AN EXTRAORDINARY DOUBLE FEATURE ABOUT AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN : "MESRINE (PARTS 1 AND 2)"

I have a bit of a confession to make. I have a bit of a thing about French films. And not in a good way. I mean don`t get me wrong, I love French cinema. But I spent my ENTIRE education with the exception of primary school in French establishment. So the prospect of reading something in French or watching a French film… Feels like homework. I mean no, once I get into it I do love it (sometimes). One doesn`t read the entire works of Emile Zola in French merely out of a sense of duty for God`s sake. But so, yeah, if I hear a film is in French, something in my brain cringes and goes ``can`t we do this later?``  And Mesrine especially, I  mean not only is it a French gangster film (and Alain Delon really didn`t make enough of those, right?) there are two of them. The whole story is almost 4 hours long. I am aware I have prejudices and do tend to make an effort to push past them, that said, I didn`t expect to feel compelled to suddenly sit down and do a `Mesrine marathon` either. Then again, maybe I shouldn`t be that surprised. Mesrine was quite a piece of work. One time France`s public enemy number one, he was as charismatic and funny as he was ruthless. And love him or hate him (you rarely did anything in between) you found it hard to take your eyes off him.

Back from special duties in Algiers in the 1960`s, the young Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) is at a bit of a loss. He tries a ``good honest job`` in a shop, but after the life in Algiers it doesn`t really suit him, neither in pace nor in economics – if you see what I mean. He starts off by making a few ``bad friends`` and petty crime. But soon his ``talents`` have him rising through the ranks, making connections in the then notorious OAS… Mesrine is well on the way of becoming a truly international name in the world of crime. These two films tell the story of his career spanning 20 years and 2 continents…

First of all let us stop for a second and just praise Vincent Cassell for his magnificent portrayal of Mesrine. Mesrine is a complex character and he is so violent, so cruel and such a ruthless gangster it must have been hard to put the effort in to make him likable. Because likable he was. As the film progresses we get the impression of Mesrine as being a lot more immature than one might initially think. I mean, definitely more immature than you would expect a bank robber and kidnapper to be. The films portrays him at virtually delighting in seeing his face in the papers and bursting with pride at becoming public enemy ``number one``. And while he can often bulldoze his way out of most situations – because it would seem if you have a specific brand of courage bordering on stupidity you can bulldoze your way out of most things in the crime world – his overconfidence in his own talents is what lets him down. And his bigheadedness is what loses him countless business partners. It is this childlike quality that makes him think he can throw a bagful of money across a river, fail and lose millions of franks. It is also this childlike quality that enables him to have the audacity and tenacity to escape from maximum security prisons multiple times. But try as he might to present himself as a charming thief who only steals from the big banks, Mesrine is not above threatening the mother of his children at gun point in front of his son who is barely a toddler. Nor is he above kidnapping and mistreating the elderly and the infirm. In short Mesrine is, maybe not in body but in mind, a rather bright teenager brandishing a gun. AWESOME combo and brilliantly depicted – one swings between thinking him hilarious and promptly feeling guilty about your laughter all through the film.

The film itself is a first class example of its genre. If you were ever even remotely afraid it may prove too ``arty`` or some such, you really do not need to worry.  Car chases, tense stake-outs and bloody gun battles are a-plenty all through the film. In fact at several points the tension mounts so much I almost found it hard to watch -  oh no, this film does not lack anything in adrenaline.

Nor indeed does it lack in testosterone. I mean I do realize this is the thing with the time depicted and the genre. I`d hazard a guess and say that there weren`t that many female main players in the ganglands of 1960`s and `70s France. Any women we see are either prostitutes (and to be fair we see quite a few of those) or Mesrine`s partners (sometimes also prostitutes) who invariable end up getting threatened, chased and knocked around by him but staying with him nevertheless. I mean I don`t blame anyone on this last bit. When he pulled a bank robbery off he used to lavish himself and his ``flavor of the month`` in extraordinarily expensive gifts. Common sense dictates you stick with it. But then again I don`t want to be overly cynical - like he said Mesrine was an incredibly complex man, maybe there was real love there, we`ll never know I guess. The point I want to make is that the only women we see are the `molls` in one sense or another.  I mean you know that has never bothered me. But for some reason I noticed it more than usual. Possibly because I ended up watching the entire 4 hour saga in one sitting.

In short, not only is this a shining example of the gangster film in general it is a fascinating true story of a rather complicated man. Like many films that stick strictly to their genre, you probably may want to give it a miss if you absolutely loath gangster movies. But if you don`t, you`re in for a treat. 

OF FINDING STRENGTH YOU NEVER KNEW YOU HAD : "OF GODS AND MEN"

Several film festivals have thrown this one up for me. I bypassed it several times. Now I know I’ve used that formula before, but the sheer amount of times life has gone “Umm, you should probably watched this” is amazing. Amazing in that I ignored every one until today. I am a strong believer that things are put in your path for a reason. Now, I’m not entirely sure if you’ll be put off by the fact that this is a film that confronts terrorists and monks or not. I personally was intrigued. But don’t worry, it’s not one of those post-modern absurd comedy thingies. It’s a true story.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a monastery in Algeria. In this monastery lived  Trappist Monks, originally all from France, these men lived as part of the community; the doctor healed the sick that came from miles around and the monks worked the land and sold honey produced in the monastery to make a living. They lived a quiet and frugal existence of prayer and meditation, far removed from the complications of the “real world” (some might argue that as monks it is the real Real World the monks were working towards but that is a slightly different story – not to mention a matter of belief). But anyway. The point is, as you know, the real world tends to not react very kindly to being ignored. And when the Algerian Civil War finally finds its way to the gates of the monastery the monks have to make a very important decision. Will they stay and help defend the community that leans so heavily on the monastery? Or will they take the ehm “advice” of the Algerian government and leave?

As this is a French film, technically speaking, I was intrigued. It’s still a touchy subject, the Algerian Civil War. One has to be careful with the portrayal of the monks as well. I mean, not only are they monks – and religion is a touchy subject at the best of times in these turbulent times of ours – they are French monks in Algeria. I loved the way the first half of the film portrays the monks, often watching them silently going about their day to day tasks. There is an innate difficulty to portraying day to day tasks like this elegantly and in a way that isn’t going to bore the audience to tears in minutes. Director Xavier Beauvois succeeds greatly in imbuing you with a sense of the calm that surrounds the monastery and monastic life, and the real shock that hits the community when one day, completely unannounced and unexpected the terrorists arrive. You find that the characters and community, though you have but the most minimal knowledge of them, has grown on you.

Another thing that stuck with me is the character of Brother Christian, the “head” monk, portrayed by Lambert Wilson. There is a certain turning point in the film, until which you are pretty sure that Christian is rather unsuitable as far as a leaders go. You doubt he has the strength of character to face up to something as severe as life threatening danger, even though he may well be beyond adequate for the day to day running of monastery life. Suffice it to say, if you walked into that trap… Well, it’s a trap. What one has to remember of course is that there is more than one style of management in life, be it in monasteries or in the office. And especially when it comes to matters such as faith, fear and vocation, it takes more than an iron fist banging on the table to pull things together. For while the rookie error many managers / leaders commit is to go straight for the “banging”, in important matters such as this strength of character demonstrated with unswerving determination will often bring your flock closer to you and mould your community as a whole. If nothing else, the film is a fascinating look into the mechanisms of leadership. And faith – in God, but more importantly, in yourself and your community.

A TRES FRANÇAIS JOURNEY TO ADULTHOOD : "PARIS – MANHATTAN"

Ok. I need to warn you on this French film coming up. And this one is no exception in any way possible. Oh, it’s a fine specimen of its kind, don’t get me wrong. But it’s a typical French film through and through, right down to the cliché of the not very handsome and slightly large (ehm) older gent and the beautiful young woman forming a couple. And this last one would have made a tad bit more sense to me if the director was a man – but in fact it is a woman. Let’s give her her due; it is her first feature film but still. Even if you are mastering the rules just to be able to break them later, you stick up for your side a bit more, no? But anyway. Let’s cut to the storyline. I’ll gripe about the whole thing at the end of  post.

So, meet Amy. In her very common or garden family, she is always the odd one out. She is a great fan of Woody Allen – and in fact all things cinema – and has defiantly been herself in the face of pressure from every side to conform, especially her family. There is the sharp contrast with her sister Helene who is beautiful, socially competent and later on in the film a man-eater of a lawyer. Her family desperately wants Alice married, but Alice just cannot find anyone who quite fits. After all, all the good ones have been snapped up. So she is happy to take over her father’s pharmacy and take solace in Woody Allen. And then, all of a sudden, two things happen. The dashing divorcee Vincent bursts into her life, offering her a dream relationship. Alice is over the moon. But Vincent has a rival in the shape of Victor an inventor in the field of burglar alarms. Can he conquer the moody Alice, and be the “man of her dreams”?

Now, this film is funny, thought provoking and touching in bits. In quite a lot of bits, in fact. But I also have problems with it. And I don’t just mean the whole “couples” thing I mentioned at the beginning. As I have often mentioned before I am very, VERY far from looking like a model myself and I am not saying all on-screen couples should be made up of age-compatible beautiful people. But still. I think French films lean a little too much to one side. Slightly odd.

Then there is the way Alice’s journey is mapped out in the film. Her main aim is to “grow up” once and for all as it were. You know, let go of all childish things and see life as it is. This, apparently, involves quitting being a Woody Allen fan and actually stopping being a movie buff all together. As a movie buff, I am mildly offended by this. Not to say a bit confused because surely the director herself is also a movie buff, or she wouldn’t be, you know, directing films and stuff. I mean, if you think about it,  Ms Lellouche is the queen of all dreamers seeing as she has actually taken up storytelling for a living. Maybe there’s a sensitivity here I’m missing. But apparently to grow up, Alice needs to embrace her compatibility with Victor. Which is fine if they’re happy together. But the problem is, we see absolutely nothing to the effect that she is UNHAPPY with Vincent. In fact, after the briefest of sketches as to how their relationship develops, Vincent vanishes from the scene in rather a forced manner. In fact, Alice can’t even be bothered to break up with him. I mean, don’t even get me started on the fact that Alice’s happiness seems to be entirely based on her settling down with someone. This IS, I grant you, a big factor in happiness sometimes. But sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes people are truly happy as bachelors. And I think we need a few more films that point this fact out..

I mean, as far as romantic comedies go, it’s ok. One is prompted not to think too much when watching this kind of film, because honestly, there often isn’t much to think about. Here, well you really shouldn’t bother. You should just see the film as disposable and move on if you want to enjoy it at all. It’s like rather an old mattress that has some rather uncomfortable lumps in it. It’s quite alright in its function but just… You know.  Remember where to lie yourself down. 

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

GUILT, FEAR AND RATHER LARGE DEMONS : "I’VE LOVED YOU SO LONG"

Ok , be warned. French art film coming up. I don’t know, for some reason, of all the “arty” films out there – busy scaring common or garden movie goers – the French ones seem to be the scariest. In public perception any way. I think this is mainly the fault of great directors such as Godard and Truffaut, whose pioneering works are often, admittedly, quite difficult to analyse for the untrained eye (and even for the trained eye). This has, in my view, had a sort of knock-on effect to a lot of French films later on in that, through the simple virtue of being French (and in French – a cardinal sin in some parts of the English speaking world) were deemed incomprehensible (and I don’t just mean linguistically). This film definitely affords us many, many reasons to stop and think. This is one of these ones. I have some major gripes with it – one thing I cannot ABIDE in a film is errors of logic in the films universe – there are bits of the film that work SO well and the acting – especially Kristin Scott Thomas – is just so wonderful that I simply couldn’t let it slip. Ok, let’s get to the story and I’ll tell you what you mean.

Ok, so, usually after a crime is committed – in the ideal world of film anyway – the baddies are caught, put in jail and receive punishment for their crimes. Ok, but then what? When the prison sentence is over? When the inmate comes out? It is precisely this question that Juliette (Kristin Scott Thomas) is searching for. She has just come out of prison after having committed a particularly heinous crime. A crime that has cost her her career and estranged from her entire family, especially her younger sister with whom their parents have ensured they are now complete strangers. Thing is though, Juliette has no one else. And when social services do contact Léa, her sister, Léa has a lot of romantic ideas about regaining her sister. It is in this way that Juliette comes to stay with her and her family while she looks for work and a place of her own.  However, between the fifteen years they spent apart, the parent’s brainwashing and Juliette’s real difficulty in adapting to the outside world, this is most definitely not going to be the idyllic reunion Léa is dreaming of. It may lead to the sisters truly getting to know each other. But for that to happen, everyone is going to have to let their guard down, and real emotions, sometimes bottled up for decades, are going to have to come pouring out…

Now, I am going to tie myself into knots explaining this. The main problem is the slow revelation of what Juliette did and why is an integral part of the film. If you know that, you will probably enjoy it a lot less. The suspense and the shock is the main part of the story. So I will try and discuss my problem with the film without revealing too much. OK. So as you can guess from the 15 year sentence, on the surface of things, Juliette has done a pretty bad thing. Also recognisable of course from the fact that her parents completely “abandoned” her and brainwashed her sister almost into denying her existence. But the more you get to know Juliette – and this is tough enough as communication and demonstrating feelings are by far not her strong point – the more you begin to suspect there is more to the story than meets the eye. There is. There is what are to me major extenuating circumstances to the whole affair. The point is, these circumstances are such that logically speaking THERE IS NO WAY they wouldn’t come up in a trial. There is no way they would remain an utter secret all these years. The sister ONLY JUST finding out about it… Not realistic. Even assuming that after reaching adulthood she was so brainwashed she did no research of her own. I mean, once I hit on that point it niggled me all the way through the film. It’s a major flaw in logic in my view. The only thing you can do really is to just assume that’s the way that universe functions and carry on watching. Not that I’m saying there is nothing else to watch, heck no, there is a TON.

First of all, kudos to Kristen Scott Thomas. I mean, my God. She takes on Juliette, a character coping with a lot of very complex psychological situations and makes her very real and very approachable. And judging the matter purely on what a difficult and complicated person Juliette is, it is no mean feat. Her performance alone justifies a lot of the prestigious awards the film walked away with in my view. But then there are so many little details in the story. Juliette’s crime emerges in the oddest places and slaps her in the face with such force… You physically cringe at the insight with which the emotional “slaps” come. After all here, as with most things in life, it’s the little things that count. I was also impressed with Léa’s adopted daughters – or more specifically the older one. She gives a surprisingly high quality and insightful performance for her young age.

In short, the film is chock-full of sensitivity, imagination and provides a lot of food for thought. You definitely should watch it. Just don’t overanalyse it, if you get what I mean. This film is more about emotions than anything else – and when judged on that criteria, it does a damn fine job. 

LOVE STARTS AT HOME "ANGEL – A"

Ok, finally my conscience is at rest. I have finally, after such a long time, watched a “serious” movie. I do admit that going from animation straight to Luc Besson, the most serious of French art cinema may have been a bit of a leap. However as you probably know by now, this is the way my mind works. And I mean, come on. It isn’t likely to shock your system or give you brain freeze or something. I mean it might but only if you watch it in close succession with How To Train Your Dragon, for example. Don’t do that. I mean, even I don’t do that. Seriously.

That being said, just because Luc Besson directed it, it’s French and in black and white, please don’t let Angel-a scare you off. I know all that screams absolutely unwatchable in most cases, but this film is just so… Well in a word adorable. I laughed out loud. I even shed a few tears. And I marvelled at Besson’s wonderful black and white photography, framing the beauty of Paris. Seriously guys, this is not one you want to miss.

This is the story of André Moussah. André is a small time wheeler-dealer. He usually survives thanks to his gift of the gab and his ability wriggle out of shady deals relatively unscathed. However, as is often the case with this kind of life, he finally talks himself into a corner he cannot talk his way back out of. He is basically broke, with no prospects of getting any money and two very dangerous men to whom he owes a total of around 50 thousand euros. Seeing that his chances of surviving beyond midnight are getting rather slim, he decides to make everyone’s job a tad easier for them and kill himself. And just as he has climbed onto a bridge over the Seine, contemplating his last seconds on earth what should he see right on the balustrade beside him, except a beautiful woman, also preparing to kill herself. In fact, the young woman turns out to be a good deal more determined than André as she actually jumps. André however, being a good man at heart, jumps straight in after her and rescues her. However, it soon transpires that this young woman, or Angela as she calls herself, is not just a random passerby. In fact she is not even human. And her mission on earth is to change Andrés life for ever.

Ok, so maybe I shouldn’t have told you she isn’t human. Then again, Besson peppers the film with clues and honestly, this is not exactly the point of the film. I mean, unless you are really not watching the film properly, you will understand pretty quickly what Angela is. I’ll give you a hint – the name is a dead giveaway. So is the way Rie Rasmussen pronounces it. This film is about serious stuff. And I don’t mean random “arty” stuff. I mean stuff like learning to love yourself before you can learn to love another. Stuff like how that love can change you and change your life. The film is brilliant in that it doesn’t let up on the comedy. And Jamel Debbouze (whose name you do not know but whose face you are bound to recognise if you have watched a French film in the last 10 – 15 years. He is slowly becoming an “institution” like Reno or Depardieu, and for a good reason) is an excellent choice as a comic actor. The sharp contrast with tall blonde (VERY Swedish) Rie Rasmussen makes it just that little bit funnier. Honestly, you can’t get people to think about something so serious and so important without a bit of comedy though. Think about it, anything else would be just too much. A little  too cloying. And a bit like a cheesy greeting card. However mixing up the funny with the serious, the smiles with the tears, Besson puts a very important message into the context of real life, thus forcing us to really think about it. Note how hard André ultimately finds it to come to peace with himself. And ask yourself if, deep down, you have a similar problem as well…

 This is a beautiful movie on so many levels. Please don’t let the French or the black and white scare you off…

ALTERNATIVE LIVES AND A PERSONAL HISTORY : "THE GLEANERS AND I"

Those of you who are interested in French New Wave cinema (and yes, I realize there are not many of us out there) will recognize the name of Agnes Varda as one of the forerunners of the movement, and a very original artist. Apart from being one of the only female directors in the movement, Varda has a very particular outlook on things, an outlook that I find has become more and more openly expressed in her later works. Personally I enjoy her later films better. Semi-autobiographical documentaries in style, most of them are recorded accounts of a perspective on life and everyday things that you would never capture without taking the trouble to step into Varda’s shoes. The gleaners and I is just one such documentary. Basically, the gleaners and I is a documentary about “gleaning”. Now if you are as lost as I initially was as to the meaning of this, let me explain it to you before we progress any further. Usually after farmers gather their crops there are some left in the fields, for whatever reason. The produce may not have been selected because it is overly ripe, not the right size, sheer negligence… Or alternately, a lot of large companies, after sorting through vegetables or fruits in factories, discard a lot of the produce for reasons such as shape and size. This discarded produce is usually dumped back into the fields. It is people’s legal right (as Varda demonstrates with the aid of lawyers in case there are any cynics out there) to come and take this produce free of charge. The practice varies slightly from place to place and region to region and of course like everything it has changed a good deal over time. Varda examines gleaning and its history in the countryside first, then moves on to the city, examining topics as varied as dumpster diving and the homeless, Varda sets about tracking down the gleaners of the big cities and uncovers a whole host of various life stories in the process. I know what you’re thinking. I know because I initially thought it too. This had the potential to be fascinating, but it also had the potential to be categorically deadly. There was an inherent risk to sitting down and watching it. I, sadly (or in fact happily as it turned out) had no choice. It was obligatory viewing for a module at university. I could try and briefly chronicle all the life stories Varda shows us in the documentary, but even that would not capture its flavor. I could tell you how the rambling journey of the camera crew is interspersed with Varda’s musings on life, old age and even her own mortality. But that would not capture Varda’s spirit. You really have to sit down and watch this. You will learn, you will laugh and you will think about things that never occurred to you before. A true little gem if there ever was one.

"INTIMATE ENNEMIES"

This “strong and silent type” French film almost didn’t make the list. Not because I don’t like it, quite au contraire, but I wasn’t sure how much it would appeal to you guys for some reason. I don’t know, French war movie about the Algerian war, set at the height of the operations in 1959… But I watched it for the second time for work today. And I cried my eyes out. Again. So I just had to share it with you.
Lieutenant Terrien has a tough job ahead of him. He is an industrial designer by trade and a happily married father of one but he has volunteered for the war in Algeria. He is stepping into a dead Lieutenant’s shoes. Apart from having these shoes to fill, the clashes with the rebels / resistance are getting more and more brutal. His sergeant Dougnac is a sullen and silent man, but he soon shows Terrien that he knows the area and their job a lot better than he does. Terrien is shocked at first by the area, by the mentality of the soldiers and the sheer “horror” (remember Apocalypse Now? If you didn’t get what “The Horror” meant then, you will now I promise you) of proceedings. He is unable to understand Dougnac’s apparent coldness and callousness. But soon, both him and we realize that the true enemies that are the hardest to conquer lie not in some mountain range but deep within our own souls…
This film is not a happy one. It is definitely a “disclaimer” film. I mean, ok, I’m guessing you expect violence. But this isn’t “Saving Private Ryan” type violence. It is a lot deeper and hard-hitting than that. And it is not horrifying in its scale - we are not talking about people dying in their hundreds – but in its meaning. All through the film we are given no respite about the psychological suffering of soldiers at war. And I don’t mean just the French soldiers either, you must remember there were a lot of Algerians fighting alongside them as well… We are reminded that war Is a tragedy, and just sometimes it is a pointless tragedy. We are reminded that this violence effects the ones who witness it and sometimes leaves incurable scars. And of course, the politics. Terrien lays out the arguments of the film within the first half-hour – basically the fact that the de Gaulle government was very much to blaim for the Algerian war. But when it comes to the brutalities that went on there, we are forced to admit, that if we were in Terrien’s – or any of the characters – shoes, we probably would not have, in fact could not have acted in any other way…
My memory is pretty good and I remember pretty much all the plot twists quite clearly. But I could not hold back the tears as I watched Terrien slowly crack and turn into something he despised (and I know this is sort of a spoiler but I’m guessing you saw this coming, no?). You will not find it easy viewing at all. But then again, some things don’t come in pretty packages and yet they are true and beautiful…

RICKY: DEFINATELY NOT YOUR AVERAGE BABY...

Well, I don’t know what you guys think about French films… Some love them, some hate them, I tend to do a bit of both from time to time… If you have never had much to do with them, it is high time you started, and as French directors go, the master director François Ozon is a perfect starting point…
And this is also a soft – landing as far as French films are concerned. It is actually an adaptation from a short story called Moth, by the British author Rose Tremain… And the combination of the two talents have made for a fantastic film… Ozon claims the film brings together many genres such as “thriller, comedy, science fiction and fantasy”. Most certainly an accurate assessment. Ricky is the story of a perfectly normal woman called Katie. She is a single mother and factory worker. One day, at work, she meets a man. A Spaniard named Paco, again completely ordinary… They fall in love – which is always an extraordinary occurrence – and Katie becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a healthy baby boy – a miraculous occurrence ofcourse but hardly out of the ordinary. But then, a month or two later, Ricky (afore mentioned baby) does something rather extraordinary. He starts growing wings…
To tell you the truth I hadn’t watched much Ozon ‘till I got round to Ricky. And I really did not know what to expect. The slow pace of the film and the lack of Hollywood-esque explanations will surely jar a bit with some viewers. (We are left to our own devices to figure out how Ricky comes to grow wings, although you most definitely will have your own idea by the end…) The great success of the film is that it gives a very accurate description of what you or I might very well do if our child grew wings… The reactions, the environment, everything surrounding Ricky is very down to earth, very REAL. And Ozon is definitely accurate in his description of the film. Science –fiction and stories, well it goes without saying. Comedy – I actually laughed out loud quite a few times during the film. Tension is definitely present, and I even had tears in my eyes at one point close to the end, although I can’t go into details for fear of giving spoilers… I’ll go one further and say that I even actually watched it twice. And loved it. Both times :)