither a saint nor a harlot. She is a regular young and beautiful woman, still full of life and madly in love. She cares not about “familial duty” or social standards, she just wants to marry the man she loves. Her suffering and torment will turn her into what is almost a heroine from a Greek tragedy while her death (don’t tell me you didn`t see that coming) transforms her into what would be akin to a martyr in this play. There is something to be said about the fact that she ends up as “tragedy” while her fraternal twin, through his insanity becomes “comedy”, albeit with a deeply tragic streak. But that is possibly another post all together…

Finally, one simply must say a word or two about the production itself, because of course we must remember that this is not a film but a filmed play – which is a different thing all together. First of all of course, the minimalist approach and lack of props are probably going to throw you a bit if you’re not used to this kind of production. The lack of backdrops etc. may well mean you get a bit disoriented at first, but as long as the audience is willing to use a little imagination – and of course the performances are strong enough – you will find it very easy to follow “where” we are. Besides it gives the performance a strange kind of freedom, a sort of sense of being untethered from the material things. I mean this is tame in comparison too; I have seen a performance of Anthony and Cleopatra at the Globe where the actors just sat on a bench at the end of stage if they weren’t in the particular act being performed. So in effect, almost the whole cast was on the stage the whole time which is slightly disorienting to say the very least. What else? Oh yes, the lighting. It barely gets a mention in this blog I know (and God knows it SHOULD get mentioned) but here it takes on a life of its own. When multiple candles are used to mimic the bright light of day all is well and good but when night falls… The play between light and dark and the way the shadows are used are nothing short of (and in fact I would hazard a guess that in this particular modern production they were heavily influenced by) the kind of German expressionism in early black and white film that later also influenced the likes of Orson Wells and many other film noirs. In fact there is one portion of the play that takes place in complete darkness. Do take a minute to stop and think how that was received back in the 16^th century – the audience must have been terrified.  This period of darkness is part of the psychological torture prepared for the duchess and trust me, a 21^st century audience would be jumping out of its skin – much less a 16^thcentury one.

Do you know something? I would have loved to have seen this in the flesh. It must have been such an immersive experience… I really, really need to go to the theatre more often. Even watching this performance on TV was just… So striking… I really hope you get a chance to see this performance, recorded live or even in the form of a different film all together. Especially for all you gore and horror fans, there is a real treat in store.