ESSIE SPEAKS OF QUEER HOLLYWOOD

Ok, this week's update is a bit of an awkward one. Mainly because my update this week is based largely on cinema-going as opposed to dvds. But the dvds will be out amazon promises us, and you can see the links for the future dvds below, just in case you want to wait and watch them in the comfort of your own homes. But personally, I reckon they're worth a trip to the cinema. Oh yes.

You see, I told you about my new found interest in queer cinema, right? Hollywood seems to share my interest! Cinemas - and awards ceremonies of various ilks around the world, have welcomed to Hollywood films, starring major talent - and directed by none other than Clint Eastwood in one case! - two absolutely brilliant queer films. Check them out. They're pretty darned amazing. A very dear friend of mine put me on the right track for these films, a special thank you goes out to him for this week's post...

Oh and by the way, for reasons best known to itself, blogger seems to have changed the url of the blog to essiespeaks.co.uk - But as you are reading this letter you will have noticed that when you use the old .com adress it sends you here anyway... Not quite sure what's going on but be warned anyway...

happy viewing!
Essie

A SLICE OF HISTORY WITH "J. EDGAR"

First of all, I am surprised I am putting the review of this film in this particular category. I don’t know about you but I personally had no idea at all he was gay. But then again, the film contains a lot of revelations and new information – especially for someone whose knowledge of modern American History is ever so slightly rusty. This is, in fact one of the films that, for me personally, contains one of the highest levels of intellectual curiosity mixed with emotional involvement that I have witnessed in a film in a long time. Which is why I was even more surprised to find out that it was directed by Clint Eastwood. I have made quite a lot of fun of him in the past, especially Million Dollar Baby whose ending I felt contained every emotional tear-jerking trope known to man plus their dogs, but what can I say… The man’s style is growing on me…
J. Edgar is, a lot of you will have gathered if they didn’t know already, the life story of J. Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo Di Caprio). As is right with such a public figure, the main emphasis is on his public life, his achievements and political machinations, not least among them the founding of the F.B.I and numerous American Federal laws that he helped come to life. But this is not merely a political film. A nice balance is struck with Hoover’s character and private life. Having lived for over half his life with and under the influence of his strict and domineering mother (Judi Dench) Hoover is reserved and has, shall we say difficulties in certain areas. He is also rather fussy and hard to work with if you’re not used to it. But he is also a brilliant tactician, capable of immense forward thinking and was truly built for police work. We examine the man, his life, his achievements and his relationships in an emotional rollercoaster that deserves every accolade it gets…
When he first made his “big break” on the big screens with Titanic, there were two “camps” about Leonardo Di Caprio. You either loved him (if you were in this category you probably had a crush on him too) or you hated him with a passion. I was one of the former (and yes I had a crush on him at the time too). I am glad to say however, think what you will of him on “other” planes (ehm), as far as acting is concerned I can happily confirm that I have backed a winner. He has turned out to be a brilliant, versatile actor capable of pulling off the most challenging roles. And he absolutely stuns as J. Edgar Hoover in this latest big screen hit. The role itself is challenging because the story itself is so fascinating. Hoover was a true blue eccentric (to put it mildly) and that in itself is something to marvel at. His lifelong relationship with Clive Tolworth is touching to the core, not least the struggle Hoover has to go through in his own mind as he tries to accept his own homosexuality. He is not an easy man, not even a pleasant one from time to time, but you cannot help but feel his pain, especially as Di Caprio does such a wonderful job of portraying him. Of course as long as we’re talking about acting a word must be said about Judi Dench as Hoover’s formidable (and slightly creepy) mother. Lastly, it is an excellent overview of modern American history and a behind the scenes look at events that I personally had just about only heard mentioned and new nothing about in detail. Don’t be intimidated by the length of this little monster (2 hours and 16 minutes). You will be so wrapped up in it that you will not notice the time fly by…

LOOKING FOR LOVE WITH "ALBERT NOBBS"

The Oscar® season is newly behind us, leaving us a lot of things to discuss. Well only one really, The Artist having successfully swept the floor with the rest of the candidates. I will, in the next couple of weeks do my best to update you on my humble opinion on the winners and candidates. It may come in the form of themed weeks or they may just pop up in mixed bags, as yet I am not at all sure. In any case, I want to start with this little gem. I watched this one shortly before the Oscar® ceremony, I had no idea it was up for an Oscar®. Now I do know I’m very, very sad it didn’t get it. Watching so many films (it kinda comes with the territory of Film Studies, it becomes harder and harder to actually get swept away by films. This one had me laughing and crying at once all through the film. You do want to miss this.
Albert Nobbs (Glenn Close) is a respected butler in a respectable hotel in 19th century Ireland. Mr. Nobbs has the reputation of a hard-worker and a gentleman, also as a quiet man who largely keeps to himself. However, Albert Nobbs has a secret. Albert Nobbs, is a woman. Born in abject poverty into a world where women on their own didn’t have much of a chance to work and make a respectable living, Albert (formerly Alba) has been living as a man for a great many years; so much so that he has practically forgotten what life as a woman was like. And then one day there arrives at the hotel a certain Mr. Hubert Page. Albert takes very little notice of him at first. Little does he know that he has arrived at a turning point in his life that will change him forever.
This is not a romantic comedy. I am fully aware of what you thought at the end of the first paragraph. Oh, she falls in love with the guy, can she show she’s biologically a woman blah blah… No. I can give this much away; Albert Nobbs is most definitely gay. He is, in fact transgendered; and dreams of finding a wife one day not a husband. It is the fact that his life was lead in the 19th century, when such a thing could not even be dreamt of, that gives the film its underlying tragic feel. In fact the film is very, very skillful at blending the various tones. The general undertone and background of this film is nothing short of tragic. I defy you not to be crying your eyes out by the end of it in fact. But it blends this deep sadness that is the life of Albert Nobbs with just the right amounts of comedy, suspense and intrigue to make the whole thing an absolutely nail-biting rollercoaster of emotion. Living as he has done, Albert Nobbs has also completely forgotten certain social rules – indeed perhaps he never really learnt? – and we cringe, and if you’re anything like me actually yell instructions at the screen, as he desperately tries to make a go of this new lease of life that has seemingly been offered. Like I said, I’m partial to this film. You really, really need to watch it.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF JOSEPH LOSEY

Ok, now, this week is kinda special for me. Because, among the many, many things I have learnt on this course I can proudly state the fact that I like Jospeh Losey. It may be a strange thing to say, the thing is I didn't even know the man existed, much less that I loved his films so much... As we write I am attacking the man's filmography as if it were going out of fashion, but I digress... This week's little selection consists of my personal favorites of said filmography. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

Oh and by the way, I intend to have more of these "director themed" weeks. I mean, I intend to have them more frequently. Mixed bags are well and good but looking at the work of one director makes it a lot easier to get an in depth impression of a the style, don't you find? Well I do, anyway :)

happy viewing,
Essie

WHO IS "THE SERVANT " AND WHO IS THE MASTER ?

I don’t like the idea of having favorites among the films I review on a weekly basis. It feels plain wrong. Like a parent that secretly admits to having a favorite child or something. But sometimes, just sometimes a film will stand out so much in my heart and mind that I cannot help eulogizing about it. The Servant is just such a film. I am writing this review a day after I have watched the film and I am, as I write, plotting an advertising campaign to convince all my fellow students to watch it. I know it sound ever so slightly unhinged, but what can I say. I am overwhelmed.
Tony has just moved back to London. He is a young aristocrat with a lot of means and no immediate need to find a job. But of course, lounging around London not doing a lot is serious business, so the very first thing Tony does is hire a manservant. And this manservant happens to be Hugo Barrett (Dirk Bogarde). Barrett comes with excellent references; Tony is not the sort to get lost in second thoughts and double-checking so he is hired on the spot. Soon Barrett is running the house almost single-handedly. He is a little too efficient for the liking of Susan, Tony’s fiancée. But try as she might to assert herself, make her own mark on the house she hopes to make her own home one day and put Barrett “back in his place”, the more obvious it becomes that Barrett is a bit more than a crafty man grabbing an opportunity when he sees it. And when Veera – who Barrett introduces as his sister – joins the household as a maid, her allure and sex-appeal will bring a whole new dimension in the battle for control…
The Servant is categorically one of the best psychological thrillers I have watched in a very, very long time. What I love the most about it is that it is not concerned with “tidy endings”, the way mainstream cinema would be. It pursues its hypothesis right to the end; and is not concerned in the least with making things look pretty. Then again, what is going on between Tony and Hugo is far from pretty. And Losey is not afraid to show it. This is, I think, what I loved the most about the structure of the film. About an hour and fifteen minutes in, the film comes to what you may consider a natural close. Yet you look at the time left and see that there is a good forty minutes yet to come; you are left unsure as to what on earth could possible happen next… Then the curveballs start raining down. I honestly thought that those last forty minutes would turn out to seem a bit false, you know, “stuck on”… God I could not be more wrong…
Of course the main stay of the film is the “power struggle” itself. On one level there is the battle between the two women; Veera and Susan on a sexual plain. However Veera’s status as the “forbidden fruit” gives her the edge, especially when contrasted with Susan’s primness and propriety; comparing Veera’s mini-skirts to Susan’s “proper” outfits with no cleavage and long skirts are enough to show who has the real advantage… On the other hand it must be remembered that Veera and everything she does is generally part of a bigger plan spun by Hugo. Hugo’s power over Tony is largely based on Tony’s helplessness and inability to cope physically or mentally without Hugo. Come the second half of the film, the two men have even past the point where the two are “equals” – or “old pals” as they put it; Tony is very clearly subservient to Hugo, and quite clearly Hugo is the one running the house and calling the shots. In context of course, this can be read differently; we could see it as a critique of the aristocracy and the upper classes; Hugo is to be blamed, of course, but Tony is to be blamed equally for not taking control of his own life and responsibilities, living off ready money and not even trying to use his own wits. Call it a critique; call it simply a brilliant thriller, The Servant is worth watching again and again. And I’m pretty sure that is exactly what I will be doing.

THE "ACCIDENT" TO END IT ALL...

Behold another acute psychological portrait from Joseph Losey. If nothing else, my degree has helped me discover this director. I had categorically never heard of him in my life before studying film studies, and I am enjoying his work so much that I am honestly unclear as to how I managed to get through life without knowing him before. In my mind, this film is a very close second to The Servant, a film I have pretty much eulogized about above. It has the same sharp insights into the human mind, especially the bits of it that we may in fact prefer to not discuss.
Stephen is a middle-aged university professor. He has a reasonably happy, yet monotonous life with his wife and two young children. This existence however, will be upset when beautiful Austrian princess Anna enters his life. Anna is his student, she is also involved with William another one of his students in college. Yet all this cannot stop Stephen from yearning for her. And as if this love triangle is not complicated enough, events begin to show that Anna is not the kind of person her admirers think her to be either… Is there any way out of this for Stephen?
This is a difficult one to review. It depends a lot on plot twists and turns so it is hard to write what it’s about without giving something away and thus dashing the enjoyment of the whole affair for all and sundry. I have to admit I had a few “Wait, what??” moments but they were very short lived. There is a certain skill to throwing in a convincing curveball; it has to be completely surprising and original in the context of the story, and yet has to be completely believable as well. Losey is, I have to admit, a master at doing this.
Another thing Losey seems to be interested in is power. If you notice in both The Servant and The Accident, we see people who are in positions of power being “overpowered” and manipulated by people who they are supposed to have power over. And it is fascinating really isn’t it, the whole concept of psychological power and how the most unexpected people get a hold over one? The concept seems to be a running theme through all three films of Losey’s that I have seen; The Go-between is also a matter of power-struggles, the only difference being that Leo’s age and innocence make him the underdog by default; whereas in the other two films, the positions of the protagonists might lead us to suppose greater authority. The “problem” with ?? is that he is largely a man of thought and letters. But not, sadly a man of action. This is why he is constantly overpowered by “men / women of action”. In this sense he is largely comparable to Leo who is placed at a definite disadvantage due to his youth and innocence. The main difference from Leo however, is that Stephen has the opportunity to use his wits to get himself out of the situation he is in; whether he is able to do so or not of course is another story altogether. Definitely another good one and a lot of food for thought.

THE BURDEN OF "THE GO-BETWEEN"

I’m looking back on our progress so far, and am noticing that it’s been a while since we’ve had a good old period piece on these pages. Period pieces are just one of those things aren’t they, you either love them or you hate them. Thing is, they tend to be a little… I don’t know, samey. They are usually grand romances; often depict historical events and the accent is largely on the costumes and décor. Very rarely, however, you get a psychological period piece. This rarity is quite odd, because no matter what else was different, the way people’s minds worked were the same. And there were then as there are now, people who had figured out how people’s minds worked, and how to use this fact… This is what The Go-between is precisely all about…
The year is 1900. Young Leo, a twelve year-old boy from an underprivileged family, is spending ten days of the summer vacation in Norfolk, at the grand home of his richer classmate and friend Marcus. Leo has been brought up by his widowed mother with great difficulty and therefore is stunned by the luxury in the Norfolk home. But he is even more stunned by Clarissa (Julie Christie), Marcus’s beautiful older sister. Leo knows very little of the more “sensitive” issues in life, Clarissa is quick to pick up on this and even quicker to use it to her own advantage. This is because Clarissa, though engaged to be married, is having an affair with one of the tenant farmers on the estate. Of course their difference in statute makes an open affair virtually impossible, but at least now Leo is here, they can meet more often. This is brought about by the fact that Leo would do virtually anything for Clarissa. Including playing postman between the two lovers, ferrying their notes back and forth… How long will Clarissa be able to keep this game up? When, if ever will Leo’s eyes open to what it is he is actually doing?
The film shows us an absolutely marvelous example of manipulation. Leo is a typical “ingénue” if there ever was one. In this age of information and the internet, with children playing with intelligent phones from toddlerhood upwards, it is very hard to actually imagine someone like Leo. At twelve, children these days are completely in touch with every last intricacy of the “facts of life” and everything that goes with them. Leo, however, is made blissful just by the knowledge that he is making Clarissa happy. What is actually in these notes and what is happening behind everybody’s backs is way beyond his imagination. We watch on with baited breath and fraying nerves as the plot thickens… Will Leo actually ever truly “get” what is going on?
Losey uses camerawork to underline this feeling even further. The camera is very “stiff”, not a lot of movement, definitely not a lot of zooming, just some gentle panning here and there. The framing is meticulous, often quite beautiful with great attention to detail. The effect is very much that of British society at the turn of the century; rigid, distant with great attention to exterior fanfare. That, in turn, makes us feel just as trapped as Leo is, trapped on the surface of events if you will, with the rules of the adults giving him very little room to manoeuver and seek the information he clearly knows he lacks. In short The Go-between is elegant, intelligent and definitely original as far as period films go. If you’re only going to watch one, make it this one…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF INDIA

Hey there everybody!

I hope you are all doing well! I am chugging along with my studies, watching many different films on my merry way, as per usual. Now, a large chunk of my studies this term have focused on Indian cinema in its various forms. And of course, Bollywood. Now you may be a fan of Bollywood, you may not be. I personally am not, not usually anyway. But naturally you cannot hate a whole genre globally as it were. There are a few exceptions to the rule, for me there are anyway. This weeks fare consists of two such exceptions and one non-Bollywood Indian film. By the way I am now a massive fan of Indian art cinema; there will be more on that in the coming weeks.

In the meanwhile, happy viewing!
Essie

AN EMOTIONAL EXTRAVAGANZA : "LAGAAN: ONCE UPON A TIME IN INDIA"

Now, this little number was actually an Oscar® nominee for Best Foreign Film in 2001. When I say little, I mean it purely metaphorically of course as the film itself is around three and a half hours long. But I mean, we’re in Indian films week, and the culture is famous / infamous for making films that last for ages so why break a tradition? This film is not only an interesting blend of genres from a cinematic point of view but also a gripping story to watch that will stir you emotionally if you just let it…
It is the year 1893, the height of the British Raj in India. The little village of Champaner is crippled by draught. The villagers mainly make a living through agriculture, so the draught is having disastrous effects on their lives. Their plight is even worsened by a capricious young British governor (with a definite sadistic streak in him) who takes pleasure in torturing the “darkies” around him – and the Raja of the area – reduced to a mere puppet by the British – is powerless to help. An attempt on the governor’s part to raise the land tax the villagers have to pay every year is met by defiance, especially by Bhuvan, a young an spirited farmer. His defiance will lead to an interesting bet: If the villagers can master the game of cricket in three months and beat a team made up of British officers, they will not pay land tax for three years. If they lose the game however, their land tax will be tripled. The situation looks desperate but they are not completely on their own; Elisabeth, the Governor’s young sister who is visiting at the time is fully aware that her brother has been unjust and offers to help the villagers by teaching them the game… But will her help and three months training be enough to save the villagers from a terrible plight?
Lagaan is particularly interesting in that it very successfully combines a musical / Bollywood film with a sports movie. And please do not get put off by the fact that the sport in question is actually cricket. I sat down to watch this one fully prepared to not understand a word, not necessarily because I don’t speak Hindi, but because I know virtually NOTHING about cricket. Sorry, that should be “knew”. You see, the advantage here is that the villagers of Champaner are as clueless as we are (if not more so). So as Elisabeth teaches them, we begin to pick up the rudiments of the game as well. Then, the things we have learnt are “put into practice” by the fateful cricket match – a must of every sports film. And I can promise you, thanks to the crash course and running commentary provided by the film, even the most stone hearted enemy of cricket will end up getting worked up about the match, and believe me, I know this from personal experience. This is a great advantage this film holds over the average sports film. Usually, these films assume a certain amount of knowledge concerning the sport in question, there are romantic sub-plots etc. but if the “big match” isn’t understood, well, that’s half the enjoyment gone, isn’t it? Not here. It’s a very clever move on the director’s part.
As for the general style, well, the film is very much an Indian film if you get my drift. The acting style, the Bollywood musical numbers, the film is stylistically very true to its roots, making no compromises to a Western style. Yet we get so caught up in the story – a typical David vs. Goliath number where we root for the underdog incidentally, the template is often used in Hollywood with great success – and we get so emotionally involved with the whole affair, that even if we normally might be irked by some things in the film we are just swept along willy-nilly. As a foot note, yes, I did fast forward some of the musical numbers. And no, that is NOT cheating… =)

FOOD FOR THOUGHT : "THE TERRORIST"

Don’t let the name of this film irk you. It is neither a dodgy action movie nor some sort of propaganda film. It is, on the contrary, quite a respectable art film. It’s respectability extends to the point that on viewing it in a festival in India, John Malkovich was so impressed by it that he personally took on its distribution, thus kick-starting novice director’s career – it was, in fact, his first feature film. On viewing the film, I cannot in all honesty say that I can see what impressed him in the film… Whether I would be THAT impressed by it, is another matter altogether.
The story takes place in a terrorist cell in the south of India – a Tamil terrorist cell to be precise. Malli is the one-woman-wonder in of this particular cell, her renown for bravery and devotion to the cause is a thing of legend. Her fame is pushed even further by the fact that her brother has actually died for the cause. So, as you can imagine, she is greatly honored when she is selected for a suicide mission that will kill a high-profile political figure. She travels to the location the “operation” will take place and begins to await her big moment. But the few days between her arrival and the event itself will prove vital; on the one hand there is the old couple, blissfully unaware of her intentions, who are her acting landlords and who have taken to her almost like a daughter. On the other hand there are the memories of true love back at her initial camp. But on the other side of the scales there is the cause she believes in and her family honor to keep to the standard her brother has set. Although this seems unthinkable at the beginning, the main question has soon become, will she be able to go through with it?
Now, after having created such suspense I hate to give the answer so quickly, but it is only to point out that the film is based on real events; notably the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indra Ghandi. But don’t forget, that was real life and this is a film, who knows, maybe the director has used some artistic license? Besides, it is not always the suspense of not knowing what is going to happen next that keeps us watching a film. This is just one of the tropes; the most commonly used in the west but by far not the only one. One can also empathize with the protagonist and “root” for him or her, getting carried away by the story and our emotions and being a little more benevolent than maybe we would have as far as plot twists and clever narration is concerned. The story of The Terrorist does, I have to say, loose its originality after a certain point (I will not give that point away though, you’ll have no trouble spotting it if you watch the film) but you have somehow become so emotionally involved in the story that by the end, the suspense alone is almost literally killing you.
And if the narrative has its defaults, I can find nothing to say against the photography. Some of the moments captured on film are brilliance themselves. If ?? lacks originality in his message he has without a doubt found a unique way of conveying this message so much so that some of the visuals by themselves are enough to make the film “watchable”. Yes, The Terrorist is a very good example of art cinema, and highly recommended to all who don’t particularly mind watching films in foreign languages =)

AND A BIT OF A GIGGLE : "WELCOME TO SAJJANPUR"

I want to firmly establish one thing from the start. I am not a fan of Bollywood. Not usually anyway. I have tried to watch a few of the classics in my time and have failed miserably on multiple occasions. Therefore I was not, shall we say, over the moon with joy when I heard that half of one of my modules for my degree would be devoted entirely to Indian cinema with a very large portion of Bollywood thrown in, naturally. This obscure little number was at the bottom of our list of “suggested films to view” and I picked it out purely for “intellectual” purposes; my aim was to analyze it and contrast it with another film – The Chess Players directed by Satyajit Ray, look out for the review of that one in weeks to come! – but anyway, the point is never in my wildest dreams did I expect to actually enjoy the film so much…
The story itself doesn’t sound that original; we are in a small village in rural India, pretty close to the present day if not the present day itself. Mahadev is a young man who has studied in university but has had to return to live in his village due to economic hardship. He dreams of becoming a writer but the closest he can get to making money for his writing is by charging a couple of rupees per letter for his largely illiterate neighbors in the village. But don’t think that Mahadev’s lot is monotonous. He gets embroiled in everything from love triangles to political scandals as he try to use his originality – literacy – to his best advantage, sometimes with unexpected results…
I think my main problem with Bollywood acting is that it takes itself a tad too seriously. Now, the same kind of acting is present here, but with the added bonus of a propensity to poke fun at itself from time to time. It has all the tropes of a good, old fashioned comedy. You know what I mean, what our (my) parent’s generation called “good, clean family fun”. But it does this without being all stiff and stuffy about itself. Mahadev is an upstart in more senses than one; he is bright but also tends to get carried away by his emotions to sometimes disastrous results. The film also makes a rather serious point about gender politics. Ok, there is a little bit of “queer cinema” thrown into this film somewhere. I won’t give out too many details because the whole thing kinda creeps up on you and this style suits the message a lot better I think. As far as topics like homosexuality and transgender and the like are concerned, the concepts tend to be seen as things to be ridiculed in developing countries – and cultures like that of India. This film however, devotes one of its sub-plots (don’t get me wrong the whole narrative in the film is heterosexual in a quite defined way) to make a stand on the matter, and the surprises in that quarter just keep coming until – literally – the last five minutes of the film. In short, this film was simply full of surprises for me. I really enjoyed it and laughed out loud at certain bits. It is possibly because I have grown up in Turkey and humor and culture in Turkey are very similar to their Indian counterparts. But I am fairly confident that Mahadev and his motely neighbors will be able to somehow entertain you no matter where you hail from…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF KATHRYN BIGELOW

Yes, I know, theme-wise I have completely missed Valentine's Day, Christmas, New Year and as far as I can predict Easter. I am bad at planning my themes according to dates; this whole blog evolves very much just how the films come to me. However, I occasionally try and fit in. Like now, for example. The day of our update, the 8th of March is International Women's Day. So when I found myself preparing a weekly theme on Kathryn Bigelow I decided I might as well schedule it for the 8th of March.

So here you have it folks, my first attempt at putting my little blog in step with everyone else's calender. Here are two films by the first woman to win the Academy Award for Best Director. Now to be fair she is not my favorite director of all times. What exactly do I think of her and why have I put her in the blog? You will have to read my next entry to find out!

happy viewing,
Essie

ARE YOU READY FOR THE RUSH ? "POINT BREAK"

I’m pretty sure I made my opinion concerning Kathryn Bigelow pretty clear earlier in this blog. Like a lot of women who are also cinephiles, I too did a little jig of victory when finally a woman walked off with the Oscar® for Best Director. I was a little disappointed with The Hurt Locker though. Not a bad film in my opinion but still, it could have been something else. My course demands (or demanded at some point) that I educate myself a bit more on Ms. Bigelow. This is how I have ended up sharing my impressions with you today. I have incredibly mixed feelings about Ms. Bigelow. This usually disqualifies whoever it is from actually making it to the blog. But in this case I’ve made an exception, not least because the good bits – the bits I liked – were actually very good. I mean credit where it’s due sort of thing. I mean I wish I could gush about it, I really do. But the best I can manage under the circs is “meh, well…”
Point Break is basically a cop drama. It has the large benefits of being able to keep the adrenaline pumping from beginning to end, and the looks of Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze (who, let’s face it ladies, was quite something back in the day). Keanu Reeves plays 25 year old brand-spanking-new FBI agent Johnny Utah. On his first day on the job he is paired up with veteran cop Angelo Pappas who is eccentric – to put it mildly. The division is bank robbery and Pappas can actually use all the help he can get because a gang calling themselves the “Ex-presidents” has robbed around 30 banks in three years without getting caught. Pappas has a hunch. He is pretty sure these men are surfers. Johnny, eager to earn his stripes on his first day, goes undercover in to the surfing community to try and see if he can root out who is behind these robberies. One of the people he meets undercover is Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) adrenaline junkie and surfer extraordinaire. Bodhi’s charisma, coupled with the charms of Tyler, Bodhi’s sexy ex-girlfriend with whom Johnny begins to grow quite close, after a while surfing becomes more than just an undercover mission for Johnny. On the other hand, the operation seems to be closing in on the gang… Will Johnny be able to choose the right side when the time comes?
Now let me tell you what this film is really about. It’s about the choice between a 9 to 5 job and a conventional life or doing something different. It’s all about that moment, about a month or so after you start your first job when you look back on your day - usually on a particularly bad day – and ask yourself with sincerity and openness whether or not you have made a terrible mistake. Now this may or may not be the case depending on your personal talents and abilities. Your vocation may actually be as a musician or a fire-eater and you may never know it. Alternatively, you may just be having a bad day, nothing a drink with mates after work can’t solve. Now, as I said this is very obviously what the film is really about; but I do wish Ms. Bigelow had made the choice a little more ambiguous. I get what she means by the surfer lifestyle - and Bodhi / Patrick Swayze puts the case very eloquently and with a lot of charisma but at the end of the day, there is no choice to be made, not really. There are some interesting plot-twists and some very solid, innovative camera-work. The story never loses momentum for a minute, if that is, you are willing to push the fact that it is chock-full of every single Hollywood cliché you can think of to the back of your mind. I won’t say it’s predictable from beginning to end, but it comes pretty damn close. I mean, I like this theme, it’s deep, and in the context of policing and crime something “heavier” could have been done with it – and it has been done too as a matter of fact – I honestly feel that this film was a missed opportunity… Enjoyable yes, but cannot go beyond the banale…

LOVE, FEAR AND "BLUE STEEL"

I am reliably informed that this is a bit of a historical little number too. It’s a shame that what it started – if this is indeed the case – turned out to be so solid that it was repeated ad nauseum. I mean Dexter – the popular TV series – ended up devoting an entire season to it. The film is admirable in many ways, but others did so much better with the theme that, even allowing for the fact that the film dates from the early ‘90s it loses some… Ok lots of its charm…
In the meanwhile, it is Meagan Taylor’s first night on the job. And on her very first night, she witnesses an armed robbery, intervenes and in the heat of the moment kills the robber. This is done in a justifiable manner but then a seemingly innocent – but actually quite disturbed witness to the robbery picks up the suspects gun, makes off with it, and starts committing murders all over town. With Meagan suspended pending an enquiry on use of excessive force, she is put squarely in the spotlight. But what is worse is, the murderer, Eugene (played by Andy Garcia, one of my personal favorites) who in normal life is a very personable trader on the stock-exchange has fallen for Meagan. Not only that, he also enters her life and they begin a relationship… Meagan now must piece together the pieces of the puzzle, accept that they lead to her new boyfriend, and then convince her superiors of the whole matter… The question is will she be able to do this before Eugene goes off the rails completely?
Fans of Dexter will quite see what I’m talking about. You remember that season when Debby turned out to be engaged to the “Ice Truck Killer”? Who was also Dexter’s biological brother? Yep, that’s it. The difference being that the producers had the common sense to eke the suspense out over a couple of months with a T.V. series instead of cutting it off in one movie. I mean true, we have to bear in mind that this film is a precursor more than anything else. Meagan is commendable in that she is a very believable, down to earth, normal heroine. She is not “overly” sexy; she is not

ESSIE SPEAKS OF THE OLDIES

OK be warned, when I say oldies I mean proper oldies. None of that '90s nonsense. The '90s was a respectable era and all that, but by no stretch of the imagination was it "oldies". No, I'm talking real old. Black and white stuff. Be warned if you don't like the genre. Incomprehensibly,to me, some people don't.

Our oldies oldie dates from the '30s in fact, we visit the Blue Angel to hear a performance by the famous Lola Lola. Then we pass through Frank Capra's world and gather a little Christmas cheer before moving on to sunny Italy, sitting back and contemplating the good life.

I do know most people have heard of these. A lot of people have actually watched them too. Thing is, maybe you didn't watch them. Maybe, like me, you heard of them a lot but just toon ages to actually getting round to watching them. Consider this week's update a push in their direction. They are classics for a reason you know...

happy viewing,
Essie

A FAMOUS AND SWEET LIFE : "LA DOLCE VITA"

The sleeve for the DVD for this one reliably informs us that the Vatican was shocked by this work by master director Frederico Fellini. If we bear in mind that we are talking about Italy in the 1960’s here, I can actually quite see why. Yet the public adored it and continue to adore it to this very day. La Doce Vita is an unblinking stare, a wide-open window on a slice of Italian society in the 1960’s. What we make of what we see however, is really another discussion altogether.
Marcello Mastroianni stars as Marcello. He is a young men living it up in Rome. He has his ambitions, notably dreams of becoming a serious writer but as time has gone by these have very much slid onto the back burner as his job has taken over his life and his dreams. Marcello is a paparazzi (Only, funnily enough, they weren’t called that then – Paparazzi is actually the name of one of the characters in this film, ??’s photographer, a name that has been immortalized as the name of the profession today). Marcello knows full well that he could be more than this, but is also equally sure that along as he gallivants with the rich and famous, having affairs and getting sucked up into their world and especially since his readers enjoy his work so much, he will never, ever leave this life. We follow him down the streets of Rome, from nightclubs to decadent parties as he lives and plays with the spoilt children of Rome and marvel at this slice of life so far away from life itself…
Now, the main difficulty about La Dolce Vita is that it is about three hours long. Yes. And there is, I kid you not, no real, actual plotline. Yet, it may surprise you to find out, you will watch the entire three hours with baited breath and applaud in the end. I kind of like the way, in old films, how the directors hid a little allegorical gem of a tableau right at the end of the film, like literally in the last seconds. But anyway. The point is, even though there is no “story” per se – I mean there is; we see Marcello, his life, his so-called very long suffering fiancée (that gets introduced as the maid behind her back when appropriate), his affairs and his dreams. I mean it does come together as a coherent whole. Yet there is no “beginning, middle and end” in the classic sense that we are used to. Rather, the film has a sentiment. A story, a happening you sense and feel rather than understand, and the whole film, all the tableaux, all the crazy characters and the rich kids of Rome sort of gravitate around this core to make this sentiment all the more clear. Naturally I won’t elaborate too much on what this sentiment is; it gives far greater pleasure to work it out for yourself. Just let Fellini, with all his skill and imagination guide you through the world of the rich and famous. Just like the paparazzi today in fact only with much greater art and taste. Then take a good hard look at Marcello in the middle of it all. Don’t be afraid you’ll miss the message because it’s too subtle or something. Oh no. You’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. This is precisely the quality that makes La Dolce Vita both original and a timeless classic; after all who said art should be understood with the head. Sometimes the heart does a far better job…

A TIMELESS SUPERSTAR - I GIVE YOU LOLA LOLA AND "THE BLUE ANGEL"

I am pretty sure that even the least film-savy one in our number has at least heard of this one… Oh come on, surely… Marlene Dietrich? “Falling in love again / Never wanted to/ What am I to do/ I can’t help it….” Surely it rings a bell? Yes, it’s parodied, we have heard it in voiceovers and such like more than once or twice, but nothing, I promise you, nothing beats the real thing… If you call yourself even a partial, marginal movie buff, I reckon you should see this. Like, really.
Meet Professor Immanual Rath. He is the teacher at the local high school and very, very prim and proper is he. That is why, when he discovers his pupils looking at risqué postcards in his class he is absolutely infuriated. He is informed that the lady in the postcards is the famous artist Lola Lola, and she can be seen in the local bar, The Blue Angel every night for a limited period. Naturally the professor does not at all approve of his pupils being corrupted in such places so he goes over to the bar the same night to investigate. There, the unthinkable will happen… Lola (Marlene Dietrich) will steal the professor’s heart away in one fell swoop. But this is the first step among many the professor will take into a life he could never have dreamt he would have…
This film has to be put into context. Lola (Dietrich) is unabashed, she flirts she is sexy, she is not ashamed of it, heck she uses it. Her open sexuality must have come as quite a shock for the audiences of the ‘30s. You may be tempted to scoff and say “Oh the ‘30s. They have nothing on us.” No. Trust me; Marlene Dietrich is sexy by any standards in any century. It is also interesting to note the specific way in which she was sexy. Hers was an unpretentious, completely natural and down to earth femininity, much in the same vein of Bridget Bardot a couple of decades later, in her earlier films especially. I mean, true, the film is very typical of turn of the century fare in its way, the “goodies” and the “baddies” are quite clearly marked (although possibly not as clearly as it could be, credit where its due Lola isn’t all bad) but still. Like a lot of early films, it depends a lot on typecasting as opposed to well-developed characters, I mean when all is said and done Lola is “the whore with the heart of gold”, a typical trope of a lot of films – even today. Naturally, at the end, following the “bad” path is punished; so in a sense I would have to retract my last comment and say that Lola is bad, at least as far as the values from those days go… And yet, you must watch this one. Lola is the first time so many things were openly portrayed on the big screen that you have to witness that historical moment… And when you do, you will see quite clearly that, that infamous song is a much-repeated classic for a very, very good reason.

AND LASTLY, SOME CHRISTMAS CHEER : "IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE"

Directed by Frank Capra, this film is often described as “Hollywood at it’s worst”. By this, I don’t mean it is generally considered a bad film. On the contrary, this is the height of “old”, classic Hollywood in every sense, with stars like James Stewart and Donna Reid it is a warm and fuzzy Christmas Tale, just right for Christmas Eve round the telly with the whole family. If you go for it for pure entertainment value, well and good. You will love it. If you try and analyze it with your “political” glasses on however, you may not like what you see that much. It really is up to you; but let’s get round to the story first, and then we can discuss what we want to do with it.
It is Christmas Eve. And Clarance the clockmaker is on a mission. This may seem odd at first as he has been dead for 200 years, but there is more to the story than you may think. He is due to be promoted as an angel; but to get his wings he must accomplish this one rather difficult task, and honestly, he hasn’t proved to be the brightest bulb in the box so far. His duty is to stop George Bailey (James Stewart) a man living, seemingly quite happily, in a small town from committing suicide. Now, George lives with his beloved wife and four children, he has lived in the same small town all his life. He is notorious for his good heart, generosity and helpfulness and the family’s loans and banking business is the town’s last bastion against the greedy banker ??? who would suck the town dry if he only could… However, ?? has dreamt of leaving the town, travelling, going to university and making something truly great with his life as long as he can remember, he is a good man with ethics, but deep down he hates his job and wishes he could have had a different job and different experiences in life. When crisis strikes his business, it is the last straw for him and the only way out he can think of is into the river off a high bridge. Can his rather unlikely – and seemingly rather unable – little guardian angel convince him that life is worth living after all?
This film was a Christmas gift to me from a well beloved friend. I know he checks the blog out from time to time, so allow me to thank him for it once again from here; I honestly and truly enjoyed every minute of it. However, I could quite understand if you watched and became slightly aggravated with it too. The thing to remember is that one of Hollywood’s principal roles, back in the day as well as today was the propagation of a certain life style; and this film is a walking, talking advertisement of a particular lifestyle, patriarchal – with the wife, clever and able of course, clearly positioned as “beta” to her husbands “alfa” and the general message that “one should be happy with what one has and not make ones dreams too lofty” almost shoved down one’s throat in unequivocally Christian terms (if the whole “don’t let your imagination fly away with you” line confuses you in today’s viciously capitalist society, do remember that this was 1947, not that long after the Great Depression and a mere two years after the Second World War, conservatism was the “mot du jour”). So, small town life, family and 2,4 children are in fact presented as the “ideal”. Now this may annoy you, and I don’t blame you. In places the film almost reads like a propaganda reel. However, as annoyed as I was with bits of it, there were other bits of it I simply loved. The film is sweet overall; there are some very funny little touches and well… I mean look back on all the black and white classics we know and love; which doesn’t have a streak we would consider “politically incorrect” today? Yet we still watch and love them. I say, be tolerant, don’t take it too too seriously and enjoy it of an evening with the kids. You can ease your conscious but ranting about it to friends later. And do you know what, you needn’t really tell them you quite enjoyed it =)