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!
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.
Kayıtlar
