ESSIE SPEAKS OF SCI-FI AND ACTION

Hey there guys and dolls!

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!

happy viewing
Essie

"LUCY" THE NEXT, "NEXT GENERATION" HUMAN...

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… 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF QT

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!

Here is my take in Top 5 Reservoir Dogs Moments

Aaand here's some Reservoir Dogs Trivia you may not have heard before!

Do feel free to tell me what you make of them! My Twitter is just at the bottom of the page :)

happy viewing,
Essie

ESSIE SPEAKS OF AMOUR

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. 

happy viewings!

Essie

THE MANY FACES OF "AMOUR"

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…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF A DISAPPOINTING FAIRY TALE

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!

happy viewing!
Essie

BEHIND THE SCENES OF A FAIRY TALE : "GRACE OF MONACO"

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… 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF OLD THINGS AND NEW

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!

happy viewing,
Essie

THE LONG AWAITED STORY OF A VERY BAD FAIRY... "MALEFICIENT"

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

ESSIE SEES THINGS THROUGH THE EYES OF A CHILD

We're always in such a hurry, aren't we? One really forgets how much of a routine one gets stuck into. We forget to look around and basically live off by heart - while actually whatever we are doing is just one of millions of alternatives. One of millions of ways to look at the world, to act, to think...

The best ones to remind us of this truth are kids. They haven't learnt and accepted the rules yet. They still add in their own interpretations. And the ways they see our world can be quite extraordinary.

Here are two rather extraordinary works of art, one film and one book, that will challenge the way you look at the world and remind you there is more than one way to see even the most basic things.

happy viewing people!
Essie

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CONTAIN THE "BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD"

I took one look at the trailer for this one and said to myself “Hah. Terrance Malik fan.” This, to be fair, is what most reviewers of the film seem to have thought when watching Beasts of the Southern Wild. But don’t get me wrong, this is not a bad thing. In fact it’s one of the things that pushed me to watching this film. Beasts of the Southern Wild is a wonderfully surreal and – dare I say it - slightly steampunk fairy tale taking place right in the middle of the modern world.

Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis) is a six year old girl living in a southern bayou called Bathtub with her father Wink (Dwight Henry). Hers is a rather unconventional life, she goes to school and is taught by Miss Bathsheba who uses her tattoos to tell the children about aurochs and warns them about the melting ice caps. Six year old Hushpuppy has a “house” of her own close to her father’s where she lives with her own things and what remains of her mother’s stuff – her mother “swam away” when Hushpuppy was born – and goes over to her father’s house to eat. So there she lives, in an unconventional world bolstered by her very vivid imagination. But when disaster strikes in the shape of Wink’s failing health and the great flood (Hurricane Katrina), Hushpuppy’s disorganised but happy world comes crashing down. To survive (mentally and in fact physically) Hushpuppy has to grow up very, very quickly indeed.

This is wonderful lyrical story of a completely alternative way of interpreting the world. The perspective of a child, a child who has not been given the hard and fast rules the rest of society has adapted as “the right way” to do things. Do you remember those days? It was quite a long time ago for most of us, so most of us forget pretty quickly, but there was a time when you believed in things that you know think was “childish nonsense”. It could be the tooth fairy, it could be , like me, that when you got into an elevator the elevator was static and the building moved around it (I’ve said this before, I was rather a strange child). Director Benh Zeitlin does this by creating a completely alternative universe in the bayou. The people who live there do not have nearly as many possessions as the folks on the other side of the levee but they have one thing money cannot buy – community. Hushpuppy’s family is not limited to her father, it is the whole community, all her neighbours. The alternative lifestyle is reinforced by the slightly Steampunk looking surroundings; the ramshackle huts made out of disparate construction materials cobbled together, farm animals running practically wild… It’s as close to living in a magical land a person can get to in our modern times… It is fascinating to see, through the eyes of a child, how this perspective copes when the harsh realities of disease and destruction come crashing into this world. Be it Wink’s refusal to come to terms with his illness (we are never told exactly what but it is some kind of blood disorder) or the community coping with the devastating aftermath of the hurricane, it is not just a matter of physical survival; it is a matter of whether the happiness and philosophy of the community will survive. It is easy to put bitterness and hopelessness instead of courage and a sense of togetherness. Even more important is how little Hushpuppy is going to cope with this transition because in all probability it will colour her approach to life for the rest of her days.

For her performance in this film young actress Quvenzhane Wallis deserves nothing short of a standing ovation. This film is her first role as an actress and we have since seen her in films such as 12 years a Slave. Facially and vocally she ably conveys a very complex set of emotions and thoughts that some adult actors may well have struggled with. Dwight Henry is also a strong performer as her father Wink, who obstinately raises his daughter his own way, with an obstinacy and passion that borders on the violent.

The one thing I feel didn’t quite fit into the film are, sadly, the aurochs. They have been compared to the dinosaurs in Terrance Malik’s Tree of Life, and who knows, that may well be the source of their inspiration. They are, basically physical representations (I say physical but needless to say the only exist in Hushpuppy’s mind) of her fears, the difficulties the future will bring and the uncertainty. Although the end sequence with them is designed to bring a rise of emotion in us, to me it felt forced. The same emotion could equally be conveyed (and I personally thought it was) during (SPOILER ALERT) Wink’s funeral, right at the end of the film. I think they felt a little clumsy in what was otherwise a very emotional and delicate film.

Beasts of the Southern Wild is a real experience to watch. The silences and surrealism is not for everyone but if you just look past the surface of these it’s a truly beautiful and complex film. Definitely one not to miss. 

A UNIVERSE CONTAINED BY FOUR WALLS... "ROOM"

I despair at myself sometimes. I really do. It is probably the main reason the stories of my purchasing cheap books or DVDs makes it to the blog so often. ``Buy one get one for 1 pound`` the sticker on Room proudly proclaims. I remember very clearly, this is the ``one for 1 pound`` I chose on one particular shopping spree. I was in two minds about buying it although the subject matter did intrigue me; I worried whether it would prove too ``heavy`` a read as the story is one of the darkest ones I have yet to come across. The other danger was, of course, that it would be made too sensational, almost flippant, and that would have made me angry too. But at the end of the day, as I told myself, ``it`s only a pound``. It turned out to be one of the best pounds I spent this year.

Room is five year old Jack`s world. It is the only world he has ever known. It is where he and his mother live, eat, bathe, sleep and play. His mother is called Ma. She has no other name. There is a television in the Room with many different things on it but they`re just TV they`re not real. So they cannot ask for things like puppies, ice cream or chocolate for Sunday treat. Other children and people they see on the television aren`t real either, the only other real person (except Jack and Ma) is Old Nick (as Jack calls him) who bring supplies and sometimes stays the night. But today is Jack`s fifth birthday, it means he is all grown up now, and it may well be time to learn that there is a little bit more to his little world than he initially thought…

You may have gotten a sinking feeling in your gut as you read my version of the blurb, that means you`re pretty much on the right track. Excuse the spoilers, but yes, this is the story of a young woman who was kidnapped and held in a ``room`` in a garden shed for years and who gave birth to a child as a result of rape. The plot twist is that we read the entire story not from her perspective, but from the perspective of Jack, her son. Through Jack`s stories and interpretations, we begin to understand how Ma has made this world up for Jack and has done everything in her limited power to keep the outside world at bay – for the sake of her own sanity and Jack`s. But more importantly, we admire their resilience as Ma has not quite given up hope of escape… And when, in the end, she and Jack break free, a whole new world is opened up to them.

I think I honestly found the second half of the book a lot more striking than the first. I mean don`t get me wrong, the first half has its merits by the boatload, I marveled at how the little alternative universe was formed within the four walls of the Room. Ma clearly trying to keep Jack stimulated without awakening his curiosity about what could lie beyond the walls and Jack, with the naiveté specific to young children, accepts this universe without question. For this reason, it is fascinating to analyze Jack`s thoughts and reaction when he is brought face to face with the real world. In her ``how and why`` section at the back of the book writer Emma Donoghue explains that her own son, four at the time the book was written, was a great inspiration along with the main source of Jack`s ``voice`` as Jack speaks with several (small but noticeable) grammatical errors and uses quite a few invented words. It is in part this dedication that has made the character of Jack so real. This and no doubt close observation of how children see and interpret the world as they discover it.

Donoghue also points out that Jack and Ma`s captivity can also be seen as an illumination of the human condition on many levels. One does not necessarily have to be physically trapped in a room to feel trapped by a situation or a relationship. And if we are trapped by a relationship or situation, it is quite common for the brain to form coping mechanisms of various kinds. We may not exactly believe that ice cream is not real but we form new, and sometimes erroneous beliefs about other people, relationships, the way the world works… And the more entrenched we become in our beliefs, the harder it is for us to shake free until one day, like Jack facing the real world, we are faced with something or someone who shakes up our belief system… Then begins the painful process of adaptation. But hopefully, we end up in a better place than where we began, and all the pain and struggle was worth it.

Room is about all of this, but above all, it is about the indomitable human spirit. That part of us that refuses to give up even under the darkest of circumstances. For this reason, I think Room isn`t nearly as dark as it may very well have been. You will laugh and you will cry as you read it… But you definitely won`t regret your purchase.