A STEP BACK IN TIME TO AN UNEXPECTED PLACE: "CALL THE MIDWIFE"

I started watching this one out of curiosity more than anything else. I mean yes, we all know what a midwife does. We all know the appeal of medical dramas such as Casualty, Grey’s Anatomy, House M.D. etc. Seriously, could there be something untapped and original in there somewhere? Then again the BBC did seem to be on to something good here. I mean this was an actual true story (and you know what a soft spot I have for those. I call it having a sense of history. I strongly suspect it is more commonly known as being nosey. But I’ll let you be the judge of that move hastily on…  So I decided to check out one episode. Just to see what the fuss was about. I was instantly hooked. Now, in case you were also wondering, I shall attempt to explain to you guys what the fuss is about. J

Call the Midwife is based on the memoirs of Jennifer Worth who worked as a midwife through the 1950’s and 60’s in London’s East End slums. It beautifully records everyday life, the colourful characters and the many incidents all punctuated with the miracle of birth. When the newly qualified Jenny Lee first arrives at Nonatus House she isn’t quite sure what to expect. Especially since she was not aware that she would actually be living in a convent alongside a group of nuns – who also acted as midwives. Jenny Lee is slightly taken aback at her rather novel surroundings – be it the convent or the sheer poverty of post- WWII East London. But in time she comes to think of it as home and family. And along with her so, in a way, do we.

I have always thought that it must be particularly difficult to portray real people. I mean people who really existed. In writing the story, creating the characters for television or film, you have to keep the interest of the audience. But at the same time you can’t really afford to lose anything from the “realness” of the characters and events. It really must be a precarious balance. Especially in cases where the character portrayed is still alive. Even more so in a story like this. I mean think about it, it’s a story of London in the ‘50s. No gadgets, gizmos or special effects. There really has to be a large dose of something to make a successful television series – especially with so many “rivals” around.  I was especially interested to read the reaction of the daughters of Jennifer Worth to the series. Mrs Worth, it would seem, departed this world shortly before the series was broadcast. It turns out that her daughters really felt as if they were “seeing” their mother as a young woman, before they knew her. I think that is saying quite something, don’t you?

Well, Call the Midwife really and truly steps up to the plate. The characters and the stories are so incredibly warm, real and easy to identify with one gets swept up in a matter of minutes. It helps that, despite being set in a completely different era, the story largely revolves around an event that has, in its essence, remained unchanged throughout the ages:  childbirth.  Well, the event itself is unchanged of course, but the circumstances under which it happens have, it has to be said, has changed quite a bit. Yes, there are undoubted plugs for the NHS in the script, and you can think of that what you will. But the problems depicted – that are often, thankfully, no longer an issue – were very real at the time. 

A MODERN FAIRY TALE : "LETTERS TO JULIET"

I have to admit, I don’t, as a general rule, have the girliest of tastes when it comes to films. In fact, as you may have noticed, some of the stuff I really “root” for is positively boyish. However, this does not mean that I do not appreciate a really good romantic film about true love when it comes my way. Well, a good friend of mine and I have been meaning to sit down and have a girly evening watching this for a long time. In the end, it simply did not happen and I watched it on my own anyway. But I see her point. This is seriously “girly evening” material. And well, the weekend is nigh, if you have no other plans… I say go for it! (Sorry boys, you may have to sit this one out).

Sophie (Amanda Seyfried – her name meant nothing to me although I recognised her face, she has been in quite a few things lately, think Mama Mia! (another Sophie ironically) God that was a long parenthesis). Ok from the top. Sophie is a fact checker for the New Yorker. She is engaged to passionate chef Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal – one word. Yum) and they are getting ready to get married. They will, however, take one last “pre-honeymoon” to Verona. It’s the city of love and Victor needs to have a series of meetings with his suppliers. But more than that, it is the couple’s last chance to spend some down time together before hectic stuff such as wedding planning kicks in. At least that is what Sophie hopes. In reality however, Victor is completely in his element setting up deals for his restaurant and Sophie is well… Bored. So she takes to exploring the city and ends up in Juliet’s house. There she meets the “secretaries of Juliet” – well you know how that one works, right? Ok maybe not. So this is an actual thing, there is, as you probably know a “Juliet’s House” in Verona, supposedly the house the real Juliet lived in. At said house, women (mostly – though presumably men can too) can write letters to Juliet and attach it to the wall of the house, asking for advice about broken hearts, love and other such problems. Then the “secretaries of Juliet” collect these letters and write answers. Assuming you included an address that is. Anyway, so, Sophie who is already passionate about writing chips in and while helping discovers a letter that has been lodged in the wall, forgotten for 50 years. Touched by the story told in the letter, Sophie writes an answer, hoping against hope Clare (Vanessa Redgrave) will somehow receive her long overdue answer. Clare does receive the letter. And this is the beginning of a series of life changing events for everyone. But especially Sophie.

Ok so this is basically a story about true love. And about the timeless quality of love. But most of all, I reckon, it is about time. The film gently criticises our American (read modern) life style, where we are all attached to our smartphones, multitasking, doing five things at once and not allowing anything the time it is properly due in its own right. On the surface (rather unfortunately some might say) it makes a rather banal comparison of that lifestyle and the one in Italy. Oh you know. It’s different in the Med, rolling hills, sipping wine “they do it differently there, none of that rushing about” all that jazz. I mean it is true up to a point but honestly, I doubt Rome or Milan are any less busy then New York, seing as they are among the big business capitals of the world and all. But I mean it is a cute way to think about it I suppose – especially if you don’t think about it for too long or too deeply. Besides, I do agree that one has to stop and breathe every now and again, and it is so easy to forget to do that in the modern business world. But then, of course, there is love. True love. And the fact that it is timeless. A gentle reminder, perhaps, that things like love, friendship, life are all timeless. It is pointless trying to squeeze them into the little slots that we have broken our days into. One has to allow them their own time to grow and develop. And sometimes, we have to make a choice between “work life” (as we call it in Turkish) and life. I mean, one has to admit that one doesn’t usually have the luxury of going for one or the other, but you know. You can lean towards one or the other, certainly. And you should be very careful about which direction you lean in… If you get what I mean. 

ONE FOR THE MOVIE BUFFS : "BLOW-UP"

I have to be honest with you; this film was “homework” for me. You see, since I am now officially (and have been for a while in fact, by the time you read this article) a student of film studies, we get assigned “homework”. Oh it’s not obligatory of course, it is more in the form of a suggestion but this being a master’s degree, following your lecturers “suggestions” aren’t such a bad idea. I must say I found it hard to see the point of the film until the very, very end. And before you say anything, one of my flat mates – who also had to watch the film as “homework” for a completely different course and reason – agrees with me. But it does have a point, a good point, albeit hidden right at the end, up to you if you want to wade through 106 minutes to get to it. At least unlike some directors I could name you don’t wade through 3 hours of film and arrive at nothing. Antonioni being one of the old masters, he definitely has a point in mind and is not afraid to show it.
Thomas (David Hemmings)is a professional photographer. He is a bit of a celebrity in his field and lives quite a charmed, nonchalant life until a couple of chance snaps he takes one day unknowingly records a murder that was taking place. Thomas will not notice this fact until he develops the pictures and blows the relevant pieces up; and now, not only does he have to make sense of the pictures – and make sure his eyes and the lens are not deceiving him - but he also has to grapple with a mysterious woman (Vanessa Redgrave) who was also caught in the snapshot and has her own agenda as to what should happen to the photographs…
Now, this is, in all honesty, the story. I have not added a single fact. And reading something similar (albeit a good deal shorter) on the back of the DVD I thought I was in luck; we evidently had a crime – thriller on our hands. Err, no. The thing is, if it were a crime-thriller, the “point” of the film would be to expose the crime asap (preferably within the first 15 – 20 minutes of the film ) and the whole narrative would be structured around solving the afore-said crime. Here, the crime is exposed (as in, discovered, a good 40 minutes into the film and the rest of the narrative is very much focused on Thomas and his dilemma as to what exactly he has captured in the shots and what should be done about it. A lot of things happen seemingly for no reason at all other than to demonstrate Thomas’s character and his confidence in himself as an “artiste”. This confidence is shaken by his discovery of course and his subsequent reactions will reveal a lot about his own true nature and that of his trade. The “point” of the film is an “in-discussion” (as opposed to an in-joke, I mean this as a discussion a set group of people will be aware of but the rest of the world will be pretty much oblivious to) that will make sense to no one except either people who are actually working with film / photography be it in theory or in practice or possibly the hard-core cinephiles. In fact, the film is trying to make a very valid and serious philosophical point and you may find it very interesting to watch so don’t dismiss it off hand. But don’t go in there expecting an adrenaline rush either. As long as you have your “philosophical hat” on, you’ll be fine.

PERIOD PIECES : A TOUCH OF NOSTALGIA - "MRS. DALLOWAY"

The novel Mrs. Dalloway written by Virginia Wolf, is no doubt known to all of you. Well, at least you must have heard of Virginia Wolf. I keep threatening to read one of her novels but somehow never seem to get round to it. Not for a lack of opportunity, my grandmother has a collection of almost all her novels in the house but it just somehow never happened. I thus thought that this British adaptation with rather a stunning cast starring Vanessa Redgrave and my own particular favorite Rupert Graves (to be fair he technically wouldn’t be called starring but he is one of the main attractions as far as I’m concerned!), would motivate me into reading them. I was deeply moved by the film, but somehow also felt it could be done better… Hang on, let me tell you the story I’ll then elaborate on what I mean…
Clarissa Dalloway (Vanessa Redgrave) has had a successful life on the whole. She comes from a good family, she has “married well” to a then up and coming and now current politician. She is a member of high society who is renowned for her parties and grace. On the day we meet her she is preparing for just such a famous party and reminiscing fondly of her stormy youth. She had been quite a beauty with a string of suitors but one of them stands out in her mind, John. She had almost married him once, but that would have entailed going off to India and starting a new life, no, Mrs. Dalloway is better off as Mrs. Dalloway. That is, until John actually turns up at the house to visit on that same day. In the meanwhile, a young soldier Septimus Warren Smith (Rupert Graves) back from the front after the First World War, is suffering terribly from “delayed shell shock”. His young Italian wife is desperate, and Septimus, although quite clear in his own mind as to what he’s thinking , is growing more and more incoherent to others. Mrs. Dalloway’s peripheral brush with him and his desperate efforts to reconnect to a world to which he no longer seems to belong will take her to places in her own soul that Clarissa Dalloway had been trying to forget existed for a very long time…
I have one major problem with this film and it is this. The whole story of Mrs. Dalloway is superbly portrayed and acted. It is, as you have guessed, a story of opting for a safe and cosseted life over a life of discovery, adventure and very possibly true love. I find it quite beautiful that the regrets have arrived later in life; Mrs. Dalloway is in her early fifties. Her emotions, choices of youth and sadness are wonderfully painted and cannot help but touch you. Then there is the story of Septimus Warren Smith. Now this one rests chiefly on the shoulders of Rupert Graves and I must say his portrayal of the shell-shocked young man shakes one to the roots of one’s boots. He desperately tries to explain how he feels and why he has left his previous therapist to his new doctor but his metaphors have become so roundabout and his mostly negative emotions are so ready to boil to the surface, the doctor simply glazes over as he listens and pays no heed at all to the contents of his rather long speech. Both stories are stunningly emotional, but the way they connect is… I mean, they hardly connect at all. Only barely. Mrs. Dalloway barely is conscious of Septimus and his story – she doesn’t even know his name – and yet the little she knows almost upturns her… I mean, one could argue that with the visit from John in the morning and all the reminiscing and wondering about her own life has made her emotional but still… I found it contrived. And I strongly suspect bits have been “cut out” for the sake of the length of the film – the problem is that I haven’t actually read the book. I felt the film was rather untidily sown together, almost as if one had to choose one of the two stories, didn’t have the heart to discard either, and sort of hacked bits out of both for the sake of fitting both in… But it is a wonderful film, full of beauty and deep thought, a combination that one rarely finds these days…