IN WHICH OTHER WORLDS ESCAPE TO US... "THOR"

I know, I know, this is mainly one for the fans. A film I mean. Not  blog post. I may have mentioned that on a normal day to day basis, Hollywood action – adventure films do not feature high on my “to watch” list. But there comes a time when even my interest is piqued. I’m guessing if you’re a fan of Marvel comics and all that that franchise entails, you have already seen this one. If, like me, you’re not THAT into comic books and the like, you may or may not be  contemplating watching it for a bit of a change one evening when you want to watch something fun but not out too much effort into philosophical analysis or complicated story lines. This is the first film of the series, the special effects are spectacular, the actors and actresses beautiful, it is everything modern Hollywood is today. What did I think of it? Well, I’m seriously considering watching The Avengers            later on this week so yeah; this should probably give you a clue…

In this first “episode” of the series, we are introduced to Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki, Norse “gods” who live in the peaceful kingdom of Aasgard ruled by their wise and benevolent father Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Thor is the elder and natural successor to the throne – and frankly he can’t wait. He’s an outstanding warrior, handsome, popular and a born leader. He is, on the other hand reckless, hot-headed and has a dangerous tendency to rush into situations without considering the consequences.  And when he opens his whole world up to the possibility of war with their eternal enemies the ice giants, Odin can find no further alternative but to banish Thor to Earth, minus his powers, to teach him a lesson in humility if nothing else. But if this is not painful enough, with Thor gone, forces within the palace that are not as friendly as they claim to be set to work… The danger of war is merely the tip of the iceberg as far these forces go. Thor may be adapting well to his new world and even making friends, especially in the person of the beautiful scientist Jane Foster (Nathalie Portman) but will he find what it takes within his soul to help him return to his duties back home and save his world?

I will not bang on and on about the entertainment value of this one. Like a lot of Marvel films, we are transported to a world of super-heroes and beautiful maidens and it is perfect, seamless, unadulterated escape from your daily woes for all of two hours. We know what we are getting and we get a good quality load. Romantic comedy, action, drama and a very well choreographed “alien getting used to our world” type comedy all rolled into one, and finished off with all the high sentiment and pumping adrenaline of classical storytelling and fairy tales. Now now, don’t get upset I called it a fairy tale. That is what it is, after all…

But there was one point I found particularly fascinating about this particular film. I loved the fact that Jane Foster is a scientist ( I do realise this is probably less to do with the film and more to do with the original storyline). But more importantly I love the fact that we are not told to just suspend disbelief and go “oh so Thor and the Norse gods are real after all – now, moving swiftly on”. The character of Jane Foster means that there is a voice constantly questioning the veracity of what is going on on screen and asking the question “well how can this be?” And sure enough, the film (or, like I said, the story itself. I haven’t read the comics so I’m not entirely sure which) provides an explanation based on physics. Now I know less about wormholes and the theory of parallel universes than I do about Marvel comics. Thus I have no idea how much the physics “stands up”. But I think it is a fascinating point that in the 20^th Century science has become so pervasive in every day life that even what would once be classed as “fairy stories”, now feel the need to provide at least a semblance of a scientific explanation for fear of alienating the audience. The mystification of the world is truly dead people, there is no mystery and no wonder… Or I mean, there is, but we are not very tolerant to it anymore. We MUST know the REASON. For some reason we simply can’t just kick back and enjoy the story…

And I mean, don’t get me wrong, perversely, I LOVED the fact that there is a scientific, “real life” explanation for it all in the film. But I just can’t shake this nagging feeling that this has become more of a “necessity” than anything else. And that we may have irretrievably lost an important part of our collective imagination… Then again, maybe the answer is to kick back and enjoy the ride. Because, if nothing else, Thor does provide a most entertaining ride. Highly recommended. 

THE BLACK SWAN

As I watched this film, and subsequently weighed it up in my mind later on, I figured out what it is about Aronofsky’s films that doesn’t quite scan with me. I don’t quite know how to express the sentiment but there’s just… Too much of it. I mean, in a film, you obviously have various strati of emotion, sidelines and characters, it’s what prevents the film from becoming one sided, shallow and boring. But with Aronofsky, there is just too much of everything. Ok, this makes the film complicated, some may say even closer to life. His films are usually original – inimitable even – and packed with emotion that just simply knocks you out at the end, leaving you feeling as if you have been hit by a freight train… However, when you get to thinking about it – or rather when I get to thinking about it – I find that a lot of very interesting points just feel “not properly developed”. There is a lot of different stuff just packed in willy nilly. I mean, ok, one might argue that he is leaving some work to the viewer. I’m all for that, I do not want to be spoon fed. But you can have too many hints and mysteries in one film and wonderful as the result may be when you chase them down, I do not want to be Sherlock Holmes or have to have a degree in clinical psychology to actually “get” a film. I mean, you can have a few deep and mysterious allusions in a film, use them as a theme without completely explaining it throughout like Jarmusch for instance, I’m fine with that. It’s when you cram 20 such allusions into one film that I start to “tire” of the whole thing.
So, stripping all allusions aside, what is Black Swan about? Nina (Nathalie Portman one of our newest Oscar ®winners. Now hand on heart, I truly believe that hers was one of the best performances of the year.)is a ballerina. Now, ballet may look all floaty and beautiful to you and me, but in reality, it is cut-throat, like all art forms behind the scenes. Nina is among the best of the best, working for a Thomas Leroy, a very VERY tough taskmaster and head of company. To add to all that, her mother, who is her biggest supporter also used to be a ballerina. She was not nearly as successful as her daughter but because of this, she is determined to live out her dreams through her daughter, adding to the pressure. Now, ballet, as you know, like the opera, is one of those art forms that is sadly reduced to “clinging on for dear life” as far as popularity is concerned. So as the new season begins, there is no room for error and the competition among the soloists as to who is going to be the new leading lady / face of the company in Swan Lake, their new production is deadly. Against all the odds, Nina is chosen, but Leroy has a serious problem with her. She is perfect, he says, as the White Swan, but her Black Swan is very far from being convincing. She is “pure and good” and that’s very well, but when it comes to being “feminine and seductive” shy Nina is considered frigid and underdeveloped. Nina must change herself into the Black Swan for real and for the audience if she wants her life’s ambition to be a success but will her efforts and the pressure mounting up on all sides take a heavier toll than she can handle?
Looked at very simply, The Black Swan is the story of a woman discovering sex, sensuality and reaching “maturity” sexually. It is an important theme, I’ll give you that, but on its own, it would have done a lot better. It is possibly the aim of the director to make the film chaotic, mirroring Nina’s crumbling inner world, but really, I can’t help asking whether it was absolutely necessary to “crumble” the audience as well. There is a lot left “up in the air”, Nina’s relationship with her mother, her actual relationship with sex as a concept and the reasons for this point of view, her process of self discovery, feelings of jealousy, discovery and betrayal are all glossed over, started on but lead nowhere. I find it rather amusing to see that because of the profusion of women and sex in it, the film seems very popular with men yet not so popular with women. I mean, don’t get me wrong, the emotional climax is absolutely superb, why at the very end I had goose bumps (swan bumps even?) all over my body. My point is you are left unsatisfied. You’re left with hints and impressions of things, deep, important and striking things but… I don’t know it’s obviously a film to be watched more than once. I’ll watch it again and let you know if my opinion has changed but I definitely think it could have been done a lot better. Now don’t jump down my throat, I’m not saying I could do better. Maybe just that I would like to see a different director’s point of view of this script…

A FILM PERTAINING TO THE FACT THAT MOST THINGS THAT MATTER IN LIFE HAVE NO AGE : "LEON"

Well, what a film this turned out to be, eh? I defy anyone to watch this film and not be moved, even the most ardent “anti-French cinema” supporter among you… Luc Besson, Jean Reno and what a debut for Nathalie Portman, eh? It’s very strange to watch the film today, knowing what this film led to, what she became… Now, this is not a film for the faint hearted. I mean, it is violent but not gory, that is not my problem… But some people (my Mom for instance) cannot “take it” when children are involved and sadly (because it’s truly a great film) she may not be able to take it… Just so as you know… Heads up…
Mathilda (Nathalie Portman) is a 12 year old, living in New York. She has a pretty average life living with her father (who stores drugs for various shady characters around the house) her step sister, step mother and kid brother. She lives across the landing from Leon (Jean Reno) a quiet guy who keeps to himself and just happens to be one of the best and most ruthless hired killers in town. Not that any of his neighbors know this, they just know he’s a weird guy who drinks a lot of milk… Anyway, one day, one of Mathilda’s dad’s deals goes south. The entire family, minus Mathilda herself, is slaughtered. Mathilda takes refuge in Leon’s apartment. But once she figures out what her new friend actually does for a living, she isn’t scared. Quite the contrary: She wants to learn how to be a killer. She wants revenge – and she wants to get it herself…
Leon is just one of those films where… Well, one of those films where you are asked your opinion on the film and there is so much to say, so much emotion involved, you just don’t know what to say or where to start… The main theme of the film is love. Not necessarily romantic love; but that comes into it too (don’t cringe there is NOTHING err… “worrying” going on between Mathilda and Leon – their love is a lot purer than that). No, it’s about the basic need we all have to be loved really. And what we are prepared to do once / if we find that love. Love of a family, a lover, a sister, a brother, a child… Two runaways, two lonely creatures united in their need to belong, even though Leon, like most grownups, has great difficulty admitting this need. It is about growing up, getting older and the difference between the two…
But the trick is to see beyond the age difference between Leon and Mathilda. A lot of people did of course, but as I said, it could be tricky. The thing to remember is that souls are in fact very different from bodies and you can easily have a 12 year old whose soul is much older or a grownup who is barely twelve in some respects… You will be thinking about this and a lot more as you watch the film…
It is also a brilliant reminder as to why exactly Jean Reno seems to turn up in about half the French films that make it worldwide (I say half because the other half usually contains Gerard Depardieu. Not that I have anything against either actor but it’s a funny coincidence, no?). Brilliant acting in a tough part. And you wouldn’t expect it to be tough would you? The silent hit man that keeps to himself… NOT that simple… Not that simple at all… And what about the pint-sized Nathalie Portman? I admire her greatly but having seen her in a few more things I genuinely think she has yet to do anything better… She is so brilliant as Mathilda; not quite an adult but definitely not 12 anymore either…
In short, you would have to have a heart of stone not be touched by it…