ESSIE SPEAKS OF COMPLEX EMOTIONS

There is a whole bunch of people out there slightly miffed at me for being so late updating my blog.

There is another bunch of people saying "well if you have finally emmerged from God only knows where could you take a minute to asnwer my mail/text/both before you vanish again?"

I hang my head in shame. Imagine tons of appologies making their way towards you. I'm on it as far as the blog is concerned, as you can see. I will sort my communication problems post-haste. Life has been busy and complicated this week. Luckily it has almost sorted itself out. Almost.

It's rather appropriate actually, because both the films this week underline how deeply complex life can be. Often, under even the seemingly most unimportant encounter there lies a complex web of emotion and consequence. Imagine what happens when love or money (or both even) is envolved. And while it is often easy enough to see what the cold and clinical "advantage" lies, when hearts and consciences also get involved, sometimes it's a tad bit harder to choose.

Happy viewing!
Ess,e

WATCH YOUR BACK, IT'S A JUNGLE OUT THERE... "MARGIN CALL"

You guys know by now how dedicated I am to my films and my film watching. But even I need my sleep. Especially since, working in events, my hours are slightly “off kilter” at the best of times. It is generally not a good idea to put on a film in the middle of the night (and by that  I literally do mean around midnight) saying “oh I’ll just watch half an hour to wind down”.  This, generally never “actually” happens, even I know that. But I did not expect to throw caution to the wind and sit up until well after 3.00 a.m. (on a day that actually had an early start too), thereby knocking all my energy levels like dominos for days. So worth it. In short, first lesson, watch Margin Call at a reasonable hour. You will be compelled to finish it and trust me, the “knock-on effect” is best avoided, even though it is worth it for such a great film…

The storyline does not seem nearly as nail-biting as you might think at first glance. We open at an investment bank. It is the early stages of the economic crisis, hence cutbacks are the order of the day. The “axe-men” are brought in and an inordinately large number of people lose their jobs. In this crowd is the incredibly able risk management division head. Almost as an afterthought, as he is almost physically thrown out of the building, he passes a report he was working on to his protégé Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto of Heroes fame). While Peter is not quite sure what to make of it at first, he gets stuck in and soon comes to a rather terrifying conclusion. The company is literally moments away from financial disaster. With so much at stake frantic phone calls are made throughout the night as the big guns of the company (Kevin Spacey, Simon Baker, Jeremy Irons) gather in the dead of night to try and figure out how they can save themselves from this mess. And what the cost will be…

First of all, of course there are rumours going round that this is a “real” story of a big company but we shall pass on those as we cannot seem to find any legitimate and official evidence to that effect. I mean, I wouldn’t know, economics has never been my strong suite. Thankfully the film does an excellent job at “dumbing it down” so that I’m pretty sure you will get the exact nature of the problem if you have some sort of a grasp on economics. If, on the other hand, like me you have a mental block on the topic, it doesn’t matter. Even I got the general gist of it. And trust me, a general gist was more than enough to make the story wildly exciting.

Of course here the story is not so much about economy but morals. About disconnecting from your feelings to survive. And I mean, check out the cast, how can the film NOT be chock full of emotion with a cast like that? As a person rather used to casting Kevin Spacey as a “bad guy” (though I think having recently watched him in House of Cards does have something to do with that) I was slightly taken aback to see him cast as the one with the conscience this time. I mean of course he is brilliant in both roles but you know what I mean. He does make a particularly good villain.  

At the end of the day though, the story is as old as the hills and really about a choice we all face every day. Good or bad? Looking out only for yourself or looking out for your fellow man as well? What if looking out for your fellow man also ends up meaning looking out for yourself? Oh darling, I hear you cry, it’s a film about bankers and traders do stop philosophising. Ah but you see, that’s the beauty of it. If you take the point of view that life is a cut-throat, every man for himself type struggle (and I don’t necessarily myself, but I can see why it would be considered a valid argument), what better metaphor for it than the trading floor? Or to put it another way, what better way to discuss the value of ethics but in front of a backdrop of the epitome of ruthless capitalism? I think that’s the real reason I couldn’t quite take my eyes off it. Well you’ll just have to see it for yourself. We can discuss the whys and wherefores later on…  

HOLD ME "LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE"

There are a few directors out around there who you know will always surprise you. Others have a certain style. They “do” a certain type of film, they have their little trademarks. Others, you just know will have a trick or two up their sleeve. And irrelevant of what particularly they will “do” in any given work, you know it will be brilliant. Kiarostami is just such a director in my eyes. I know that when I watch his films, no matter what “the details” I know it will be brilliant. I know it will grab me by the heartstrings. That is why, when a dear friend (who I have recently discovered is in London) proposed we go to see it, I jumped at the chance. I hadn’t even read the blurb (which is rare for me, but it happens).

Like Someone in Love starts at a bar. Akiko, a university student, is being persuaded by the manager of a bar to spend the night with “a very important customer”. This is no out of the ordinary request for Akiko as, unbeknown to her family; she has been leading the double life of student and prostitute for a while. Apart from her rather unusual side line Akiko pretty much has the worries and concerns of a normal university student. Exams, guys… Her boyfriend wants to marry her, and this could be considered a good thing but he is rather jealous… Anyway, Akiko sets off to meet this “very important client”, an older gentleman of some import as far as the bar tender is concerned, expecting a night like any other. The client however, is not quite the kind of person Akiko is used to… And he will have a deeper impact on her life than she initially realizes.

I don’t know how to begin describing this one to you. Stylistically speaking, it is quite a typical Kiarostami. Speech is kept to the bare essentials, but when it is used, it is used eloquently and with sometimes heart-rending expression. There are long silences and a lot of the action is centred around cars, traffic and driving, something I have noticed about Persian cinema – or at least the few films I have watched – but I have no idea why that would be, there’s a cultural research project in there somewhere, but maybe next time… But anyway. If you are not used to Kiarostami’s rather particular style – and minimalist films – it will take a bit of getting used to. But I personally reckon it is very much worth acquiring the taste for it.

What is beautiful about this film is that is one of the best examples I know of taking a story that looks pretty local but that, in reality, speaks of universal themes. I was discussing this later on with my friend, and if you think about it the story could just as well be transposed to a much more Middle Eastern setting, Iran or even Turkey.  I mean, where I come from the story of the young ingénue fresh from the village who is corrupted by the big city and forced into a life of prostitution was once almost a staple. Partners are, of course, incredibly jealous in these films and I’m not sure how well the character of the boyfriend fits in with Japanese stereotypical characters but he sure as heck fits in with Middle Easter ones. And the funny thing is, and herein lies Kiarostami’s talent, it does not seem “off” at all. This is possibly a testament to the fact that human emotion is a lot more universal than we may (or may not) like to think. Loneliness is the theme in this one. You will immediately think of the old man, and I must say he does deserve a mention. I don’t want to give away too much about him but he is the character that stuck with me the most, for the longest time after the film. As you can imagine his loneliness is at the forefront but when you look at it more closely, all the characters are quite lonely in some way. There is a constant sense of distance, of being cut off. People being physically near enough to touch but actually a world away. And isn’t that just a bit the way modern life in the big city is sometimes? Hey, it just occurred to me… The cars. Think of a traffic jam. There you are, stuck in your car, sharing a frustration with tens of other drivers around you. You are united in your sense of urgency, your boredom of the situation and the will to get out of there as soon as possible. You share a moment and not few emotions, you seem united – you are after all “the traffic jam”. Yet, everyone is in their own little world, their own little bubble. And you know that once the traffic starts going again it will be every man for himself again…

I never said the film was a happy one. I can guarantee it’s kind of brilliant though. You really, really should give it a spin.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF MOVING ON

No, I'm not moving house, again. The moving on I had in mind was more of a "mental" variety. You know, moving on with your life. Moving on with yourself. Developing as a person and taking the next logical (or not) step in the great project that is you.

Of course the concept itself is a complete staple of contemporary film and television. Television series especially, I have found, are soundly slapped on the wrist if the characters are not found to develop throughout the storyline.

These films give us brilliant opportunities to think about these and discuss how, when and why these steps take place. There are some seriously emotional moments involved You may, or may not like what you see. In usual style, I have felt free to grumble vocieferously when I saw fit. But I haven't held back on praise either.

See what you make of them.

Happy viewing,
Essie

CHANGE CAN COME AT ANY AGE... "MY AFTERNOONS WITH MARGUERITTE"

Only the French could get away with it. No, seriously. This one, literally only the French could have done. If there wasn’t so much genuine emotion in this film I could have sworn it was actually made as the result of a bet. I mean come on. What other nation could actually get away with having the characters read classic literature out loud to camera with occasional re-enactment but basically, just for its own sake. Seriously. There are entire minutes upon minutes (a massively long time for a film. Especially a film only 75 minutes long) where the only thing happening is a character reading out loud. Anyone who knows the French knows EXACTLY what I mean and don’t pretend you don’t. And yet, the film is so jam-packed with emotion it sits on your heartstrings like a woolly mammoth. Even though it does have what I would characterise as a rather simplistic “happy ending”.  But you know what? The rest of it is so good, for once, I don’t care.

Meet Germaine Chazes (Gerard Depardieu. Yes, he is AMAZING in this part and just right for the part too but I’m really beginning to despair at the fact that the French don’t seem to export a single film without either him or Jean Reno (but rarely both together) in it.) He is a handyman who ekes out a living doing odd-jobs and selling the produce of his vegetable garden. He (practically) lives with his very cantankerous old mother. They do not get on that well but he knows how to manage her. He has a loving girlfriend and a couple of friends he sees regularly at the local pub. Thing is though, Germaine isn’t the sharpest tack in the box – or so everyone makes him think. It is true that he cannot read and write as well as he should and that he has not a shred of tact despite his very, very good heart but is he actually stupid? Germaine certainly thinks so, and he has no notion of bettering himself in anyway until he runs into Margueritte (Gisele Casadesus), a  95 year-old book enthusiast, in his local park. It is, to quote the classic film, the start of a truly beautiful friendship…

This just goes to show that to put across genuine emotion and a very real story about a complex phenomenon, you don’t need reams and reams of film. You don’t need a convoluted storyline either. It was a bit of an understatement to say that Germaine and his mother don’t get on. In a word, she bullies him. Take it from someone who knows a thing or two about bullying, that’s what it’s called. We are introduced to the relationship with a wonderful rant by the mother in the supermarket (just for reference in case you’ve seen the film) and I honestly felt as if I had been slapped in the face. I physically jumped… I think following that scene with the adult Germaine muttering a response to it also fits in very well, that kind of hurt does not go away that easily and the way Germaine so desperately tries to cope with his mother’s slights (and by that I mean the ones she administered as he grew up) is positively heart-rending.

But there is another, second dimension to this film that I don’t mind revealing slightly. Margueritte begins by setting Germaine on his feet and giving him the tools to rebuild himself and his confidence, but she is, as I mentioned, 95. Her health is failing. So there is an element of “switching around” here. It is Germaine who must care for her now. And if we accept that Marguerite is the “mother figure” in this story, this film is about “growing up”. That point in time that comes to us all when we realise that it is now our turn to care for and/or worry about our parents. It is about realizing your parents are not invincible. And above and beyond anything, it’s about how scary that feeling can be. Even with his girlfriends’ love and support Germaine can barely cope, his world is almost completely turned on its head. Again take it from someone who knows this process, the feeling is wonderfully portrayed – kudos to the director and to Mr Depardieu. It’s funny really that more people don’t make films about this rather painful rite of passage actually… I rather think it’s something to do with the fact that we are rather deeply touched by it and would rather not talk about it… You’ll be glad you were open to discussion once you’ve seen this though. Elegant and beautiful.

Oh and one last thing – do I like the ending? No. Would I have preferred a touch more pathos and a touch less unreasonable tying up of problems? Yes. Given that the film is so sensitive and real in every other aspect do I really care? Like I said in the first paragraph… No… J

BEWARE ALL "SKELETONS" AND THOSE WHO HIDE THEM...

If the aim of first time director Nick Whitfield was to make a film that would make his viewers talk about it and think, I can guarantee you, he has succeeded. I have so much to say about this film but I am completely unsure where exactly I want to begin. Or how to begin. Yes, this is going to be a long one peeps. And as you can guess, not all I have to say about it is praise. But then again, the film has sort of wormed its way into my heart, so much so that I reckon you should watch it. I’d be fascinated to find out what you make of it. If nothing else, you can have a good old rant about it…

Bennet and Davis are psychic exorcists. Their job is, basically, to get into people and reveal the skeletons in their closets. You might, at this point, wonder what the point of such a job is, but take a look at their clients, for example there is a young couple preparing to get married who want to take this step before they get married – as a show of devotion if you will . Or there is a middle aged couple who want to try it partly out of their interest in alternative therapies of all sorts, partly to better their relationship. But the latest case Bennet and Davis have to deal with is unusual. On the surface it seems like a relatively average job – a woman wants the team’s help to relocate her missing husband. However, the moment they arrive at the house, it is clear to our heroes that something is wrong. And it is not just their own personal demons. It turns out there is a reason a massive promotion is attached to this case. It truly is their toughest one yet…

Now… Where to begin. I love so many things about this film. Not least the fact that the director has chosen to portray our psychics as very, normal people, very human. Hollywood tends to add an air of “mystique” to the whole affair, fair enough I suppose. But I have always thought that it is not exceptional looking people with deeply noble characters that should have “powers”. No, I think if you think about it realistically there would be an infinitely greater chance of them being normal looking people with very normal strengths and weaknesses.

Then there is the whole concept. The world the film creates is highly original and yet so very close to our own that one cannot help getting sucked in from the first moment. All this despite, and here I come to the first weakness of the film as I perceive it, the minimal, almost non-existent explanation of what the heck is going on. I get what has been attempted here. In avoiding all Hollywood-style clichés, the aim is to create a “12 Monkeys” ish feel. You know, the story slowly unravels. We don’t truly get what’s happening until the last instant. It all falls into place at the eleventh hour. I get it, I respect what has been done. It is my humble contention it doesn’t work. Even if you want the audience to work out what is going on in its entirety without any “explanation”, you should at least give them enough clues to go on. The complete and utter lack of information is, I think, the reason a lot of reviewers online wrote things like “oh they’re ghostbusters or something” in their reviews. It is very tempting and completely understandable to lose patience with the process entirely. Because, fact, you cannot feel “included” in a story if, at the back of your mind, you are constantly trying to work out what the heck you are watching.

I mean, yes there are films like this. And if it were not for the ending, you could argue that, the director was trying to present a different, completely unconventional viewing experience, you know, a more “cutting edge”, “existential” feel, sort of mixing the sensation of watching a film with watching a fly on the wall documentary. But the ending… It’s basically a message about not dwelling on the past and looking to the future and it is given in the most sugar-coated, Hollywoody, “family unit reunited”y (yes Mom, I know that is not a word, I’m trying to make a point) style imaginable. You know how allergic I am to “very happy” endings. What’s that I hear? I’m not to be a misery-guts? What is wrong with happy endings I hear you ask? Now hang on a minute. I’m not arguing against happy endings all together as a concept. I’m just arguing for them to be a little truer to real life.

I’m thinking, for example of Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s latest film Once Upon A Time in Anatolia (check out my review here if you have never heard of it ). I would argue, for example, that , contrary to appearances, that film does actually have a happy ending. Why? Because the character of the prosecutor is brought face to face with a  truth he has been in denial about for a long time. This denial and his refusal to cope with the matter in hand have been holding him back in his life.  He is, at the end of the film, shown a clear path. What he should do to go on with his life. True, he is surrounded by pathos, the other characters do not have such paths out of the sadness that surrounds them, but the prosecutor seems generally interested in truly healing himself and no longer being content with “stop-gap” solutions. Now that’s a happy ending. That is real character development. I mean think about your own characters and how they have developed over the years? Did any of it happen in a matter of days / weeks? Were you transformed, as if by magic, or was it a slower, “baby steps” affair? Quite. Ceylan presents his happy ending by showing the moment of awakening and hinting at the transformation to come. There is no need, I would argue, for arrows and neon lights. Especially in a work that has so many very original and different features to it. It is a brilliant film though. I would have done it slightly differently but hey. What’s the point of art if we can’t discuss these things?

ESSIE SPEAKS OF STUFF THAT MAKES HER THINK

So my part of the world still hasn't quieted down. And I have run into technical difficulties about the "thing" I wanted to add to my website, but bear with me if you will, and it will appear. Asif by magic.

With all the though-provoking stuff going on in the world at the moment, one might be tempted to think I was using cinema as a way of escaping all that. Oh no. It seems that be it the "heaviest" film on serious topics such as addiction or pure entertainment it seems that my brain starts churning. I think it may be a result of being overworked. You know, the brain is spinning quite fast already, so it just carries on rather than stopping. It may not entirely make sense, but well, it does in my mind.

And I mean, I don't know. Is being lost in your own maudlings and meditations as restfull as "turning your brain off" completely? Not sure. I have a feeling it might be though. There you go. Another thing to think about.

I think I need a lie-down.

Happy viewing,
Essie

WHAT RISES HIGH IN "FLIGHT" MUST SURELY COME BACK DOWN...

Well now, this one was a curveball. I had completely and utterly assumed I was going to see an action film of sorts. Very much my own fault, I have been working like a woman possessed this last month, I freely admit that I am more than a little behind when it comes to cinematic research. I’d had a bit of a week of it when I got to watching this. I genuinely thought I was just going to see a well-acted action film that would take my mind off things. Instead, I found a film that made me think long and hard about very important stuff. Hey, it took my mind off things. Just not in the way I expected.

Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) is a pilot. One of the best there is. And he has more than ample chance to prove it when he saves almost all the souls on board using an almost impossible manoeuvre after a mechanical failure. The thing is though; he completes this impossible manoeuvre when drunk. And under the influence of cocaine. As you can imagine, this comes up pretty quickly in the medical examination. Now there is a race against time as his union rep and lawyer desperately try to quash the medical reports and keep Whip in line. And Whip, a raging alcoholic, takes one heck of a lot of keeping in line. For all his bravado however, Whip is guilt-stricken about the six people who died. This event is, in fact, a very good chance for him to face up to his past, his mistakes and his demons. Thing is, does he see it that way?

Ok, I love this film for so many reasons. Not least because it paints a realistic portrait of alcoholism and the destructive force it brings to the life of everyone around it. I know alcoholics. I know the children of alcoholics. Believe me, I am in a good position to judge these things.

In the film, I especially love the scene where Whip is “fighting the minibar” as it were. You’ll know what I mean if you watched the film. If not, you’ll know when you see it. I’m also impressed with the way it seems to be connected to such a random event – but so well connected. I NEVER expected a film about alcoholism and facing your demons based on the wonderful, nail-biting opening action sequence. But hey, this is Robert Zemeckis. Only the guy who directed Back to the Future. No biggie.  And who better to portray it than veteran actor Denzel Washington? Every time I see him acting I am even more convinced that he deserves every award he gets and more.

But I do have a few problems with it. The ending. Spoiler alert people, look away now if you don’t want to hear about the ending. I don’t usually do this, I know but I passionately feel the ending is “wrong” so I MUST talk about it. What can I do, I’m an Aries. Ok, this is Hollywood, obviously they have to show him kicking the habit (of course they have to. This is not my problem), making peace with himself and “killing” his demons. There is, of course, an estranged ex-wife and a son he doesn’t talk to also in the picture. Now, like I said I know both alcoholics and the children of alcoholics. I felt that Whip making “complete” peace with his son was a little too much, too soon. Not that I’m saying that would never happen. I would, however, be happier with an “open” ending. You know. A tentative and slightly awkward meeting in the prison café for example. Positive, but no big hugs and kisses. If I may say this, living with an alcoholic means you get lied to by the person and hurt on a regular basis. And life experience tells me complete trust takes time to grow, especially if the matter has grown to the point that you haven’t spoken to your own father/son for years. That kind of hurt doesn’t just go away like magic. Ok, supposedly Whip has been sober for a year but I don’t know… It didn’t seem right to me. I mean yes, classic Hollywood dictates that the family unit must be re-united by the end. And to give it it’s due, this is a surprisingly modern family unit as Whip has a new girlfriend (albeit a rather cheesy storyline of a fellow addict (drugs) kicking the habit who he met in hospital. I know, I agree. But it’s better than nothing) thus the family is, you know a “modern” family with divorces and stuff. Like I said, I would have preferred a more tentative reunion. Because in real life, there is a good chance the family unit does not come back together again. In this film, this is not really even portrayed as a possibility…

So basically, Flight is a sensitive, though provoking film that portrays a lot of original and exciting stuff interspersed with some very typical Hollywoodisms. Oh well. With the sheer saturation of Hollywoodisms about these days, I’m just as happy with a mixture.

A BLAST FROM YOUR CHILDHOOD - WELL, MINE ANYWAY : "FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF"

Oh my God. I have rarely had so much regret flooding through me as I watched a film. Regret that I hadn’t watched this film much, much earlier. No effing wonder this film is such a favourite with so many people from my own generation. I never saw it. It didn’t get much of an airing over in Turkey. But hey, I’ve seen things like it and I LOVED them all. This is why, although as I watched this film for the first time there was no doubt in my mind at all that I had grown out of it a while back, neither could I actually turn it off. Classic of a certain era. Definitely.

Ferris Bueller is a high school wise guy. He may only be a senior, but he knows every trick in the book and he can play his unsuspecting parents and teachers like a fiddle, much to the annoyance of his sister Genie. When one of the first, beautiful, warm days of summer finally dawns on the town, there is no question whatsoever of Ferris going to school and wasting it. So it’s a day off. And if he has a day off, so does his girlfriend Sloane and best friend Cameron. Despite the protests of the highly strung Cameron, off they go into town, in no less than Cameron’s father’s prize, antique red Ferrari. But even with Ferris’ seemingly never-ending luck there are enemies to defeat. The school headmaster – Ferris’ arch-nemesis - parents popping up in odd places and an interfering sister. Kids sometimes really do just want to have fun… But how much can Ferris really get away with?

You recognise the type of humour, right? It’s the exact same genre as the Home Alone series starring Macaulay Culkin.  Charming, wise-cracking kid versus bumbling parents. The kid being ingenious, winning out in every situation, “getting the girl in the end” as it were. Well, not in the Home Alone series to be fair. But you get the picture. I mean, of course Ferris has a girlfriend who “tags along” – how could he be such a popular high-school student if he didn’t – but of course the “bumbling best friend” trope is also used, for comedy and as a chaperone. Hey, come on people, it was 1986, they still had standards of that sort back in the day.

Ok, so this film is not for anyone who is looking for a “serious cinematic experience”. In fact, if you are watching it for the first time in your late 20s – early 30s or later, you know what, you are a tad too late. Oh you will love it though. It reminds you of so many things from way back when you were tiny. Not less how little it took to make us happy and entertain us back in the day. Even though I am not that old, I feel a clear generation gap between myself and people a mere ten years younger than me. (I mean, I had a fascinating conversation with colleagues about ten years younger than me who told me they all had difficulty using watches. Phones were easier because they “told you the time right away”. If you had a watch you had to stop and think what time it was. Imagine their shock when they saw my watch, one of those super-minimalist numbers with no numbers on the face. As a side note, I have since taken to showing them the watch and telling them to figure it out if they ask me the time. I know, I’m annoying. ). So there you go. A time capsule from a rather underrated period of time – late eighties – early nineties. A must see for anyone with ties to that period. If nothing else, as you just saw, it’s the perfect excuse for a good rant.   

Note : Yes, that IS a young Charlie Sheen in the police station :)    

ESSIE SPEAKS OF BUCKING THE TREND

Wow. It has been one heck of a week for Turkey. I have been preoccupied with it to the point that I have thought of little else and have been immensely distracted at work. The fact that I am thousands of miles away does not help at all.  Now, this is a blog about films. I have always been careful to keep my political self and opinions apart from it because... Well, because that is the way I feel it should be. If we are connected via social media you are probably sick to the back teeth of me sharing my opinions. I'm sorry to say this but this trend will continue for a considerable amount of time. And I will be adding a few bits and peaces to the blog that are not entirely unconnected to the goings on this weekend. But in the meanwhile, I will now crack on with my film reviews.

Now, the fact that I am cracking on with film reviews does not mean that I have not indirectly connected them to the political situation. These are the truel life stories of two real people. Two famous people we have all heard of. And on the surface of it, they are as different as chalk and cheese. However, when you look at it closely, they have something in common. Both bucked the trend. Both refused to be content with the life society thought they should have. Both achieved amazing things and used their power to promote things, causes, values that truly mattered. You will see a side to both you never imagined before.

Who am I talking about? Scroll down to find out...

Happy viewing,
Essie

GET UP, STAND UP... FOR "MARLEY"

Ok, in these times of political turmoil and uncertainty, what better man to remember than Bob Marley, who brought us immortal songs like “Get Up, Stand Up”.  The combination of his unbelievable musical talent, his Rastafarian spiritualism and social messages made him an immortal musician, a phenomenon if you will, that will live on in the collective consciousness for ever. Or pretty damn close to for ever. But we must not forget that Bob Marley was, at the end of the day, a man. As you may imagine not exactly a simple man, not a person that one could find easy to understand. But if we make a bit of an effort to understand the man behind the myth, it might deepen our understanding. Give us more to think about, as it were. So let us take a step behind the curtain and see what the true Bob Marley was like.

Now I say “step behind the curtain” but of course, Bob Marley was quite famous for his openness in all things. And as a public figure his life story such as it is, is well known. So I don’t think it makes much sense to summarise it in this second paragraph traditionally reserved for the plot. Besides, this would retract considerably from the effect of the documentary. Marley is a wonderful, candid account of Bob Marley’s life, starting from his earliest years and going right through to his death. It mixes honest, no hold barred interviews with the people closest to him including his children and original footage of both concerts and interviews with the man himself. That Bob Marley was a musical genius goes without saying. It isn’t even worth discussing. But what of his faults? He was many things, but an angel was not one of them…

And then there is the “social” side of his life. By this I don’t mean his social life. I mean the social messages imbued in his songs. His spirituality. Marley’s life wasn’t an easy one. Growing up as a poor, mixed-race youth in Jamaica meant that he not only had to contend with poverty and the prejudice brought up by not being white, he also had to contend with not exactly being black either. It is possibly this rather harsh start in life that made one of his main social messages the call to fight against injustice, to struggle for peace, unity and harmony. For people to bypass all prejudices that life, “the system” or whatever you like to call it has imposed on us and come together to struggle for the things in life that are truly important. And it is this immortal message that has made his music so timeless.

Although it is sad that the message is still needed and does not happen “automatically” as it were, I think Bob would be happy to know that out there in the world there are people listening to his music, picking up the message and above and beyond just spreading it, leading by action and example. Yeah, you know what I’m talking about… 

A CHILDHOOD HERO YOU MAY HAVE FORGOTTEN... INTRODUCING "MISS POTTER"

The concept of celebrities is a funny one, is it not? There is a strange aura about the phenomenon of meeting an artist you admire in real life. On one hand, you feel as if you know them already. It is, in one sense, true. Especially in the case of artists who concretely create certain works (as opposed to actors who are different sorts of artists), you are familiar with an important part of the artist’s soul – the work of art. A work of art does, indeed, spring out of a very personal place in the heart and mind of its creator, and it is the beauty found in the expression of it, combined with the universal nature of human emotion that makes us appreciate the works and find something of ourselves in them. But then again, of course, one mustn’t forget that the artists themselves are very human. And, as we all know, some humans can be quite unpleasant, even if they are artists. That’s why it makes me happy when people whose work I admire also turn out to be people I like and admire. And this cannot be truer than in the case of Beatrix Potter. I mean, come on. In the English speaking world who didn’t grow up reading her stories? Would you not like to listen to HER story as well? I promise you, it makes excellent watching…

It is the year 1902, and Beatrix Potter is the rather eccentric spinster daughter of a good family living in London. Her mother, determined to use every opportunity (including her children) to consolidate their place in the middle classes is distraught because at the age of 32 Beatrix (Renee Zellwegger) is determinedly unmarried and decidedly “strange”. She paints pictures of animals the whole time and invents stories about them. She insists that she will become a published author. It will not “do” at all. And yet, Beatrix wonders around town from publishing house to publishing house determined to get herself noticed. She finally is “noticed” by the Warne brothers. It’s not that they recognize her as a talent, oh no. It’s just that their youngest brother Norman (Ewan McGregor) is determined to be part of the family business and they reckon this eccentric young woman is just the thing… Their rather condescending decision will prove life changing for Miss Potter. In more ways than one…

I have a rather nasty suspicion that Renee Zellwegger is well on the way of getting well and truly typecast. Time and again she turns up on our screens – in wonderful productions, portraying great performances I might add – as the unmarried woman finding love in the end. There is nothing wrong with that per se – although there is a lot to be said about portraying heroines happiness being portrayed as not entirely dependent on a partner – but still. When you see her on one side and Ewan McGreggor on the other, I mean come on. You don’t need a degree in Film Studies to know they’re going to get together. Luckily, the film follows real life and real life is rarely, if ever, as predictable as the movies. Well, some movies.

I defy you not to adore Miss Potter as she is portrayed by Renee Zellwegger. Heck, throw in Norman (Ewan McGreggor) too. I know, there will be a lot of people who accuse this film of being a little too “cutesy” for their liking. But then again, people, it’s about Beatrix Potter. It would hardly be in the spirit of the woman or her work if the film was any other way. And, put your hand on your heart. What is wrong with a little cutesiness now and then? We live in a world where a lot of dark and scary things happen on a daily basis. A temporary escape to a more innocent world, if only just now and then, may be just what the doctor ordered. In the case of Miss Potter, the film also serves as a gentle reminder that the beat of your own drum is often the best beat to march to in life, even if it doesn’t quite match up to those around you.