BEHIND THE SCENES OF A FAIRY TALE : "GRACE OF MONACO"

I decided to see this one (again on a plane) because I was rather bemused by the overall “mediocre” reviews of it. It was set as an extravaganza after all, opening the Cannes Film Festival no less, a clearly opulent, highly visual film about a modern fairy tale; the story of Grace Kelly, who left the glamour of Tinsel town to be the Princess of Monaco.

However, the fairy tale, we quickly learn, is not all it seems. Grace misses Hollywood and her old world,  Rainier ( Tim Roth) is distant and increasingly stressed about Monaco’s increasingly tense relationship with De Gaule era France and no matter how hard Grace tries, she can’t seem to get it right, every single thing she says and does seems to be wrong. When Hitchcock offers her the leading part in his latest film, Marnie, Grace reaches crisis point. She has the perfect opportunity to return to the stage – but with a crisis brewing in Monaco and her new family to consider… Which way will Grace turn?

I mean we have the advantage of hindsight here, we all know she stayed with Rainier, never acted again and was her Serene Highness the Princess of Monaco for the rest of her life. And herein lies the problem with this film. There is no real crisis, because most, if not all of us know what Grace decided to do. The interest of the film lies – or would lie – in portraying her psychological process in getting there. It offers an interesting opportunity to look into the mind of a woman forced to choose between her career and her family. What we end up with, between Grace’s wise father figure Father Tucker, the elocution lessons and the French lessons (complete with the now rather stale parody of Americans being unable to pronounce foreign languages) something akin to the Princess Diaries, or, you know, all those tweenage films about regular girls learning to be princesses. And on the other hand, I mean come on. The dilemma is between being a famous actress or an actual princess. It’s not exactly an easy dilemma to sympathize with.

The second point, which I actually read in another review is that the same is valid for the Monaco deal. It is, of course, absolutely tragic for any country to lose its sovereignty but at the end of the day, in real terms, they would simply become French citizens and lose some tax privileges. It’s bad. But it’s not exactly being put to the sword either. And just as it was in the case of Grace’s story, we actually know what happened. Monaco still exists. The end. In fact the whole “danger” is largely economic, the long discussions (and the explanations thereof, as given to Grace who plays the role of the Everyman) are basically a lot of men in tuxedos round a board room table. Again, very hard to sympathize with.

In both crises typical Hollywood tricks are used to heighten emotion, extreme close ups of faces (and eyes and mouths quite a few times), tense music, suitable sequences of both Nicole Kidman and Tim Roth looking tortured….   But in the end, the moment you take a step back, there is no real “crisis” there, not for us. I would have found a much more deeply psychological behind the scenes angle a lot more interesting.

It’s a shame really, because there  is a really good opportunity there, something akin to what we discussed concerning CallasForever – an actress, playing an actress, playing a part. Or rather learning to play a part. I mean we do get hints at that, I rather liked the vignettes of Grace Kelly rehearsing Marnie in front of her bedroom mirror. I do wonder how Kidman approached that; did she do it the way she herself would play Marnie or try and figure out how Grace Kelly would do it? Both maybe? But I mean even that is marred slightly, there comes a moment when Father Tucker holds Grace’s hands earnestly and says – as deep down we knew he would : “Grace, learning to be the Princes is the role of a lifetime”.

I mean yeah, the film is beautiful, opulent… But for all that, it falls short on the way the story is told. I know the whole idea is the “backstory” of a typical fairy tale being exposed, but if the fairy tale is typical, this doesn’t mean the way we tell it has to be as well… So I’m afraid I have to say yes, I totally see why so many people just turned around and said it was just… “Meh”… I feel sadly obliged to join their ranks… 

THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS MISSED BY "THE PAPERBOY"

Well, with Lee Daniels’ The Butler looming on the horizon, no time like the present for a Lee Daniels mini-retrospective! Oh, you know how I love long words. What I really mean is that I got a chance to see The Paperboy recently – and grabbed. I was quite excited to see it too, I loved Precious and this was a true story too. A true crime story to be precise and you all know by now that I have a huge “gory tooth” as far as true crime goes. I checked the imdb score – it wasn’t high – but I didn’t let that trouble me as I have found that my view of a film often doesn’t match up with its review. This time however… Heartbreak and disappointment I’m afraid. The film made its way onto the blog from the sheer amount of potential it holds. And because well, it’s my blog and I want to rant.

Charlotte Bless (Nicole Kidman) is in a very deeply passionate relationship with Hilary Van Wetter (Jon Cusack). This may sound like a normal enough sentence but there is one problem. Mr Van Wetter is on death row for murder and he and Charlotte have barely met face to face. This is by no means Charlotte’s first prison pen-pal, but it is definitely the most passionate affair she has been in. She is determined that it is fate that brought her and Hilary together and that she will find a way to get him out of prison. To this end, she contacts Ward Jensen (Matthew McConaughey), a reporter whom she asks to prove, somehow, that Hilary is innocent. Hilary and his partner Yardley Acheman (David Oyelowo) begin to look into the case and there are indeed some technicalities in the story that have been overlooked. Well and even if they lacked motivation, Charlotte is quite a character… So much so that Ward’s younger brother Jack (Zac Effron) is absolutely besotted with her, following her and the investigation around wherever it may lead. One thing is for sure: Charlotte is onto something. It’s just that it may not quite be what she thinks it is…

One thing I can take my hat off to Mr Daniels for is this: He sure knows how to pick a story. Think of his two other “true story” films, Precious and now the up-coming The Butler… And as we all know, the backbone to a good film is a good story. After all, we go to “watch” a film, it is a very visual experience and how the story unrolls is very important, but it is easy to be accused of being all flash and fire and no substance, like a lot of action based films. (Latest example to that being Neil Bomkamp’s Elysium). Now this film has substance. It has tension, it has huge conflict, so we’re all set for a good show, right?

Well… See, you might find it hard to believe with a film of this kind, where there is no CGI, no special effects, no monsters or robots, but what Lee Daniels does here is, sorry to say, exactly the same thing. The visual side of it is… Well  I don’t want to say all wrong but, it’s… It’s too much. It’s totally ok (hey, it might even be considered compulsory) for a director to try new visuals, new editing styles and to insert a little bit of dead time here and there purely for “effect”. When Mr Daniels was adding the dead time though, clearly the lid fell off the jar as it were. The first 10 minutes of the film, aside from the lengthy exposition (the combination of Macy Gray’s accent with rather iffy sound equipment made the narration nigh-on impossible to understand even for us native English speakers) there was a lot of emphasis on how Jack used to be a swimmer, and him “posing”. Clearly Mr Effron’s body made quite an impression as it is masqueraded throughout the film; it even gets its own little spotlight slap bang in the middle of a chase sequence (I mean, if there was any other point of cutting to memories of him swimming in the pool right when he was being chased by a murderer in a swamp do let me know, I am at a loss). But it’s not just that. The whole “superficiality” reduces a lot of emotion that we feel ought to be present in the film to mere surfaces. It is clear that Miss Bless puts more emphasis on her looks than her character for example. Fine, cinematic history is full of characters like that. But that reduces the chemistry that clearly exists between her and Jack to a kind of Barbie-Ken type relationship. This is a tad unfortunate because they are supposed to be the most important characters in the film. And once we fail to empathize with them, the film is pretty much lost.

And another thing. The editing is clearly inspired from 80’s – 90’s tv shows. There are effects in there I haven’t seen on a screen for over a decade. I realised as a I watched, there was a good reason for that. Now, it may be one of two things, either it is meant to further insert us into the period, or, the editing is just doing “all it can” to draw attention to itself.  This is a valid cinematic point, you know, the whole nouvelle vague message of not getting immersed in the film, the conscious viewer and all of that. However, taken in context I find this improbable. When we look at films like Precious or The Butler (for the last one I’m basing myself more on the trailer than anything else of course), while the filming styles are quite different, the aim is very much to tell the story. And Lee Daniels’ The Butler is already being earmarked for the Oscars ® in some circles which definitely says something about how “out there” and philosophical it is. No, if there was a consistent philosophical aim, I’m sure we would have seen it before…  So maybe it’s one of those days where you’re torn between a few different items of jewellery and end up wearing them all… And looking like a Christmas tree.

So I reckon The Paperboy is very much a missed opportunity. And to me, a clear lesson that a story can easily become the victim of the visual. There is a whole philosophical debate in there somewhere on which is the true “heart” of cinema, but I’ll leave that for another post. There are only so many tangents a blog post can take. 

FOOD FOR DEEP THOUGHT FROM "DOGVILLE"

If you follow cinema news even at a most basic level, I am pretty confident you will have heard of Lars von Trier. The man has a bit of a reputation. He started a Scandinavian version of the neo-realist movement (but then was the first to disobey his own rules) and makes films that can be described as “strange” at best, from The Kingdom (whose filming and editing makes it hard to watch for all but those with the strongest stomachs – and I don’t mean blood and gore, I mean jiggling about) to the deeply symbolic and philosophical “Europa” trilogy that will leave you wondering for months if you get carried away… The America trilogy was one of his newest projects and Dogville made quite a lot of noise at the time of its release. Quentin Tarantino (a favorite of mine as you know) called it one of the greatest films ever made. I don’t know enough about films to be able to make such a strong comment but Dogville is without a shadow of a doubt one of the films that has struck me the most. Therefore, I am really excited about sharing it with you this week… Now, what is this two and a half hour long masterpiece about? Well, Lars von Trier claims that the point of the film was that evil can exist in anyone, that anybody is capable of evil… I must say that’s a strong and scary point to make, and von Trier has made a dashed good job of making it…
Dogville is the name of a town. Well, you would hardly call it a town really… It’s just a small street with a small bunch of rag tag people living on it really. The only one with any high moral ideals is Thomas Edison Jr. His father is the doctor of the area, so he has the luxury of being able to pursue a career as a writer. His major project is to “educate” Dogville. And it is just on such a night; Thomas is getting ready to explain to the townsfolk that they don’t know how to “receive gifts”. The self-same night, a young stranger, Grace comes to town. Now, Grace is in a bit of a predicament. There are some dangerous men, gangsters after her so going back to the big city isn’t an option. However, there is no way forward either seeing as Dogville is on a dangerous mountain ledge. So, Grace must stay in Dogville, if she is to survive of course. Now, the good citizens of Dogville are not quite sure what to make of this. She is a fugitive from gangsters, can’t go to the police, and cannot speak about her past for her own safety. She is prepared to work, but what work is there to be done in their humble shacks? For Thomas Edison Jr. this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his point and bring some morals to the town. So Grace, ends up staying. And with a little coaxing it turns out that there are some things to be done around Dogville after all, if Grace insists that is… Soon Grace has settled in, even getting wages for her labors… Until WANTED posters with Grace’s face on it begin appearing… The citizens of Dogville will, naturally, hide Grace. But they do not feel comfortable openly lying to the law. The price for Grace’s safety must go up… How far up it will end up, however, is anyone’s guess…
Dogville is a striking film in many ways. Not least because of the setting. Because there is no setting. The entire film takes place in what appears to be a large empty warehouse colored black. The houses, streets, plants and even animals are marked out on the floor with chalk. So, eerily enough, there are no walls. And in any one shot you can clearly see what is going on in the other houses (I found this aspect especially eerie not least because I often imagine or try to anyway, what is going on in other flats and other houses… In this world you can actually see it – we can anyway!) There is some furniture, but only the bare necessities. I mean, there are no doors on a lot of houses – the actors pretend to open and close invisible doors. There is even an invisible dog (you can, funnily enough hear him though). There is also no nature and no natural light. What light there is, is again not openly absent but the bare necessities. So, the one tool Mr. von Trier has to tell his story is his actors’ performances. A strikingly appropriate choice for a film intent on exploring the depths of the human soul…
And as for the exploration… Well, the argument as to whether or not we are all capable of evil or not do come up be it in philosophical contexts or day to day events… This film makes a remarkably clear point of proving this to be the case. I mean, if I told you the end of the film, out of context, you would probably not be able to understand how that happened. However, the slowly climbing tension, the enmity of the citizens of Dogville, an enmity that they themselves were not aware of at first that slowly seeps into the relationships and leads them all slowly, surreptitiously and inexorably to a rather horrible place… It’s that typical “we don’t like strangers round here” kinda small town hostility, so familiar from westerns, but multiplied and made real… More spiteful. At the very end, when the credits start rolling, von Trier makes a second point, superimposing Young Americans by David Bowie with a series of very striking photographs from impoverished American shanty-towns – towns just like Dogville - he makes the film into a commentary on the whole of American society… “Dog” ville, “Dog eat dog”, heartless capitalism and all that jazz… There is a lot more to say about the film but I’ll let you go on ahead and actually watch the film first…

A LITTLE BIT OF SADNESS : "RABBIT HOLE"

“I don’t think I’ll be able to watch this” said one of my ex-colleagues known for her sensitivity, “My boy’s about the same age, I just…” “Oh poo…” I thought to myself as I settled down to the film. “Motherhood hormones eh? Guess I won’t get it ‘till I am one too!” I had been, however, slightly too dismissive of Rabbit Hole. After having watched it I can tell you with a clear conscience that it comes with a serious, SERIOUS disclaimer: “This film will seriously upset you. Watch on a sunny day.” Something like this. And this without even particularly liking Nicole Kidman...
It’s all in the subject you see. It’s the story of Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckheart). A loving couple going through one of the toughest patches a couple can go through. Their four year old son chased his dog out into the road a few months ago and the unfortunate driver of a passing car was unable to stop, hitting and killing the little boy. Ever since, their world has been turned on its head. The members of the help group they attend try their best – there are veterans who have been attending for a VERY long time there after all – so does the family; Becca’s brother has also passed away, that’s why her mother has plenty of advice to give as she suffers from the same pain. However life goes on – painful but true – and Becca’s sister is actually pregnant now and is settling down with her new and rather eccentric boy friend. Friends are around but understandably awkward, and though Howie tries to deal with the pain as best he can, Becca seems to have simply lost the will to live… Will she be able to “rejoin the world” or is she lost for good?
Losing a child is undoubtedly one of the greatest pains one can experience in this world… And this film gives us a sense-numbingly realistic portrait of the tragic event’s effects on the parents but also on the unfortunate driver as well… I am not a massive fan of Nicole Kidman – as I have mentioned at the beginning of this post – and I generally find her rather cold and unable to convey feeling. Of course, this sentiment comes into its own in this film – Becca is, in effect, completely numb. Unable to connect, unable to experience anything except her pain. You would have to not have a heart (emotionally speaking) not to be touched (hence, she was nominated for an Oscar with her performance and good for her!). Aaron Eckheart portrays a completely different way of coping; he tries to get on somehow, maybe the healthier outlook. This is not necessarily because he cares less or feels less pain but because he feels the need to join the world somehow to avoid the pain inside… Will their relationship survive this ordeal and their two very different coping mechanisms? Will they themselves survive this grave trial? You will have to watch and see…
Rabbit Hole is a brave film that takes on a difficult topic that is “not on the beaten trail” so to speak, if only because of its grave nature… It is a film about tragedy, and also about how life goes on… And that this not necessarily always a bad thing…