ESSIE SPEAKS OF STRANGE LOVE (PART 2)

Now, I need to put something straight. You may have, from my previous input and some of previous notes deduced that I dislike love stories. WRONG. I LOVE love stories. It's just that, as with everything cinematic I have anything to do with, I like a twist.

No, get your mind out of the gutter, that is NOT what I meant.

I do not like the typical, boy meets girl, they fall in love, something separating them arises, it is vanquished, the end. Type plots. I like a bit of a twist to the story. It has to have something extra. It has to be original. Fresh. It should make us think about love, for example. Ok, the plot I just outlined is one of the ways it goes - but what about the other ways? Are you really telling me there is one single formula for love. Hah. Please.

This is why I like these films. The characters are down to earth, real. The plots are (mostly. for me complaining, scroll below) original. Both deifnitely have a lot of character. And make you think. A lot.

And besides, after the way Jennifer Lawrence ruled the ceremony I couldn't really avoid Silver Linings Playbook. Even if I didn't adore the film - which I did. What did you make of the Oscars by the way? Did the film you were backing get something? I am SO chuffed my beloved Django Unchained came away with two Oscars! Totally deserved Mr Tarantino - your fans eagerly await your next endevaours!

happy viewing!
Essie

PRESENTING AN OSCAR SWEETHEART: "SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK"

You may look at the name of this film and the subject matter and you may well decide to steer clear of it. It’s understandable. Especially if you haven’t read the book. Mental illness and family difficulties may sound a tad bit too serious for an evening out. Luckily this particular baby has 8 Oscar® nominations and a big name like Robert De Niro for extra pull. A good thing too, otherwise audiences would miss out on one of the sweetest films made in recent history.

Pat (Bradley Cooper) is just out of hospital.  This would be a sensitive time for anyone, but especially for Pat and his family, because Pat is just out of a mental institution.  Having just discovered he had undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder (after what we shall call for now a rather unfortunate incident involving his ex-wife and her lover) he has undergone the necessary treatment and is now ready to face society once again – or is he? Yes, Pat seems to be doing everything he possibly can to get his life back on track but with one caveat. He wants his life back on track so he can get back together with his ex-wife. His ex-wife has a restraining order on him, so, as you can imagine, this is not an entirely straightforward process. In the midst of all this, however, his friends and relatives are doing the best they can to support him. His father’s (Robert De Niro) OCD is as bad as ever and it’s all his mother (Jacqui Weaver) can do to keep them both in line. Besides, on good days Pat is buoyant, full of energy and optimism… But then there are the bad days… The bad days are really bad… Especially considering Pat is not too hot on the idea of taking his meds. But then, then Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence of The Hunger Games fame) comes into his life. Tiffany has her own demons to contend with, this much is obvious. She is intelligent, sassy, talented, ok she’s more than a little crazy, but she may well be just what Pat needs… If he can get his mind off his ex-wife for two seconds that is…

Now, on the one hand there are things I don’t like that much about this film. Mainly the fact that, when you scratch the bottom of it, it is blindingly obvious who’s going to get together with who, etc, etc. Ok it’s technically a spoiler so I won’t tell you the end, but yeah. It’s basically the first scenario you thought of. You might say, why get upset with that? Films like that are two a penny, why let this specific one get to you? Well my dears, simply because, the film has SO much promise in other areas I would have honestly expected a lot better from it. A lot better.

Having had personal experience of people with Bipolar disorder, I can safely say that both the character of Pat and his relationship with his family are accurate to the bone. I have read reviews from viewers with the same disorder, all highly recommending anyone who has the disorder – and now has it under control – and the families and loved ones of anyone with this disorder to see the film. I second that. You will see SO MUCH that is so familiar. Pat is infuriating. His behaviour is erratic to say the least and sometimes downright dangerous, both to himself and to those around him. But with his endless optimism, his seemingly inexhaustible ability to bounce back, you can’t help but love him as well. Then there is the relationship with his father. Again, this is not a particularly original theme, but, maybe due to Robert De Niro’s great talent, there were bits that brought tears to my eyes. Not only are they a typical father – son in that everyone is very “manly” and problems and feelings are not discussed, the father also suffers from what is obviously quite serious OCD.

I guess the point is we’re all a little mad when you think about it but we’re all trying to battle our personal demons, be they big or small, towards the same goals in life. Love, happiness, success…  Ok, yes, I do think bits of it could be worked out a lot better. But the bits that work, work SO damn well… I don’t know man, you just HAVE to see it. 

MAKING HISTORY AIN'T EASY! "HITCHCOCK"

I honestly wish this film had been nominated for more awards. And definitely bigger things than hair and makeup. But I mean, I do get it. Anthony Hopkins. Helen Mirren. It would be a surprise if the film didn’t turn out as well as it did. Plus, I don’t know, maybe audiences in general are getting a tad bit jaded about films about filmmaking. But you know, I think these films are important. It’s important for films to talk about their own history. And as far as history goes, it doesn’t get bigger than Alfred Hitchcock.

History in the making he may have been, but that did not mean life with Hitchcock was easy. And his beloved wife Alma Reville could testify to that fact. Temperamental and obsessive while he was working on a project, depressed and dejected when he wasn’t working on one, it falls to Alma to ensure the household (and often the studio) runs to order. It is 1959, and Hitchcock – Hitch as he is more commonly known – may just have struck gold while looking for his new project. An innocuous little horror story called Psycho, based largely on the murders committed by the notorious serial killer Ed Gein.  The thing is, Hitch seems to be the only person who can see it. Even his beloved wife Alma has her doubts as to whether this story of blood and gore can be turned into anything tasteful. Or successful. That the studios would actually agree to distribute.  But Hitch is adamant and filming goes full steam ahead amidst grave economic gambles. However there is more serious trouble afoot. While Alma’s love and dedication to Hitch seems to continue unabated, there is no denying that she is more and more distant these days. And that she is spending more and more time with her friend Mr Whytfield Cook whom she is helping with his latest project. Hitch is worried, distracted even.  Not a good thing when you have mortgaged your home to make a film that the studio still hasn’t given their final word on distributing. Is this Hitch’s finest hour? Or will he loose his marriage and his career in one fell swoop?

Now, I like films like this. I like films about marriages. Hollywood is funny in the sense that actually getting into a relationship is often portrayed as the only really difficult part. Once you get the person of your dreams, we are told, it’s all roses and light until death does you part… Err, no. It takes a lot to make a relationship work and a marriage. And even if, like Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Reville, you have been together for 30 years, well guess what; there can still be hitches (pun intended). There can still be pitfalls. And, strangely, it is these pitfalls one must be afraid of. At the beginning there is the rush. You know that rush of emotion, of “something new”. 30 years later, routine is setting in alongside love. You really, really begin to know what it is like to live with this person. It’s when stuff happens to shake the marriage at this point that you should be concerned. And this is what gives the film its brilliant edge. Because yes it’s absolutely fascinating to watch Psycho come together. Especially if, like me, you’re a film-buff AND Hitchcock fan.  But at the end of the day, we know what happened there. It’s Psycho for God’s sake. It’s one of the most famous films in history. What we may or may not know, however, is how and whether this film ended Mr Hitchcock’s marriage.  And that, gentle viewer, you are going to have to watch and find out for yourself.

Told with great affection and a lot of (albeit rather British) humour, Hitchcock will warm you down to the cockles of your heart. And give you a history lesson in cinematic history to boot. I men come on. It is one of the greatest films in history…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF THE BAD GUYS... AND HOW WE LOVE 'EM.

Well hello there peeps! It's awards season, isn't it all exciting? Think what you will of the Oscars politically, socially and all that malarky but for me it's just a perfect excuse to glut myself on movies. Because, you know. You have to keep on top of what everyone is talking about. It's my job. Kinda. Self-appointed job, ok? It totally counts.

And this week I have for you, two sets of bad guys we simply cannot help loving. One of them comes in the shape of one of the best television series I have seen for a very long time. The other is the latest work of my favorite director in the world. This last one is interesting from the themes point of view; not only are the villians, extraordinarily, strangleably brilliant, the good guys are, well... Let's just say they're not all that "good" either... Typical Tarantino. But then again, that's why I love him.

So come on folks, scroll down. Wether you want to be them or be with them, you know you love the bad boys deep down. And below we have tons of adventures for you to have. Without leaving your living room couch...

happy viewing! (http://essiespeaks.blogspot.com )
Essie

A BLOODY TALE OF SWEET REVENGE : "DJANGO UNCHAINED"

I have been waiting for this film for so long. SO. DARN. LONG. Ok, peeps, please don’t except anything even remotely resembling an objective review of this film. I am such a massive Tarantino fan that I could not possibly… I mean, the guy can do no wrong ok? That’s why there is nothing wrong to find. This is, in a way, the good thing about Tarantino’s films. It’s clear cut. You either love it or you hate it. It is either a whole bowlful of filmic goodness you dive into headfirst or you run from it screaming. As there is no doubt at all which side I’m rooting for, let’s move straight onto the film and what it is about…

Meet Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). To the untrained eye he may well look like just another travelling dentist touring the Wild West, but you couldn’t be further wrong. Dr Schultz is a bounty hunter, and he is one of the best, if not the best there is. Fate brings him face to face with Django (Jamie Foxx). Django is a slave like many, many others you could find in the country at the time, but he holds a specific interest for the good doctor. Back in the days where technology was not widespread, you had to know what the person you were bounty hunting looked like to be sure to “hunt” the right man. And Django just so happens to be in possession of such information about a specific group of scoundrels Dr Schultz happens to be looking for. While he is about it, Dr Schultz frees Django, gets him fresh clothes and a horse, teaches him how to shoot and, when the pair seem to hit it off particularly well, partners up with him in the bounty hunting business. Over time, the pair become fast friends and Dr Schultz agrees to aid Django in a personal matter. His wife is still a slave and she has had the sad misfortune of falling into the hands of a particularly sadistic plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). However, saving Broomhilda (Kerry Washington – Django’s wife) from Monsieur Candie (as he likes to be called) and his motley crew headed by his loyal old butler Stephens (Samuel L. Jackson) is not going to be easy. It’s a good thing our friends have a bit of penchant for short cuts…

There is a reason this film shot to number 41 in the IMDB TOP 250. There is a reason it got 5 Oscar® nominations. First of all, hats off to Mr Tarantino for assembling such a brilliant cast and for getting the best possible performance out of a group of quite extraordinary actors. You know all the hype about Christoph Waltz? Well, guess what, it isn’t hype. He is THAT good. Heck, he is nothing short of brilliant. He deserves any and every glory and award he gets. And the villains? Oh my. Oh my, my, my. Calvin Candie is one of the most loathsome villains I have met in my time and Stephens is the perfect sidekick. OK to be fair, Stephens is actually a tad bit more than just a sidekick. But I’ll let you work that out as you watch. The point is the acting is beyond  brilliant.

As for the plot? Ok, one small thing. It turns out that the original of the film was five hours long. It was CUT DOWN to three hours. Now, personally I don’t see what is wrong with a five hour film, especially if it’s directed by Quentin Tarantino but hey. I guess it is slightly impractical from the cinema owner’s point of view. Now, the problem is, you feel the missing footage. Here and there, there are hints of things that you could have sworn were going to be further developed, but are not. Luckily they are not frequent. As for the blood? The gore? Is there much killing? I hear you ask. To which I respond, is that not why we came? The blood and guts start flowing around 10 minutes into the film and only intermittently stops, with “tarantinian” surprises around every corner. And trust me, if these surprises don’t make you love King Schults / Christoph Waltz even more than you already do, you really have no heart. Or sense of humour.  

Then of course, we really, really mustn’t forget Django. Because, to be absolutely fair, that is what this film is about. And Mr Tarantino makes an excellent point about slavery. There are strong messages in the film, to the point that some may find some of the bits a tad bid didactic. Then again, I think those bits would have gone much better within the five hour framework.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying, in any way, that they shouldn’t be there – slavery was a terrible, shameful time and we need to talk about it openly. This is probably why, in actual fact, Quentin Tarantino is the best man to talk about this. I mean, accuse him of what you will, shrinking from portraying brutality is not, nor ever can be on that list.  But anyway, back to Django and Broomhilda. Jamie Foxx is the perfect Siegfried to his beloved Broomhilda, and if there was any a couple whose sweetness and suffering justified a whole plethora of villains being sent to a bloody grave, it is them.

In short, to all my Tarantino fans, fear not. It’s all we have been waiting for and more. For those who aren’t… 

A VILAIN YOU WILL LOVE TO HATE: "HOUSE OF CARDS"

You know the new trend these days. If a good British show is created, you know, if it’s really, “properly” popular, chances are it will cross the pond and get an American version made. I’m thinking of things like The Office and Coupling (although it is universally agreed that the U.S. version of coupling wasn’t even one eighth as funny as the U.K. version. Just saying). One of the more recent remakes is of the iconic British political drama, House of Cards. Now, imitating things is OK up to a point, but if you try to replicate it completely, chances are you will end up with egg on your face ( as in the case of Coupling for example). The intelligent thing to do, in my way of thinking, is to take the basic format that worked, and add something from yourself. I don’t know, develop it a bit. Make it something new; don’t just make it a photocopy. In this sense taking the basic plot and moving into 21^st century American politics works. Put a star of world renowned talent like Kevin Spacey in the leading role and it works even better.

Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is Majority Whip. He has served his party loyally for years, and he fully expects to reap the benefits – especially when the time comes to nominate a new secretary of state. However, politics doesn’t always quite turn out as you may have planned, and in this particular case, against all the odds he had calculated, the job goes to someone else. Now, here’s the problem. You do not upset someone who holds so many political secrets, especially if they have both burning ambition and great political talent. They tend to have a rather nasty tendency to, I don’t know, make plans to avenge themselves. I mean think about it, it would be more than awkward if they turned out to be the next President of the United States. And this, as you already may have guessed, is exactly what Francis intends to do…

As you can guess this is a particular “genre” of film/ series. The cat-and mouse. The power struggle. You watch it as much for the beauty of the strategy as the storyline if you know what I mean. And, you know, I was always a fan of Kevin Spacey but even more so after this. I mean, my God. He is the perfect anti-hero. You cannot exactly like Francis – or his wife Claire (played rather brilliantly by the talented Robin Wright) for that matter. They are cold, calculating and driven by nothing but success, at any cost. But at the same time, Francis plays the system so well, and even though he is cold, calculating and just a teensy bit scary, gets the better of so many “typical” political bad guys so smoothly that well… You can’t help not like him. Ok, he’s doing it mainly for his own advancement but well, it’s one in the eye to “the system” if you get my drift. So in the end, you watch with baited breath and really hope he does well. Even though you kinda feel you shouldn’t be rooting for him, if you get my drift. I mean there are tons of other characters like that. There’s the power hungry new to the game journalist, Zoe Barnes for example. You sympathize with her trying to get ahead in her business but once she (guess thanks to who) suddenly hits a meteoric rise, her attitude really starts getting on your nerves. Or I mean, that’s how I felt. Tell you what, watch the series and we’ll discuss it. It’s one of those series, there is one HECK of a lot of things to talk about. 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF ALTERNATIVE VALENTINES

"No surprises there" I hear you mutter. Everyone and their dog is talking about Valentine's day, alternative or otherwise. It's that time of the year. Heck, it's that specific day! Happy Valentine's day folks and sorry for the delay!

Now, what do I mean by alternative Valentine's day? Well, you may have noticed, I am not a massive fan of soppy romances. I love a good old romance every once in a while but you know what, my craving, when it comes, is satiated quite quickly. So I didn't go for romance this week. What I did go for, was films that you could, if you look at it another way, be perfectly good valentine's films... It's all a matter of perspective you see...

On the one hand we have a truly toe-curling thriller! Want an excuse to cuddle up to your loved one, hold his or her hand and go "ooh I'm scared!" ? This is your man... Your film... Um, that catchphrase doesn't really work there but you get the picture, right? Right. The other, has got some love and romance in it, let's be fair. But it also has zombies. And Woody Harrelsson. Trust me, you'll be rolling on the floor laughing. And as you are sorta rollling around, all relaxed and in such a good mood... Well, I mean, you can do whatever you like, it's none of my business, but I'm just saying...

See? They're both totally Valentines Day films. Have a good one peeps!

happy viewing,
Essie

LOVE IS IN THE AIR... ALONG WITH BLOOD, GUTS AND THE WALKING DEAD... ZOMBIELAND

This film had been recommended to me by a friend a while back. I have been saving it for a rainy day for a while. You know what I mean, not an ACTUAL rainy day, but you know, one of those days you actually need a few belly laughs in your day. One of those days when everything goes wrong, you only achieve about a third of what you set out to do that day, and in the end, end up going “Oh s*d it”, abandoning everything, turning on a comedy and gorging yourself on chocolate. I had one of those recently. This film did wonders for me. And it goes especially well with triple chocolate chip cookies. Just fyi…

 The initial premise of the film does not sound promising at all, this I grant you. Ok, sometime in the not too late 21^st century, a mysterious virus has wiped out most of the United States and possibly the world – there is no way of knowing at this point. This virus however, does not kill. It transforms you into a zombie. And there is no cure. So there you are you see. Only a handful of resourceful souls have managed to survive and one of them is our narrator, otherwise known as Columbus. This is not his name you understand, but his destination, he doesn’t like exchanging names, it makes you too familiar, and this is not good in a thing if one is in constant danger of being eaten alive. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is, ironically not the kind of person who would survive in what used to be the real world. A virtual recluse with not many friends and far too many phobias and hang ups, he has survived by rigidly sticking to a set of 30 something rules he has made for himself. He was in university when the outbreak took hold for good, so he reckons that he might as well try and make his way back home (to Columbus) to see if his family has survived. Now, crossing a zombie-infested United States is not a straight-forward task as you might imagine. This is why you might think it’s a good thing that our friend Columbus runs into a couple of actual people on the way. But when one of them is a self-styled and quite possibly completely insane self-styled Zombie hunter Tennessee (Woody Harrelsson) and the other two sisters with a propensity for scamming our dastardly duo out of everything they own and making off with it… Well, let’s just say things get interesting.

Ok. Don’t worry about the gore and blood, it’s not that kind of comedy. It’s a combination of genres, the way most things actually are these days, but mainly it’s a romantic-comedy / road - trip movie with the comedy level really, REALLY amped up. I mean, in my already depressed state at that moment, a mere 20 minutes in, I had laughed out loud 4 – 5 times. That’s how good it is. I love Jesse Eisenberg who is impossibly aggravating and endearing at the same time as Columbus with all his worries and hang-ups (note the name, Columbus by the way. He is after all, our hero who will go on a voyage of discovery and growth, so what better name? They don’t choose these names randomly ya know, some thought DOES go into it!). As for Woody Harrelsson, oh my GOD. I mean, Columbus is of course our hero and main man, Tennessee is our main comic situation provider and sidekick, but man oh man… He deserves a film all to himself. My respect for Mr Harrelsson grows with every single film I see him in, I mean, he has acted in an absolute plethora of different, almost random parts and films but has pulled off every single one to such a high standard… This definitely comes as one of my top recommendations folks. Chocolate and bad days are optional but hey. Watch it. Seriously.  

TOE-CURLING TERROR :"PANIC ROOM"

Ok, embarrassing confession time. I almost saw this film in cinema years ago. I walked out in the middle. It is one of about 3 films I have walked out of, because , a true film fan as it were, I am always curious as to what is going to happen in the end, even though the film is not “going well” for me. I remember I was with friends at the time; we all seem to have agreed… Although to be fair, I don’t exactly remember what our objection was. But at a guess, it may just have been that the tension just got to us. This, people, is one of the most “toe-curling” films I have watched in a very, very long time… But then again, with David Fincher at the helm, I honestly cannot expect anything less.

Newly divorced Meagan (Jodie Foster) and her sassy teenage daughter Sarah (Kristen Steward – otherwise known as Bella Swan, this was long before the Twilight saga of course) have just moved into their new home – and what a home it is too! Snapped up at a bargain, it is a three story house that once belonged to an eccentric millionaire. It comes equipped with all the mod-cons but also an elevator and a Panic Room. Now for those of us who didn’t know, a panic room is a high security room you can lock yourself in if intruders break in. There is no way in for the intruders and you have a secure line, not connected to the main landline in the home, you can call the police with. Except of course, if you are Meagan and forget to hook up the line. This does not come in handy at all when, on their first night there, intruders break into the house and Meagan and Sarah, terrified, lock themselves in the panic room. There are, however, two problems. Firstly, Sarah is diabetic and there is no insulin in the panic room either so unless they can somehow get out  and get to her medication, she will die. Secondly, these aren’t any old robbers who will just go through the family possessions and leave. They are looking for something very specific, and as luck would have it this thing is hidden in… You guessed it. The panic room.

As a side note, I just want to add that the intruders are played by Jared Leto, Forrest Whitaker and Dwight Yoakam (country music star and a damn good actor in case you hadn’t heard of him).  Now, if there is one thing Fincher is an absolute master of, it is thrillers. The tension creeps up on you so quickly and so inexorably, you are on edge pretty much from beginning to end, even in the sequences when you can pretty much guess what will happen next because, you know… I mean what if it doesn’t? This is compounded by Fincher’s mastery of the “in the meanwhile” type shots. You know, when you are told and shown, in various ways what two different groups in the film are doing at the same instant, that kind of thing always gives me the chills, especially if it is used as well as Fincher uses it. I watched this film as part of a personal project more than anything else and never, ever, in all my born days did I expect to enjoy it so much. It left me, as most Fincher films tend to, mentally exhausted and in need of watching something you know, simple. Easy to follow. Just to rest my brain – and my cardio vascular system. If you want a movie to make your evening fly by, this is the one folks – go right for it!

ESSIE SPEAKS OF STRANGE LOVE

No, not the immortal character brought to life with the combined efforts of Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick. Love. That is strange.

Well, Valentine's Day is almost upon us. Think what you will of it, it's a contentious matter Valentine's Day. Some love it, some hate it, some hate it so much they organise "anti valentine's day parties" about it. But one thing is for sure, we're all talking about it. We're all talking about love, at least.

And of course, love is a great part of all our lives in one form or another. The thing is though, it's never as simple as it is in the movies is it? Well sometimes it is and if you're one of  those lucky people good for you by the way. More often than not though, love is frought with complications. And some of those complications are a tad stranger than others. Here are two brilliant films that talk about this kind of love... A welcome change to those who are already slightly sick of seing red hearts in EVERY SINGLE retail store they walk into. (ehm)

happy viewing,
Essie

A LA FOLIE... PAS DU TOUT (HE LOVES ME, HE LOVES ME NOT)

This is really one of those films that sparked something in me. I don’t know how to describe it, but I have always had the utmost love and respect for this film, as it were. Now it’s not the best known of films by far. And again, I know, thinking back I most definitely do have a “thing” for French cinema, but then again, come on. Who can blame me?  This film has a special place for me in short, and I cannot believe that I have completely overlooked it. I had to triple-check my previous posts. But no. It isn’t there. Well, it is now.

Angelique (Audrey Tatou) is an art student living in Paris. Her life seems to be going pretty well. She has just won a prestigious grant to exhibit her work in a very famous gallery, she has friends who love her and a man she is simply mad about. There is a small thorn in this rose garden however, as Loic (Samuel Le Bihan) – the afore mentioned man – is married. Angelique however, is confident he will leave his wife for her and that any day now, they will sail off into the sunset together… However, when viewed from Loic’s perspective there is something much, much more sinister going on here. Confused? So is Loic…

I do fully realise that there are many things about this film that may put you off at the beginning. Firstly, it was released in the wake of Amelie, when Audrey Tatou briefly became one of those names that seem to appear in every single French film released abroad. Amelie was great, but people got a bit sick of seeing her as I recall. And the first half of the film is disturbingly like Amelie – in fact it is quite plain that Tatou draws from the same character up to a certain point. Plus, when you watch just the first half, you might easily think that this is a very, very second rate love story. It seemingly uses all the classic tropes of melodrama and seems to offer nothing up in way of an argument to not abandon it mid-film and search for something better to do. Don’t do that. Really, don’t. The film is all about changes of perspective, and it reminds me A LOT OF David Fincher’s Fight Club in that respect. There is one key piece of information, and when it slots into place, the film changes tone. Suddenly it is no longer a sappy love film but actually full of tension and danger. There are actual deaths and Loic must use all is resources to actually protect his family and himself. It sounds like a clash of films that couldn’t possibly go together right? Wrong. And do yourself a favour. Don’t research the film too much. Try not to read the blurb on the cover – it actually gives the game away where I live atm. This film was made to be watched and left to unfurl on you at its own pace. You’ll enjoy it a lot better.

I also love this film because it is, actually, rather a novel take on Amelie. Think about it. If Amelie actually existed in real life, after all the things she does throughout the film could you with a straight face call her sane? Could you be sure that she wouldn’t actually hurt someone? Does love actually “tame” us all the way Hollywood would have us believe?  There are a lot of interesting questions being asked here… I feel you will be glad you stopped to consider it too J

THE NAME OF THE ROSE

Confession time. This is one of the rare cases where I actually decided to watch the film instead of reading the book. Umberto Eco is a great writer. The book is a great book. I just couldn’t read it for some reason. My mother faithfully proclaims I probably was not in the mood for it. It could be true. And I should probably try and read the book again someday if only because it is such a classic. Oh, and because I enjoyed the story so much. With a director like Jean Jacques Annaud (whose filmography is short but consists of films like L’amant, Seven Years in Tibet and my particular favourite, Ennemy At the Gate) and starring Sean Connery no less, the film is a fine substitute. But I come from a family of academics you see so… Ehm. Moving on.

It is the year 1327, and the political atmosphere is tense. There is a rift between the catholic church and the various religious orders, especially the Franciscans monks, on the matter of whether or not the church should actually rid itself of wealth or not. The matter will be decided in a debate between representatives of both sides in a Benedictine monastery – neutral ground as it were. The thing is, the monastery is playing host to rather more sinister happenings than the debate. Days before the debate is about to take place, a murder, which turns out to be the first of a series of murders, takes place in the monastery. As the unexplained, violent deaths pile up, the monks are convinced that true evil roams the monastery and that the end of the world is nigh. One monk, William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) one of the Franciscans who had arrived for the debate disagrees. He is pretty sure the murders can be explained in a lot more worldly and logical fashion, however proving this – without causing a massive political scandal in an already tense atmosphere – is going to be tricky. Very tricky.

Now, as I said, I am not sure about the book. The film however, has a “double layer” thing going on. There is a very interesting debate about religion and the church, although this does not become evident in the film until the second half, when more of the Franciscan order and the representatives of the Vatican get together. It will ultimately tie into the finale of the film and play a large part in the conclusion but it is not first and foremost. I think this is a good thing, especially in this day and age when religion is such a touchy subject. The film reels you in, in the first half, with a good old fashioned murder mystery, with a good old fashioned protagonist /detective at the helm, looking for the murderer. And the whole mystery is so well set out that honestly, by the time you get to the religion part of things you are just too curious about the whole story to get completely disinterested with it. William of Baskerville is my favourite kind of detective. I admire him especially because, unlike the CSI’s of present day murder mysteries, he is NOT armed with a plethora of technical gadgets, just his mind, his rationality. And the explanations he finds make complete rational sense. They are actual things you could see with your own eyes. Unlike, for example, the modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes (the Benedict Cumberbach – Martin Freeman version). Now, there as well Sherlock Holmes uses almost only his mind. But he has to be a genius and a bit of sociopath to achieve what he achieves. Martin Freeman’s Watson sets this off very nicely, you cannot be a normal person, no matter how bright and well educated, and achieve what Holmes achieves, you have to be special. Not so with William of Baskerville. He is observant, yes. Intelligent, yes. Well read, definitely. But by no stretch of the imagination is he “superhuman” like Holmes. You could actually aspire to be him. And this makes him far more approachable and easy to identify with. We even have the character of Adso – his novice (a very young Christian Slater!). Adso is learning, a bright lad with faults like the rest of us. He serves the purpose of “being explained to” in our place from time to time, but also, we can easily identify with him too. And aspire to be like Baskerville one day.

Lastly, can we see this as “the victory of the mind and the rational over the superstition of religion” as it were? Why yes. But what is the fun of a philosophical debate if it isn’t meaty enough to chew on? And I mean, come on, there’s a juicy murder mystery thrown in too! How can you possibly resist?