FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD IN THE 21ST CENTURY

I have said this before and I will say it again, there is nothing quite like a good period drama. The sweeping skirts the high emotion, that sense of being transported to another world… Many are the cases where there isn’t much thinking needed – we are watching a thing of beauty, to be admired as the embodiment of a beloved tale but then set aside – except possibly to form mental pictures when we read the book itself if, like in the case of Far From The Madding Crowd, it was an adaptation.

This newest incarnation of the spirited young heiress Bathsheba Everdene comes at a very interesting time in cinematic history. Her current embodiment, Carey Mulligan, is a part of a very vocal part of a growing and high profile movement in the arts promoting equal pay and opportunities for women. Her next big film will in fact be none other than Suffragette, the story of the birth of the women’s rights movement in England. Unless you have actually been living under a stone, you will have heard something about how Viola Davis triumphed at the Emmys and you will have read something of her acceptance speech that underlines the need for more opportunities for actresses of colour . You might not think that a 19^th century novel taking place on a sweeping country estate is not the ideal place to start discussing women’s equality (except maybe to point it out as a terrible example). But those who are in the know will know, Bathsheba Everdene is not your average 19^th century heroine…

She is, in fact, a young woman of very modest means who is swept to the head of an illustrious country estate as an heiress  and fear not, the whole Deus ex machina nature of this is really, really not lost on me.  But this is not about her rags to riches story. It is more about what she does after she arrives at the riches. It is common to think of 19^th century heroines as faint hearted little things, all tight corsets and smelling salts, but Bathsheba is a definite exception. She is a canny businesswoman, excellent at managing her staff and brave in the face of the disapproval surrounding her. Her beauty and intelligence (and of course her riches) make her the catch of the area, soon suitors of all walks of life start openly courting her… Bathsheba  is her own woman, and has a lot of plans about her life – and becoming someone’s wife is definitely not among them…

What strikes one straight away is what a modern heroine Bathsheba is. Even in modern cinema and literature one struggles to find a heroine that is so much an active agent in her own destiny – so it is surprising to see a heroine from a hundred years ago putting modern heroines to shame. Carey Mulligan, it must be said, takes the role on with gusto and spirit. I can, at this point, barely imagine anyone else taking on the part. Another performer who has been highly praised is Michael Sheen or stars as one of her suitors, her neighbour Mr Boldwood – I honestly wish we could see more of him in the story but he has two other suitors to contend with so we must make do with relishing the sheer quality of performance over the comparative lack of quantity. One of the main suitors, Gabriel Oak, is brought to life by Mathias Schoenarts. Schoenarts is well suited for the handsome yet slightly sullen Farmer Oak, although – and I don’t  I can never decide whether he has simply been cast in a series of characters that find it difficult to display emotion or that the actor himself actually finds displaying emotion hard… 

A lot has been said on how pretty the film is, and I must agree. The stunning Kent countryside is a character of the film itself. And although there are some very poignant moments in the film where you are literally hanging off the edge of your seat, by and large, the film is beautiful. But not that deeply engaging. This is an unsurprising result of adapting a long and complex novel into a two hour commercial film intent on getting bums on seats (as is the want with all of show business).The resulting film is rather pretty but has lost some of its grit along the way. It is polished and a little too perfect – as if it is trying very hard to get all the requirements for a period drama correct so that we can focus on the more thought provoking aspects of the film. Or possibly so we can pardon them…

The problem is that the lack of grit makes the whole affair even less believable. The story loses some of its strength through sheer poise and grace. To give but one example, I would have wanted Gabriel Oak to have a bit more of a rant – not full-blown broken furniture but still something – when he realises that Sergeant Troys insistence on ignoring the approaching storm may well ruin them all. Similarly, in the scenes that follow I think Bathsheba could very well have made a bit more of a fuss (to put it mildly) as the details of Troys past come pouring out. I mean of course she reacts but it all feels very much single tear rolling gracefully down the cheek… It is as if marriage (minor spoiler alert) has deflated Bathsheba’s spirit overnight, making her very elegant but about half the woman she was at the beginning of the film. This change may well have taken place during married life but I very much doubt it would have happened within about a week of being wed…  

All told, Far From The Madding Crowd is enjoyable. Yes it could have been bigger, stronger, more. But what it has is still quite strong, elegant and graceful. It is an artistic choice at the end of the day – you could go down the route of underlining the feminism in the story and going for something more gritty, modern and realistic. But another choice is to hint at those themes and stick with the period drama routes of the production – it makes it the best of both worlds, edgy but just safe enough… Being a businesswoman, I am sure Bathsheba would have understood…   

HOPE, DESPERATION AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN : "THE GREAT GATSBY"

I was genuinely excited when I heard this film was being made. Especially since it was starring Leonardo Di Caprio AND Tobey Maguire… They are two of my favourite actors and The Great Gatsby is one of my favourite books. I was a little unsure of what I thought of Baz Lhurman directing it…  I mean don’t get me wrong, Moulin Rouge (the film he is the most remembered for as far as I can see) was beautiful but… Well it that was it really. It was beautiful. A film needs to be beautiful but in an ideal world it needs to have a bit more meat than that on its bones. And I have to say, the film (The Great Gatsby) has been lambasted quite badly by the critics, in some circles at least. I was eager to see what it was about – and have decidedly been stricken by the film – but I can’t say I blame the critics either…

Ok for those of you who aren’t big into literature, a brief summary.  Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is a budding author who has left his artistic aspirations to one side to sell bonds on Wall street. It is the 1920’s, the golden age of Wall Street and Nick is quickly swept up into a world of fast living and boozey parties (all this despite Prohibition of course). Nick’s head is turned by the glamour and glory that assails him for all sides but he is unaware – at least at first – that the true “place to be” in New York of the 1920’s is on his very doorstep. His neighbour, an elusive man called James Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who has seemingly never-ending financial means that he uses to throw the most spectacular parties New York has ever seen, week after week. Nick is drawn into these parties… But he is treated to something a little more than the usual guests: the confidences of Gatsby himself… Because although it may seem to the untrained eye that Gatsby is simply living a carefree and privileged life the way so many are, but in actual fact, Gatsby is a man with a plan…

Now first up: There is a reason this film was nominated for Oscars for Costume and Production Design. It is hands down one of the most beautiful films I have seen in a very, very, VERY long time.  Now don’t tut or dismiss this as “make-up” because it really isn’t as simple as all that. Gatsby’s whole mentality and whole struggle with society is based on that beautiful exterior. The fanfare, the trappings and, according to Tom Buchanan (the husband of the ill-fated Daisy)  marks him out clearly as a “nouveau riche”. The whole point is that, at the end of the day, Gatsby is “different” from all his party guests and all those stunning trappings are shams. Tom Buchanan sees this as a bad thing – the trappings hide a simple bootlegger and a crass man according to him… We however, through the eyes of Nick Carraway and Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan) see that while there is indeed, a different Gatsby under the trappings and fanfare – it is not as simple a matter as Tom paints it…

Or at least we should. I hate to say this, I really do. But this particular film does a STUNNING rendition of what Gatsby’s trappings looked like… And gets tangled up in them. I could plainly see the efforts to put that depth across but it’s just not working. What annoyed me the most about the whole thing was the way he got Nick Carraway to narrate over plot points that are made supremely clear through the actor’s performances. I mean I know that modern Hollywood does, from time to time, feel the need to take a neon sign and point at what we are “meant to be feeling” but the way Lhurman does it almost harks back to the “chorus” in Greek tragedies of yore. I fully realise that this is, in the end, entertainment and we don’t necessarily want the film to pose us mental puzzles that we work out over 3 or 4 viewings but come on… Leave something to the audience. I mean heck, leave something to the actors! Between the pomp and circumstance and the rather forced narration, in the 2 hours and 20 minutes of film there is surprisingly little room left to show the depth of character Gatsby truly possessed.  I mean ok, we are shown clips from his childhood where he is shown (literally) reaching for the stars; a cute if rather stock image, but is it really sufficient proof he had vision and ambition? It’s the same problem – a beautiful picture: a blond blue eyes scallywag reaching up into a beautiful starry sky – but it doesn’t really tell the story does it? I feel it happens to a lot of key scenes in the film. In so many places, all the emotions are put across in the most cliché way possible… Executed with grace and beauty but still, not one iota of originality; and that is such a strange thing to say about a film that has as stunning visuals as The Great Gatsby…  I guess the fact that the film is based on a book as emotionally “filling” as Fitsgerald’s classic just makes things worse. I wonder if that was why the narration bit was added? You know, a desperate attempt to capture that atmosphere of the book by actually reading sections from it.

I’m especially disappointed because the film was SO visually striking, I was actually under the influence of the atmos a day or two after I watched it… If it was only half as striking emotionally as it was visually we’d have a masterpiece on our hands. As such, it breaks my heart to say this, but it’s the victory of style over content… 

JUST TRYING TO SURVIVE "THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING"

I was worried about this film. I really was. Not because I thought it would turn out bad, on the contrary, I was rather afraid it would turn out very good. If you don’t know what I mean, you haven’t read the book. Those who have will understand why three hours of one of the most depressing books known to man, re-enacted by an all-star cast would seem a tad bit daunting. I was literally afraid of being pushed to depression. I am so very glad I watched it in the end; it was such a cinematic experience. I do need a cuddle though. And about six large boxes of chocolate.

The unbearable lightness of being is the story of Tomas (Daniel Day Lewis). And Tomas’ life is inextricably entwined with the lives of Teresa (Juliette Binoche) and Sabina (Lena Olin). Tomas is a brain surgeon living in Czechoslovakia in the 1960’s. When our story opens, he has a successful career that is rivalled only by his success with the ladies. But despite his steady string of girlfriends in the background he always comes back to his intensely sexual and passionate relationship with Sabina. This changes slightly (but only slightly) when Tomas runs into the naïve, childlike Teresa. She is very much a country bumpkin and embodies everything the women around Tomas have lost, such as purity and illusions. Tomas falls madly in love with her; they get married in a matter of months.  However one thing in Tomas’ life does not change. Even married, he still continues to return to Sabina, much to the distress of Teresa. But this is not the beginning of the woes of the couple as soon the USSR invades Czechoslovakia and a truly brave new world begins to unfold all around the country, the couple – and Sabina – barely escape Prague with their lives. But now there is a new problem. Now, apart from the fact that Tomas finds live so very “light” and can only live by drifting along and breaking hearts no matter how much he would love something to tie him down, the couple have been cut loose from every single root they ever had in their home country. It is a point of no return, and there is nothing on earth that can fix those teares, even returning to Prague…

I don’t quit know where to begin with this one. I’ll start with what I thought was the best about it; Juliette Binoche STEALS the show for me. I think she is BRILLIANT as Teresa. I really think she came into her own here, personally I never was that big of a fan of hers before. But no longer. She is a wonderful contrast with Lena Olin who is point perfect as the deeply passionate Sabina who is every inch a woman. My Mom will be disappointed to hear this but I had considerable trouble warming to Daniel Day Lewis as Tomas. It was only when I was actually writing these lines that I realised; that actually shows exactly how good Daniel Day Lewis was in this role. The whole point of Tomas is, after all, that he cannot be “attached to” as he is in a constant mode of detached floating, unable to connect. And quite beautifully, the two women could not be more different one from the other, but neither of them can truly “catch” Tomas. Some might argue that Teresa succeeds in a way, as they do end up married for the duration of the film, but ask yourself this. If Sabina had not “taken things into her own hands” towards the middle of the film (bending over backwards not to give spoilers away here) what would have changed in that triangle? Categorically nothing. Which is, possibly, the whole point of the film. It is, I think, the story is trying to draw a portrait of humanity among other things. Humans, their heads full of dreams of being settled and “settling” for something but constantly unable to do so and constantly being “acted upon” rather than being active in their own lives. Buffeted by other people, political systems and events. Just drifting – unable to set down roots… The difference of this story from a lot of others of its kind is that it doesn’t portray Tomas suddenly transforming into the active hero we want him to be deep down, if only so at least one of the women can find contentment and happiness  (I defy to be able to sympathise with just one of the women by the way). But Tomas ends up being buffeted around from pillar to post and then… Well I’ll let you discover what then, but suffice to say, he doesn’t turn into a shiny, polished Hollywood hero. Thank God.

And lastly of course, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. A particularly fascinating point in this particular work of art as it is based on the personal, first-hand observations of Milan Kundera, the writer of the book. Of course a book and a film are very difficult to compare as far as style goes, but I felt the film gave a very artistic, very brilliant rendition of the invasion, using various different mediums including Teresa’s photography (oh the nostalgia in me when I saw her old camera!) and black and white footage, not actual documentary footage of course but shot in the same style, giving it a further air of authenticity.

Life is, at the end of the day, about going places. Not always physically but also as a person, or simply exploring different sides of your own personality. This film will definitely “take you places”. You may not necessarily like every single place you end up in… But well… That’s life for you.  

REAL LIFE ONLY NOT QUITE... "THE MAN WHO SMILED"

You will have figured out by now, I imagine, that as a family we are rather partial to our crime dramas. This is why detectives of many different nationalities, ages and time periods parade regularly on our screens no matter where we are in the world. Well, I was indulging in this particular piece of “police work” the other evening when I realised, to my dismay, that I have not yet introduced you to Wallander.

I mean, maybe he needs no introduction as far as you’re concerned. But the thing is, I do enjoy the Wallander films/series so much that it is quite shameful he has not made an appearance here before. And I enjoyed this particular example of Wallender so much that I thought, you know what? I have to give him a spot this week. Because EVERYONE likes a good session of cops and robbers, right? Right?

In this particular episode, it all starts off pretty much like a routine if rather tragic accident that kills an old friend of Inspector Wallander’s.  Wallander is saddened by this, but to be fair they hadn’t been in touch for a while and there seems to be nothing “wrong” with the death so he is ready to move on. The victim’s son, however, is most definitely not. He is insistent that there is more to the death than would appear and implores Wallander to look into it, to no avail. Things start to hot up  (or cool down, depending on which way you look at it) when the son also turns up dead – and this time it is VERY clearly not an accident. It will quickly transpire, however, that this double murder is only the tip of a rather large and particularly unpleasant iceberg. Wallander is going to need all of his wits about him to truly take this case on. Which is why it is a crying shame his personal life – that seemed to be going so well -  is also taking up a rather large portion of his mind…

First of all, one footnote. This particular film is the Swedish adaptation of Wallander. This makes sense to my mind, because to the best of my knowledge the original series itself is also in Swedish and set in Sweden. I have always had the deepest respect for Scandinavian art and cinema (much to the horror of a lot of my friends and acquaintances, who find it insufferably sad). But my appreciation of their ability to write /film crime dramas has gone up recently. I mean think of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. I mean I grant you, the rest of the series didn’t, to my mind, match up with the first book but still, what a storyline, eh?

Anyway. To return more specifically to Wallander himself, I love this series – especially the Swedish version – simply because all the characters are so… Real. I mean you know there are two “basic” cop types. Either the cop is the charismatic if slightly dysfunctional hero, handsome and almost impossible to trick. Or he is a good, old-fashioned copper whose private life is an utter mess and is almost unable to function outside the walls of the precinct (think Dalziel for Dalziel and Pascoe). Wallander is something in between. And this is why I find him a lot easier to sympathise with. He is very much a real man, with real feelings and real issues. He acts like a fool, he makes mistakes but he can apologise and make amends too – or at least he can try. I think it is the Scandinavian penchant to keep things a lot closer to real life that makes me enjoy Scandinavian art so much. I mean, they don’t say the truth is stranger than fiction for nothing. Sometimes we are so busy escaping life that we don’t really make the time to truly observe and / or enjoy it. There is, of course, a subtle irony to the fact that I am writing these words under the review of a crime drama film which is one of my prime modes of escape from my day’s troubles…  But see, the film has a double function. It helps us escape our lives for a bit – but helps us think about it too. A non-escapist form of escapism, if you will. That’s my story anyway, and I’m sticking to it. Now, pass the popcorn.  

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REALLY STOP REVISITING THE PAST... "BRIDESHEAD REVISITED"

" If you asked me now who I am, the only answer I could give with any certainty would be my name: Charles Ryder. For the rest: my loves, my hates, down even to my deepest desires, I can no longer say whether these emotions are my own, or stolen from those I once so desperately wished to be." Put your hand on your heart and tell me that is not one of the hardest hitting opening lines you have ever heard in your life. I expected this film to be good. I also expected it to be a typical “Merchant Ivory” type period piece. You know, good quality stuff you can depend on and guess the outcome of. Well the outcome in this case is pretty clear as the story is told in flashback, but you pretty much bank on being able to guess how you got there. I was wrong. Oh God I was so wrong…

The above-mentioned Charles Ryder is an aspiring artist. When he utters these words he is approaching middle age, the country is in the throes of the Second World War and much of what Charles Ryder had before, in the way of prestige and happiness, he has lost. He is embittered and hardened now and this is the story of how it came about. Ever since his first year at Oxford, leaving a rather sad home where his widowed and disillusioned father makes not the slightest effort to make him feel wanted or loved, Charles’ fate is inexorably tied up with the aristocratic Flyte family. A chance (very chance) meeting with Sebastian Flyte, the youngest son of the family leads to a friendship Ryder is not likely to forget for the rest of his life. Now, as we all know, families are complicated things. When they work, they work very well, but if not, it can be hell on earth. And the odd thing is, society is such a thing that, the deepest, darkest holes can remain perfectly masked by social conventions, especially if you’re as high up the social ladder as the Flytes. Charles may dream of being like them, but really he has absolutely no idea what he is getting himself into…

This film taught me without a shadow of a doubt what the fuss is about love triangles. No, it is not the love triangle you think. It is a LOT more complicated than that. In fact, the last sentence pretty much sums up the entire film. I love this film because it does not offer any simplistic solutions. Nor does it offer up simplistic problems, as is typical with tragedies and dramas generally. If the film is over two hours long, it’s because, much like life, the problems the family has are so complex. And, even though the film is set mainly in the 1920’s, at the end of the day, they are so similar to the problems we have today. But that is the mark of a brilliant story is it not? Universal themes in local setting as it were. The Flytes may be aristocracy but they battle with matters like family rifts, upbringing, the concept of duty and the dark, dark fingers of the past reaching out to grip the three Flyte children, never giving them a hope to breathe freely. Religion comes into it, as does sexuality. So does social background. And the result? Not a grand tragedy, as a lot of mainstream films would have it, but a quiet pathos as the pain and darkness are, for another generation, safely tucked away behind social convention. And again, much like real life, the real pain comes from the fact that in the end, try as one might, there is very little one can do, if anything at all. Charles Ryder is about to come face to face with the true face of Brideshead, the home of the Flytes. And sometimes, all the love in the world cannot help a person break free from their past…

Apart from the realistic tragedy Brideshed revisited superbly portrays, a word simply must be said for the acting. Emma Thompson stars as one of the most memorably horrible characters I have seen. And yet, as tempted as one is to passionately hate Lady Marchmain, Thompson gets her just right, so we can’t fail to understand her either – even though we don’t really want to… And then there is Matthew Goode – Charles Ryder – who I had a niggling feeling I had seen before. I had. In A Single Man (as Jim, the partner who dies), along with Match Point and Watchmen among other things. Oh and then there is Ben Winshaw who plays Sebastian. I can confirm, yes that IS the guy who plays the new Q in Skyfall. Do your really need any more convincing folks? Just go watch the film already. This one is in my top 10 any day of the week. 

OF TELEVISION, REALITY AND OTHER LIFE AND DEATH MATTERS : "THE HUNGER GAMES"

Now I had my misgivings about this film, I really did. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I was always sure it would be at least moderately good. Hollywood has perfected this style of film over the years. Emotional ties, importance of family, loyalty etc., a beautiful yet approachable heroine matched with spectacular special effects. If all this is linked to an already existing franchise and comes with its own ready-made fan base, why all the better. Thing is, I suspected I might be a tad too old for it (anyone who knows me laughed outloud at that comment. I admit, coming from a family where my 90 year-old grandmother is a Harry Potter fan, this may sound a tad bit strange. ) But anyway. I sort of thought, you know what, this is probably for people at least 10 years younger than me. If not a bit younger. So I left it be, until that is, it started crossing my path repeatedly. “Oh fine” I said to myself “it’s a rainy Sunday afternoon, I’ll watch you if you insist that much”. Well, I have to admit, the tenacious little film had a point…

I guess you kinda caught onto the story through all the adds but I’ll give you a quick rundown in case you forgot. You may not be a fan. And it has been a while.

Ok, so in the far future, in a dystopian world where a lot has gone awry, people live under strict governmental control. The country is divided into 12 districts, all mainly responsible for the production of one product for the whole country. But see, this state of (relative) peace was not always the way things were. There was once an uprising, civil war no less, and this led to a bloody repression. Then, the wise men in the capitol decided that as a reminder of these sad events (and more importantly, so they never do it again) they would organise the following event. Every year, every district would select at random a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18. These 24 youngsters would go into the capital, to be placed in a highly computerised forest (I mean, I call it a forest but think “Truman Show”) where they fight, to the death, until one single victor remains.  This event is called “The Hunger Games”. The victor then goes on to be rich and famous and shake off, if they can, the trauma of what just happened. I mean, the film is good but not that original, as you can guess, our heroine, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is selected to represent her district (rather she volunteers to represent it in lieu of her younger sister who was initially selected), the poor, coal-mining district 12 (Germinal anyone? No? Ok…). Let the games begin!

Now this film has a lot going in its favour. And I mean, a lot. Originality, I’m sorry to say, ain’t one of ‘em. I could practically predict every beat from the beginning to the end. And this is not me showing off my film knowledge. Anyone who has watched a handful of Hollywood movies will be able to too. Besides, this is the first book of a series. The second film will be released in November 2013. It stars Jennifer Lawrence. Err, in that case, gee, I wonder who wins the Hunger Games in this film???

This however, did not stop me waving and yelling instructions at Katniss during the games. The special effects are both well done and well used. Yes there is a little too much emotional lather but well… You go into that kind of thing with your eyes open. You would be naïve NOT to expect it. And heck, sometimes one needs a touch of emotional lather. Besides, it’s an interesting consideration on TV shows and the celebrity culture today. I mean, think of all the reality shows we have parading around these days for a second. Naturally the Hunger Games are highly televised and most of the film painstakingly points out that our heroes are part of a TV show. True, we have the ones like “I’m a celebrity get me out of here” and all that. But at the end of the day no one is in real danger. It’s rather eerie to think what the ratings would be if people actually got killed off one by one. Oh yes, it’s horrific, it sickens me to think about it, but just imagine. If such a TV show existed. Just assuming for a second it somehow came into being, with no control from any kind of authority. How popular would it be? Would there be a public outcry? Or would the ratings sore through the roof? Take a minute to think about it… (One film attempting to consider this last question was Live! starring Eva Mendes. I watched it a while ago and remember thinking it could have done a lot better for itself - but it still could be worth checking out) 

OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF INFANTS : "THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PIJAMAS"

I had heard SO much about this film. I guess you will have figured this out about me right now; I don’t do films that are “immensely popular”. If I feel a film is becoming a fad, I do have a certain tendency to steer clear from it. Not because I don’t trust public opinion, I just… I don’t know, it’s my inner artist or something “not wanting to follow the crowd” I guess. That’s one thing. The other thing is, I guess I’m a little wary around holocaust films. I mean, there are SO many of them. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a lot, but the inevitable result of a large number of people crowding around a single topic is a lot of rather mediocre artwork. I mean , I’m sorry, but it’s true. Now, it has to be said that The Boy in the Striped Pijamas is not %100 original, in that all the themes it uses we actually have seen before. You might argue it was done better. But then again, this film takes it and uses it, adds on and adapts very, very well. And that is what artistry is largely about is it not? The adaptation and adding is just as important as coming up with an original story – especially in this world where truly original stories are becoming tougher and tougher to come by.

The Boy in the Striped Pijamas is the story of eight year-old Bruno (Asa Butterfield, who, it seems, is well on his way to becoming the acing phenomenon of the next generation. I didn't actually recoginse him at first but do the reasearch. He has been around. In a good way). He is the son of a high ranking SS official. He doesn’t quite understand what that means, but it seems that his father, along with other soldiers, is working hard to make the world they live in a better place. And that can’t be a bad thing. Bruno is very sad when his parents inform him that they will have to move out of Berlin. Bruno is very sad to leave his friends and his familiar routine behind, but the countryside soon begins to afford other occupations for him. One thing  that piques his interest more than anything is the “farm” they can see from the top bedroom windows. Some of the “farmers” who work there come to the house to run errands sometimes. Bruno thinks they’re a little odd, especially since they seem to wear pyjamas the whole time… His parents tell him he is strictly not allowed to talk to these people, but kids will be kids. Bruno strikes up friendship with a little boy his age called Shmuel. Bruno just wants a good friend to play with, and pass the time. Their friendship, however, will have consequences far beyond even his active imaginations wildest imaginings…

Of course you got the film I was talking about : Life is Beautiful. The classic that “made” Roberto Begnini. And my goodness, what a classic. It is so important to return to the innocence and sense of discovery innate in the soul of a child to take a fresh look at what we’re doing from time to time. Especially in the face of horror such as the Holocaust, not least because we are all pretty much in the face of something we have never seen before amazed and horrified. The thing about Bruno is though, his family do their level best to keep the evil from him. To prolong his and his sister Gretel’s innocence, they use every single trick they know but in the end, to no avail.

The film is touching in so many ways. It shows how the different family members do their best to cope with what is in effect a very stressful and upsetting situation. I mean even the father, who is the default “bad guy” by the end of the film can be understood. I honestly don’t know how I would react in his shoes either to be fair. But we should keep that discussion for after you have watched the film. The Boy in the Striped Pijamas is another striking testament to how miserable war really makes every single one of us. And that no matter how hard we try to escape it or block it out, it will come crawling through to our lives. The only way to stop it is to stop war completely, but well… That seems to be a lesson this planet isn’t quite ready to learn yet… 

THE NAME OF THE ROSE

Confession time. This is one of the rare cases where I actually decided to watch the film instead of reading the book. Umberto Eco is a great writer. The book is a great book. I just couldn’t read it for some reason. My mother faithfully proclaims I probably was not in the mood for it. It could be true. And I should probably try and read the book again someday if only because it is such a classic. Oh, and because I enjoyed the story so much. With a director like Jean Jacques Annaud (whose filmography is short but consists of films like L’amant, Seven Years in Tibet and my particular favourite, Ennemy At the Gate) and starring Sean Connery no less, the film is a fine substitute. But I come from a family of academics you see so… Ehm. Moving on.

It is the year 1327, and the political atmosphere is tense. There is a rift between the catholic church and the various religious orders, especially the Franciscans monks, on the matter of whether or not the church should actually rid itself of wealth or not. The matter will be decided in a debate between representatives of both sides in a Benedictine monastery – neutral ground as it were. The thing is, the monastery is playing host to rather more sinister happenings than the debate. Days before the debate is about to take place, a murder, which turns out to be the first of a series of murders, takes place in the monastery. As the unexplained, violent deaths pile up, the monks are convinced that true evil roams the monastery and that the end of the world is nigh. One monk, William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) one of the Franciscans who had arrived for the debate disagrees. He is pretty sure the murders can be explained in a lot more worldly and logical fashion, however proving this – without causing a massive political scandal in an already tense atmosphere – is going to be tricky. Very tricky.

Now, as I said, I am not sure about the book. The film however, has a “double layer” thing going on. There is a very interesting debate about religion and the church, although this does not become evident in the film until the second half, when more of the Franciscan order and the representatives of the Vatican get together. It will ultimately tie into the finale of the film and play a large part in the conclusion but it is not first and foremost. I think this is a good thing, especially in this day and age when religion is such a touchy subject. The film reels you in, in the first half, with a good old fashioned murder mystery, with a good old fashioned protagonist /detective at the helm, looking for the murderer. And the whole mystery is so well set out that honestly, by the time you get to the religion part of things you are just too curious about the whole story to get completely disinterested with it. William of Baskerville is my favourite kind of detective. I admire him especially because, unlike the CSI’s of present day murder mysteries, he is NOT armed with a plethora of technical gadgets, just his mind, his rationality. And the explanations he finds make complete rational sense. They are actual things you could see with your own eyes. Unlike, for example, the modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes (the Benedict Cumberbach – Martin Freeman version). Now, there as well Sherlock Holmes uses almost only his mind. But he has to be a genius and a bit of sociopath to achieve what he achieves. Martin Freeman’s Watson sets this off very nicely, you cannot be a normal person, no matter how bright and well educated, and achieve what Holmes achieves, you have to be special. Not so with William of Baskerville. He is observant, yes. Intelligent, yes. Well read, definitely. But by no stretch of the imagination is he “superhuman” like Holmes. You could actually aspire to be him. And this makes him far more approachable and easy to identify with. We even have the character of Adso – his novice (a very young Christian Slater!). Adso is learning, a bright lad with faults like the rest of us. He serves the purpose of “being explained to” in our place from time to time, but also, we can easily identify with him too. And aspire to be like Baskerville one day.

Lastly, can we see this as “the victory of the mind and the rational over the superstition of religion” as it were? Why yes. But what is the fun of a philosophical debate if it isn’t meaty enough to chew on? And I mean, come on, there’s a juicy murder mystery thrown in too! How can you possibly resist?

AN ADVENTURE WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR: "THE HOBBIT : AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY"

I am not going to even pretend to be objective about this one. I, like many other diehard fans, have been waiting for it for a long, long time. Like a lot of said fans, I watched the film within days of it being released to cinemas. I intend to see it a few more times. The same way I did with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. So if you’re expecting an honest critique of Peter Jackson’s cinema, boy oh boy are you at the wrong post. Oh come on. Be a love. I am brutally honest in a lot of stuff I write. I’m allowed to rant and rave about a film or two. Besides, at the end of the day, who can say their opinions are completely objective? We are all shaped by our own personal experiences in life and have our own subjectivities and… Yeah. You get the picture ;)

So, this, as you know (probably) is the first film in the trilogy that will make up The Hobbit trilogy. I am not about to tell you the story in complete and utter detail, the chances are you already know it off by heart (ehm) or  don’t mind just finding out at the cinema when the time comes (in which case, I really don’t know what to do with you). Basically, The Hobbit is the story of the discovery of the Ring that will form the backbone of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is the story of Bilbo Baggins (played by Martin Freeman, one of my favourite actors EVER) who first went on an “unexpected adventure”. The main aim was to help a dwarf prince and his loyal band reclaim their fatherland. This, as you can imagine, is not a straight forward matter to start with. But then, just as they finally escape the lair of the Orcs, a mysterious ring makes its way into Bilbo’s possession. The first film leaves off at this point, but as you know, this is the sinister beginning of a whole different can of worms.

I can promise you one thing. I have heard this from complete novices to the franchise and from purists much stricter than myself alike: it just flies by. Logic coupled with all the time measurement devices known to man tell us we have almost spent three hours watching the film. I would happily watch a second Hobbit film at least that long without stopping. The story combined with the effects creates a universe so engrossing that you are just sucked in. It is a wonderful opportunity for escapism for all my fantasy junkies. And this is also a brilliant opportunity to get introduced to the genius of Tolkein if you haven’t already done it.

Cinematically of course, Peter Jackson is completely and utterly the man for the job. He is the number one name I think of when I think of epics, films on a grand scale. People criticise him about a lot, from being shallow to combining and mismatching concepts. I think, although some of the criticisms may have a foundation, he is overall a brilliant entertainer. And this is why he has done such an amazing job with The Hobbit. And of course, the acting. Martin Freeman is getting a bit typecast I feel, as the “everyman” that, bewildered and quite unwilling, gets pulled into an unbelievable adventure. But I also feel that this ability to portray this role “makes” a lot of films too. Think about it, who is he representing as this “everyman” swept off his feet? Why, us of course! The audience! The people who, quite literally, walked in off the street to watch the film. Suddenly, we are grabbed out of our everyday lives and immersed in a world of fantasy. Now, our immersion is metaphorical (or psychological. Not sure which concept goes better to be honest) and Mr Freeman is often, if not always, physically immersed in his adventures. But he reacts exactly in the way we probably would have. And having such a wonderful “representation” of ourselves on the screen in front of us immerses us in the film even further.

And lastly, but my no means least; I cannot possibly close this entry without saying a word or two about the AMAZING Sir Ian McKellan. I read somewhere while the film was still in production, that Sir Ian actually broke down and cried from frustration on one of the sets because he was actually the only “live” person in the scenes and he had to act with a lot of his companions being represented by tennis balls on sticks, later to be “converted” into real people. I read in the comments to this article that “oh he’s old, he should “get with the new generation”.  Oh I could not disagree more. His true talent lies in his ability to adapt and change. It seems he was frustrated; he was pushed to his limits. Yet in the finished product, he is Gandalf as we all know him. He pulled it off. Could a younger actor be so versatile? I doubt it. This kind of thing does have a serious amount of experience involved. So the moral of the story is people, don’t be ageist. Respect your elders.

But first, if you haven’t already, PLEASE go see The Hobbit. It is definitely an adventure you will not forget in a hurry. 

FRESH FROM THE TELLY : "A YOUNG DOCTOR’S NOTEBOOK"

Ok, here we go. As promised, I am keeping up with the more up to date stuff (a New Year's resolution as you can imagine) - and keeping you guys up to date with it, more to the point. Now, at first glance, this series seems more like a comedy than anything else. Studded with big names like John Hamm and Daniel Radcliffe and advertised, on one of the bigger TV channels here in the UK (I’ll name no names but if you have eyes and live in the UK you know which one I mean. The ads are literally EVERYWHERE). All that and the trailer, showcasing the funnier, more surreal moments made me think it was a sort of sit-com or something like that, about the naïve young doctor trying to get used to small-town life. Having lots of funny adventures. Going on to find true love, meaning and success here. *Yawn*.

But then, you see, a teeny bit of information caught my eye while perusing the net. Based on the short stories by Mikhail Bulgakov (author of The Master and Margarita among other classics). Err hang on a minute. Bulgakov’s books and stories can be categorised as many things. “Difficult to read” may well be the foremost among these categories. Material ideal to be made into flippant sit-coms, is almost certainly not one of them. Hence my decision to give them a spin. Needless to say, I was hooked from the end of the first episode onwards. Allow me to try and explain why.

Ok, so my rather snooty overview of the storyline has an element of truth in it. Yes, it is about a young doctor, Vladimir Bomgard (Daniel Radcliffe), a rather brilliant young doctor at that, whose first assignment it is to run a small rural hospital in the middle of nowhere in Russia, 1917. The first clue that it will not have the “fluffy” ending I outlined for it though comes in something very basic: this is a mini-series, only four episodes long. And each episode is about 25 minutes long. So, this has to be a hard-hitting story that puts across a lot of “stuff” in a short amount of time. And it does. You see, it becomes very clear very quickly that the story is told by way of remiscence, as it were. The older Dr. Bomgard (Jon Hamm) comes across his old diary and thinks back on his early days as a doctor. But such deep plunges into the past often are, as you can guess, a way of escaping from the present. So what, pray tell, is our Dr. Bomgard trying to escape from? And would he do better to stay in the present and face it?

If you’re in any way familiar with Bulgakov, you will be able to guess that, funny as the story may seem in the beginning, there is, from the word go, a deep, dark and “unpleasant” undercurrent. I especially love the way this side of the story shows itself – but only very briefly – in the first episode and get progressively more prominent, until it dominates completely in the fourth and last episode. The progression of Bomgard’s state of mind is very, very well given. On the other hand, there are of course, many little elements of comedy, offset by some rather brilliant acting, based around the young and inexperienced Dr. Bomgard (whose name, I realise in retrospect, we never actually hear in the series!). And the quality of the cast – not just the star names, but the entire cast – allayed any doubts I had about the film being a little too “sit-com”y. On the contrary, the young Vladimir Bomgard is a chain-smoking, ill-shaven bag of nerves who yearns for his life back in Moscow. Not any kind of cliché you could imagine, but a very real man. A contributing factor to this feeling may well be that the stories are semi-autobiographical – Bulgakov actually trained as a doctor.

In short this one is something familiar, good quality and interesting but with just that hint of the extraordinary to make you sit up and pay attention. I was seriously impressed. And I’m pretty sure you will be too.  

STEP INSIDE YOUR OWN MIND : "LIFE OF PI"

Ok, confession time. I was so impressed by this film, and I mean, so SERIOUSLY impressed that it played a large part in my delaying the update for a day. My sincere apologies. But it was so good, I literally couldn’t wait a whole week to talk about it. And, ok, credit where it’s due, I did have a reasonable amount of time to write the entry. That’s when the turkey and potatoes got in the way. And I actually had other posts ready but… You see… Come on though. I know you’ll forgive me. It’s Christmas. And besides, it’s Ang Lee. He just happens to be one of my favourite directors.  And this film soared to the top ten of my favourite films ever almost the second I finished it; all this without reading the book at all I might add.

Life of Pi is the story of many things. Life, religion, philosophy… It is one of those stories that you can make whatever you feel it should mean. This is actually rather strange, because on the surface it doesn’t seem to be one of those stories at all. Pi is a young boy of 16 when he is shipwrecked. He is lucky enough to find himself in a lifeboat with supplies enough to keep him going for a while at least. However, he is not alone on the boat. A large and vicious Bengal tiger, part of the ship’s cargo, has also made its way onto the lifeboat… Pi must now attempt to survive being shipwrecked in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a Bengal tiger and, maybe the most frightening aspect of all, being completely and utterly alone with himself…

Ok, first of all, the film. I mean, wow. The film is stunning, first and foremost as a film in itself. Lee is, as you may know, a master at creating and conveying dream-like “film worlds”. He does not fail here. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that the visuals of the film alone will ensure you leave the cinema mildly – if not completely – stunned. This is also a good example of using the CGI in an understated way. Here, yes most things are computer generated. However, no big explosions, no dragons, nothing is overdone. I mean, the realism of the film is to the degree that, the rest of the family was in some division over whether some bits were actual photography or not. It is my professional opinion that most of it was not but I can’t help but be impressed. You can actually use computers to make “fake” images look almost better than real life.  And if that isn’t something to think about, I don’t know what is.

But of course, this isn’t the only “thing to think about” the film provides. As you can imagine (or perhaps already know as I seem to be literally the only person on the planet who hasn’t read the book yet) the book is, more than anything else, an invitation to consider some of the most important philosophical questions in life. As the story unfolds, the number of possible interpretations also grows and we are, at the end of the day, left alone with ourselves, much like Pi, to consider what really happened. And please don’t be put off by the concept of “philosophising”. It is not that kind of film at all. It will draw you in gently and almost despite yourself. I mean, trust me, even if it isn’t normally your thing, you won’t be able to help thinking about it.  Come on. Step right in. You know you’re at least curious by now. 

RE-VISITED : "THE GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATOO"

I understand. With a best-selling series and more than one film adaptation floating around one needs to specify a tad-bit more which one I’m talking about. It’s the 2011 film adaptation directed by David Fincher that I want to look at this week. Now, at the time, I was a little bit pissed with this film. Well, mainly because there already was a Swedish adaptation. This kinda made sense, seeing as this is a Swedish book and all. Does Hollywood have to go poking its nose in and re-adapting every little thing going? Not necessarily. But credit where it’s due. I haven’t seen the Swedish version (yet) but Fincher has definitely done one heck of a good job. Then again, I would say that, he’s one of my favourite directors ever. Before I get any further with my rant, I’d do well to put some reasoning behind that sentence methinks…

So, for those of you who missed it, this is a story of skeletons in the closet and deception spanning decades. Michael Blomkvist is a renowned journalist. However, he is not having the best period of his career, as allegations he has made against a powerful businessman have turned out to be false, ending in him being dragged through courts and losing almost all his life savings. In the midst of all this however, he is offered an unlikely lifeline. Old-fashioned family patriarch Henrich, head of one of the most powerful family businesses in Sweden contacts Blomkvist. He has a personal assignment for him. Years ago, 40 years ago to be precise, his great niece Hannah has disappeared. Quite suddenly and with no trace whatsoever. Henrich is dying. And he is convinced his great niece is dead. But he wants Blomkvist, who has proved himself as an above-average investigator before, to look into it. Blomkvist begrudgingly accepts and teams up with the anti-social yet supremely talented hacker / investigator Lisbeth Salander to uncover secrets that have lain hidden for over 40 years. It may have been wiser to leave some secrets where they were…

Now, the story, I cannot find fault with. Lisbeth, the unlikely heroine of this series is a brilliant character, the epitome of an anti-hero if there ever was one. And honestly, there are not enough anti-heroes about for my liking. Even fewer “anti-heroines”. Blomkvist is a bit bland but realistic. You know, believable – which often is more than can be said for a lot for a lot of characters in this kind of story. And the story… I mean wow. I have seen a few detective / crime stories in my time but this deserves to be among the classics. It is both imaginative and exciting.

However the problem I found with the book is that well… Not to speak ill of the dead – the author of the book – but I really, really don’t think he could write well. I mean the story, the concept was great. But the book was far too wordy. Full of descriptions and explanations that were just… Well, surplus. That led nowhere. The book was full of good intentions but way too… Crowded.

Fincher has put an end to that problem. Quite unlike the book, the film cuts back on words and concentrates on visuals. And you know what Fincher is like with this kind of thing. Striking pictures, ominous, an underlying sense of danger. And silence. For anyone who has read the book, this fits S much better with Lisbeth’s character, don’t you think? Having been cut back and streamlined, the film flows like silk. And succeeds in putting your heart in your mouth within minutes. I knew the whole story and still I loved it. I seriously hope you don’t miss this one!!

MY NEW OBSESSION: GAME OF THRONES (all of it)

Ok, I know. I generally do not “do” series. I have been chastising myself about being not “artistic” enough. But I have to do this, I really do. I got into Game of Thrones pretty early. First season. I watched a single episode and I was hooked. Completely hooked. Not only did I watch all the episodes with semi-religious fervour, I failed to withstand the withdrawal and started on the books as well – something I never do. My boyfriend is still sticking to “doing one or the other” and therefore is starting on the books but is steering clear of the series – for now. For now.

I know that anyone who hasn’t categorically been living under a stone has dipped their toe in this and made their judgement but then again, there are quite a few who have not. And I want to get those stragglers. Because seriously, you have no idea what you are missing.

Now, the story of Game of Thrones is a little hard to qualify and explain. Honestly. It is convoluted, complicated and nail biting. It takes place in an alternative universe, in a world where knights and chivalry still exist, as do magic and dragons. But men are still, fundamentally men. And that means things like politics, intrigue all still exist. The story starts with Eddard Stark, a man of honour and justice, becoming “hand of the king” – his Prime Minister if you will. Eddard does not want this rise to power but the king is a childhood friend he cannot refuse. And just as he suspects it will, his new position means the discovery of many secrets, secrets Eddard simply cannot ignore. Here the story begins but wither it goes, discover for yourself. I might add at this point, in the spirit of a tagline, that so many thousands of people simply cannot be wrong.

I mean they can. But not in this particular instance. The good thing about this series that it casts its net really wide. I mean, there is just about enough chivalry and magic to assuage the fantasy fans but at the same time these are, in a sense, incidental. The main bulk of the story reads like a political intrigue basically. It’s just that the political backstabbing takes place in more Medieval times. Oh and the stabbing can sometimes take quite a literal sense. I have watched this series with bated breath, the cliff-hangers are absolutely first class and the acting, the general artistic performance, well... Suffice to say the whole thing carried me away so much that I had to invest in the books and then read them to find out what happens next. Now that, is saying something. 

TRUE PASSION IS TIMELESS : "MADAME BOVARY"

Say what you will. My theory is that deep down inside, we all like costume dramas. It’s just a matter of how cool you want to look. I know it’s not considered “in” to like costume dramas but still. The often luxurious settings, the romance, the passion, the emotion… I mean of course, it has to be a good adaptation say the BBC or some-such good quality production company, any old thing simply won’t do. But when it’s well done, I feel there is nothing better than soaking up the emotions and the atmos of a good old-fashioned costume drama. And come on. Clever quips and depth of meaning are important, but passion… Now that’s something we all need in our lives on a regular basis. And you can ask Emma Bovary if you don’t believe me.

A lot of young women in Emma’s place would be grateful for a man like Dr Charles Bovary crossing their path. She is an orphan and a convent girl with very little knowledge of the world or much in the way of prospects of rising a lot in society. Until, that is, Dr Bovary not only crosses her path but falls madly in love with her and proposes to her. The one thing Emma wants out of life is passion. She wants love, she wants excitement she wants, above all, the glow of the big city. As far as she is concerned this marriage will be the first step to all of this. She is proved sadly wrong. Dr Bovary is every inch the country doctor. And although he worships the very ground Emma treads on, passion and adventure are not at all high on his list of priorities. Sadly disappointed in her new life, Emma starts looking for adventure elsewhere. This much may not have been a problem if her search wasn’t accompanied by a steadily mounting debt at the hands of the wily and ruthless merchant Lheureux. As Emma digs herself deeper and deeper, both emotionally and economically, her chances of survival seem to get slimmer and slimmer. Unless, of course, sheer determination and strength of character can actually save her.

First of all, a touch of disambiguation as there is an absolute ton of Madame Bovary adaptations out there. I am talking about the BBC adaptation of the novel as a miniseries. It’s starring Frances O’Connor as Emma and Hugh Bonneville as Dr Bovary. It was nominated for both Golden Globes and BAFTAs. And it is a very worthy adaptation, both of the company and of the awards it was nominated for. The acting is absolutely top quality, the cinematography something quite impressive (director Tim Flywell has got quite a few very striking shots in the film) and the art direction, well… Just takes you right back to the 19^th century. I used to have the impression that Emma Bovary was a bit of an air-headed teenager (to be fair I hadn’t read the book) and I put the DVD on simply as an accompaniment to my dinner. I ended up going through and watching the whole 2,5 hours of it in one setting. The series does a brilliant job of exposing Emma’s true drama  - and Charles’s too. In short, it’s wonderful, full of passion – just as Emma would have wanted – and a perfect chance to indulge your inner romantic (go on, you know you have one)… Preferably watch with tissues. And chocolate. 

A SCARY VISION OF THE FUTURE : "NEVER LET ME GO"

I want to get one thing out of the way straight off the bat; neither the characters nor the setting in this film (and the book it was based on) have anything whatsoever to do with the orient. It was written, however by Kazuo Ishiguro, Japanese writer of great renown and Booker prize winner (for his acclaimed novel Remains Of The Day). It is something in the way the whole book is written that makes me put the film in the “mythical orient”; it is not so much something concrete but an emotion, something in the air, in its whole state of being. Plus, as you know, the Japanese are the masters of sci-fi and things like alternative futures and dystopias; so just based on the subject matter, I think Never Let Me Go is in the right category…
Imagine a world were cancer is a distant dream. Human life expectancy is now in the low three-figure digits, sickness and pain are all but eradicated. Sounds like paradise? It may be for some… But for all the other people on the planet to benefit from these great advances, some must suffer, they must die very young, and get no more than a look into the wonderful things life has to offer… Never let me go is the stories of these people in this dystopia; we follow their lives, loves, dreams and ultimately their deaths as we are faced with some ethical and moral questions that we very well may need to ask ourselves if not now, sometime in the not terribly distant future…
I don’t want to give too much of the story away. The one problem I had with the film was that it spared the viewer the emotional impact of “realization” (You will have noticed that I have obviously concealed something from you in the previous paragraph). The book starts like a completely different genre; a period piece. You have an inkling something is not as it should be and the truth is not openly uttered until the middle of the book. Until that point you only have hints and clues and a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach coupled with the phrase “It couldn’t be… Could it?” Now, fair is fair, it would be tough to give that kind of suspense and surprise in a film… So what the film does is just cut to the chase straight off the bat and take the story from there. Within five minutes you will have a good idea what the second rather murky paragraph was all about. And I simply have to comment the genius and originality of the Kazuo Ishiguro’s story; it is one of those topics that we push to the backs of our minds now, but they are there, sitting waiting… We very well may have to face up to them some day. The things I’m talking about are not pleasant; but then again adult life sometimes has very little to do with what you find pleasant and what you don’t…
Artistically the film was good. Even though for me personally the brilliance of the book overshadowed the film slightly, I can’t actually fault the film either. The young cast made up of Keira Knightly, Andrew Garfield (The Social Network, The Imaginarium of Docor Parnassus) and Carey Mulligan (An Education) are faultless in their performances. Never Let Me Go takes place in an alternative reality very similar to yet completely distinct from our own and I have to say that the air of eeriness and “something is not quite right” is well rendered. My only criticism would be that – and I do admit I may be a touch biased – the book struck me terribly and really affected me deeply. With the film, although it is intense in pieces the inevitable love story has been given a little more weight than in the novel and the “condition” of our heroes does not strike one as clearly as one might have expected… Nevertheless, even if it is the “light” version in comparison to the book you will be struck by it and it will give you a lot to think about… Yes indeed, medical advances can be scary things…

A STEP BACK IN TIME - AND TO THE ANIMAL KINGDOM "FANTASTIC MR. FOX"

One thing I must confess: I love the fact that cartoons are no longer only geared to kids. I think there are quite a few of us who are well over 18 and either openly or secretly enjoy watching animations of various forms, be it the Simpsons to Japanese Anime. I mean, it’s the best form of escapism if you think about it… Technology in the olden days only allowed so much but now… Entire worlds and universes can be created with the flick of a computer (so to speak). You can just kick back and vanish into the new world for 90 minutes (or however long the film is) and forget the cares of the day… Now, I love the works of firms like Pixar for instance. They are, no doubt, the absolute rulers of the computer animation world. But Disney, once the ruler supreme of the “imaginary” world, are not lagging far behind. And last year they came up with a film that filled me with warmth, excitement and nostalgia to the cockles of my heart, because it was the animation (finally!) of one of my favorite, FAVORITE books as a little girl: Fantastic Mr. Fox….
Mr. Fox (voice of George Clooney) is a typical fox. He is a professional chicken hunter and damn good at it too. He is married to Felicity Fox (voice of Meryl Streep) and have a happy and fulfilling marriage. Mr. Fox is good at his job, but Mrs. Fox has a piece of news that is going to push him to reconsider: She is pregnant. So, Mr. Fox stops his thieving ways and gets a safer job (columnist in the Animal Gazette). Their son is born, Mr. Fox is successful and they even move to a larger house (in a large birch tree). In short Mr. Fox has everything his heart could desire, except… Well, adrenalin. Temptation presents himself in the form of his human neighbors, the rich and unpleasant farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean. With the large farms so nearby, Mr. Fox simply can’t resist “one last job” to the farms, to get some juicy chickens, geese and cider among other things. However he has not factored in the endless greed of the farmers. To his horror, they will band together in their effort to sniff him out and kill him, putting the entire forest – all his friends and neighbors – Mr. Fox must use every ounce of his wits and cunning to save the forest – not to mention his marriage…
It is a rather rare occurrence that your tastes in reading when you were a child continue into adulthood (unless you are some sort of child prodigy and kick the whole thing off by reading Tolstoy in the first place). But in one particular instance, for me, this has been the case. Two words for you : Roald Dahl. If you have not heard of it I highly recommend his adult short stories, I guarantee you they are like nothing you have read before. But as we are all about animations this week I want to go a little further back on the age scale. From Charlie and the Chocolate factory to James and the Giant Peach, nearly all the “majors” by Roald Dahl have been dramatized (for good reason!) and Fantastic Mr. Fox is the latest. I am so, SO glad this was done now rather than later. Because this has definitely become an animation for adults (or rather, adults as well as children). There are, I have to admit, quite a few things that were not in the original children’s book, but Wes Anderson (the director) and Noah Baumbach (who helped him write the screenplay the credits inform us) have kept the spirit of Roald Dahl to a “t”. As a fan at any rate, I highly doubt he would have minded…

PERIOD PIECES : A VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY - "MAURICE"

I feel very strongly about this film. To the point that I would be seriously upset if people I care about professed a dislike to the film. True enough one of the leads in it is Rupert Graves, one of my favorite actors ever of all times, but even that is only part of the story. See, I try to view a film more as the characters not actors – if you see what I mean. In this film for instance it’s more about Alec Scudder (the character) than Rupert Graves, the actor who plays him. The story (more power to E. M. Forster) is one of the most profound love stories I have ever witnessed, it touched me to the core, it is without a doubt one of those few films I will go back to over and over again as the years go by, just for the pleasure of re-viewing it (and I hardly EVER re-watch films I have already watched just for fun. Unless I am being polite or something like that, that is…). It is not as well known as Brokeback Mountain, but it did get nominated for Oscars® and the two leads Hugh Grant and James Wilby shared the Best Actor award in the Venice film festival back in the day, so I have quite a few strong voices backing me up…
Maurice Hall (James Wilby) is a young man growing up at the turn of the century. He is an orphan and lives with his mother and two sisters, life is not easy but the family does its best to provide him with a good education. They manage quite well – he gets to Cambridge. And there he falls in love. With Clive Durham (Hugh Grant). This comes as a bit of shock to Maurice but that is only half the trouble. The year is 1910 and in England homosexuality is punishable with prison, flogging, hard labor and absolute public disgrace. Clive and Maurice have to keep their feelings for each other an absolute secret. Their relationship endures the years but soon after graduation a friend an acquaintance is publicly disgraced and imprisoned for “the unspeakable vice of the Greeks” throwing Clive, now well on his way to inheriting a large estate and becoming a successful public figure into inner turmoil. Is his love for Maurice so strong he can risk losing everything and almost everyone he has ever known? Clive’s inner turmoil upsets and destabilizes Maurice whose love for Clive is unwavering. And then, Alec Scudder (Rupert Graves) enters the scene… But if you want to see where he fits in, you’re just going to have to sit down and watch the film.
I am not gay. But as I have gone through life and observed other people around me I have never been able to tell the difference between the love between a man and a woman and the love between two men or two women. If you have such a prejudice, pray leave it at the door of the cinema for this one. If there ever was a story about true love and following your heart in the face of the world, this is THE ONE. Heck, it might even be the film to help you shift that prejudice slightly. James Wilby absolutely shines as Maurice, come the middle of the film you cannot help but becoming well and truly embroiled in the whole thing and seriously worried about his general well being. Hugh Grant, so very young here– it’s rather an old film you know! – is also brilliant. Although you can actually see that he is beginning, even at that early age, to act all “Hugh Grant-ish”. I have endless respect for the man, but like Nicole Kidman and Clint Eastwood I get the feeling he doesn’t do that much acting per se, it’s always “Hugh Grant acting” that you see and not a character (I know this is a HORRIBLE thing to say to/about an actor but that’s my humble opinion. So there you are). He’s pretty damn good here though, hats off to him… I wish I could say more about Rupert Graves as Alec Scudder (apart from the fact that he has considerably fewer lines than Wilby and Grant and therefore cannot share in any award) but his part is a crucial one. And Graves’ performance is brilliant. The thing is you see, the whole tension of the story rather hinges on not being sure what Scudder is up to until the end. To the point that I got quite cross when I picked up the DVD and realized that it summarized the whole story – talk about spoilers! So, don’t read the back of the DVD. Just buy it and watch it.

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…

PERIOD PIECES : A BIT OF A CHILL - "THE TURNING OF THE SCREW"

Ok so moving on. Period pieces are very well and good but they do come in different shapes and sizes, a point I want to illustrate now. The turning of the screw is a tale by Henry James scary enough to chill the marrow of your bones. In these enlightened days of modern science and such like, ghost stories have sort of lost a bit of their popularity. But still, if you believe that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than can be seen with a telescope or microscope (and I do), and if you have a particularly good yarn to chew on, I feel that you won’t be able to help feeling well… Just a tad chilly. Especially if the screen adaptation is of BBC quality… Oh yes, this is one to be watched during the day…
Ann is particularly excited as she starts her new job as a governess in Bly manor. The master of the house is handsome, charming, and charismatic and cannot be persuaded to leave London for an instant. This being the case his two young nephews, orphans of whom he is now in charge Miles and Flora, are confided to boarding school and the massive country estate respectively. Now, like every young woman of breeding Flora must have a governess. The problem however, seems to be with getting the governesses to stay. Ann cannot think why as the days at Bly begin by being pure bliss. Ann still can’t help noticing strange flickers of light and whispers around the house. The servants seem slightly surly and quiet, but it’s nothing that cannot be explained away. Then, young Miles is sent home from his boarding school that refuses to have anything further to do with him. The more Ann tries to figure out why, the more she comes up against the memories of Miss Jessel, the children’s previous governess, and her lover Peter Quint. Both appear to have died on the estate and neither was well liked. Both spent a lot of time with the children. And the more Ann looks into things the more convinced she becomes that Jessel and Quint may be dead but they are far from gone. And they refuse to leave their former charges, Miles and Flora alone. Or behind. The thing is will Ann get the people around her to believe her? Or, as they say, are her nerves and imagination actually getting the better of her?
The story may not seem all that original at first; that I grant you. But the atmosphere of the film is such that you get sucked in straight away. It actually has quite a Hitchcock-esque feeling about it, have you ever watched his classic Rebecca? Well, it’s a similar theme in a sense (without the super-natural. Oh you’ll know what I mean if you’ve watched it). And there is a similar feeling of eeriness. The only difference is of course that in this case the strange fears and imaginings that nip at your ankles and whisper over your shoulder late at night actually come to pass. I felt the adaptation was all in all very well done (well that’s the BBC for you!) and there were some rather wily editing tricks at the beginning. I was quite disappointed to see they didn’t continue actually, probably so they didn’t attract attention to themselves. I finally feel the need to add that naturally ghost stories and horror are quite often an acquired taste. But this is a good quality adaptation of a classical tale, and unless you are completely “anti horror” of any kind I doubt you could find much wrong with it…

p.s as there are many adaptations of this classic tale I feel duty bound to tell you that he one I watched was the BBC adaptation and they have gone mighty thin on acting - directing credits... I will check them out and add them in the weeks to come, promise!

SOLVE THE MYSTERY OF "THE THIRD MAN"

Ok folks, now, let’s do some star-gazing shall we? But while we’re at it, why not gaze at the stars of yore? I want to take you to watch a British film of particular cinematic importance now. It won a golden palm at Cannes and an Oscar ® for cinematography (a well-deserved one in my opinion but we’ll talk more of that later)… Sounds like I’m going to try and sell you sell you some arty film right? Wrong actually. Adapted from Graham Greene’s novel of the same name, The Third Man is about as exciting as it gets!
Holly Martens is a writer. He writes Western novels and is usually quite broke. In the days following the 2nd World War, he gets an invitation from his childhood friend Harry Lime, to Vienna. Vienna of the day is of course divided into four zones (British, French, Russian and American) and run strictly by the Allies. Harry, however, offers Holly a job (not to mention a plane ticket) and Holly is “stony broke” so he takes the offer and comes to Vienna. On his arrival there is a rather nasty surprise awaiting him. Harry appears to have died in a traffic accident a few days ago. Holly however, smells a rat. The few acquaintances of Harry’s that he meets are very evasive, the British Lieutenant Colloway seems to be trying to unearth something but he won’t come clean and as for Harry’s former girlfriend Anna, well she definitely seems odd… Albeit beautiful. Holly decides to really get to the bottom of the accident even though everyone tells him repeatedly to go home and leave well alone. Because there is the small matter of The Third Man… Who is he, where is he and why can no one neither prove nor disprove his existence?
The Third Man may seem quite nostalgic to some of you. It basically repeats the style of the post-war spy movies we know so well. And well, the plot in general doesn’t lack much from a spy movie. Intrigue, secrets, mystery, a brave young hero (Joseph Cotton as Holly Martens) and a beautiful dame… Not to mention an appearance by Orson Wells (purely as an actor here however, the film is directed by the famous British director Carol Reed). In these days of police flicks by the gallon, you may – like me – guess the “twist” in the plot way in advance, but I assure you it won’t prevent you from enjoying the film. I will go as far as saying that the chase sequence at the end (you know that every adventure film needs one) is one of the best I have ever seen. And, I do not want to give too much away for fear of ruining the plot but there is, in the second half of the film again, such a good play on shadows and light that I almost got up and cheered, much less give it an Oscar® . (Oh come on, doesn’t clever camera tricks excite you even the tiniest bit? No? Oh…)
And of course the whole crux of the film is black and white – of course – but also a matter of loyalty and where the heart lies. The heart doesn’t always automatically direct one to what is good and right, sometimes, well, it’s just plain complicated. And in this film, let me tell you, things get pretty damn complicated…
You know I told you about good quality “fun and adventure” films? This is a prime example of both quality and enjoyment. Think about it, you’ll be killing two birds with one stone; having a ball AND watching a classic… Go on… You’re sold, aren’t you?