THE EVIL DEAD... OR THE STORY OF HOW IT ALL BEGAN...

I try to stick to the tradition of watching a horror film or two on Halloween. Even if I am busy, or ill (or both) that is my way of celebrating the holiday. In my native Turkey we do very little to celebrate this holiday so that is where it stops for me. I mean, I can always do with an excuse for watching horror films and eating candy. The Evil Dead was my second film this Halloween. I actually checked out the trailer at around 2.00 in the morning, in the dark. It gave me the willies so I left it to the morning. Now those of you who know me in real life will know I do not scare that easily so I was surprised at feeling nervy at a trailer. But hey, I had already watched one really spooky film so I cut myself some slack.

I watched this big boy the next day, in broad daylight, with cats and people milling around noisily outside my door. I was TERRIFIED. I am a grown woman and we are talking cringing, pausing the film multiple times, hiding from the screen behind my fingers, the whole nine yards… Sam Raimi, you sick, sick puppy…

Of course horror fans will know that The Evil Dead is now officially one of the archetypes of a specific type of horror film. You know, a group of young people end up in a remote spot in the woods (more often than not they are renting a cabin though God only knows why you would choose to vacation bang in the middle of a weird forest all by yourselves but hey… Suspension of disbelief and all that. ) So yeah, our group of young people come to a remote cabin that they are renting as a relaxing vacation. But the whole thing goes south very quickly when they discover a sinister looking study on demonology left by the previous occupant. Nobody takes the study very seriously and it is read out loud to much hilarity, however…  Unbeknown to them, they have woken a curse… And it is coming straight for them…

The Evil Dead was one of those infamous films that was banned for years in some countries, edited heavily in others and definitely became the stuff of legend very quickly in all. What gets you in the gut is the absolutely brutal savagery of the film combined with a rather masterfully created atmosphere.  And the absolutely savage violence is unrelenting, no holds barred and in a word, not tastefully done at all. It is a complete battery on your senses and after a while you are just reduced to staring at the screen in terror, unable to turn away – pretty much like watching a train crash. The fact that the film was made in 1980 and that some of the effects were very patently achieved with stop motion and play dough is neither here nor there. Raimi seems to know exactly where all your primal fears are and how best to abuse them. You literally have no escape…

And yet, the overkill (literally) on violence does not make you glaze over after a while. The film is intelligent and humorous throughout and keeps you oddly engaged, which is not good news for your nerves if you are basically engaged with a cabin full of murderous and bloodthirsty demons.   Several tropes are noted and turned on their heads as they go along – there is, for example a typical character who would be the –last girl – in normal films. You know how it goes, the couples get plucked off one by one, the last, pure (often white and single) girl survives, thus making the film a hidden ode to the patriarcle system. Well we start off with two couples and the sister of one of the boys –familiar enough. But then the potential last girl is actually the first to be cursed, shortly after being raped by a tree (no that was not a typo) I might add. The film studies student in me wants to also make something of the fact that she gets trapped under the cabin in the cellar for a good part of the film after she is transformed into a demon, you know, repressed female sexuality and all that jazz. Especially since our last boys girlfriend is used quite openly to tempt him into the demonic fold. I did tell you that the film hits you at your most primal – and sex is, as we all know, a large part of all that.

This is not one of those horror films you put on just to giggle at the monsters and the general lack of common sense prevalent in slashers and B – movies. It’s a good, old fashioned corner stone. It’s an actual source. Its future incarnations have diluted it on the way, this is true, but even all these decades later when you re-visit the source, you find that electrifying and truly demonic energy present in all its glory, ready to inspire your dreams – and nightmares…   

MORVERN CALLER - OR WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR LIFE CHANGES OVER NIGHT...

I have, up to a point, returned to my Film Studies roots. I have, through this method and that, had the opportunity to take a look back at important films and directors and watch some really interesting stuff I would not have normally initially chosen. Life being what it is, this means I am falling behind slightly on the new releases but oh well. I can’t be everywhere. And they will be released to DVD soon enough. I am aware that the day I day I will have a list as long as my arm of films to watch – it is categorically impossible to watch them all – but I like to try… I mean, what’s the point of life otherwise, right…

And this week I take a look at one of the most important British female directors knocking around, Lynne Ramsey. Morvern Caller was not a film I had heard of, but it was a bit before my immersion in cinema. In any case it seems to have wiped a fair bit of the slate clean between awards won at Cannes, San Sebastian and the British Independent Film Awards. Morvern Caller is strong and outspoken as films go, it doesn’t always make incredibly easy viewing but its honest description of raw emotion carries you through to the end.

One day around Christmas, supermarket shelf stocker Morvern Caller comes home to find her boyfriend, an aspiring writer, has committed suicide. He has a single request from her as far as earthly matters go and that is to have his newly finished novel published. Morvern, stunned, obliges, and uses the funds from it in her quest to come to terms with her own emotions and figure out what her next move will be now that her life has changed forever.

What I love about the film is that Morvern’s reactions to this clearly unexpected upheaval in her life are gloriously illogical. And it is precisely this “lack of logic” that makes the film so close to real life. All of a sudden everything in Morvern’s life is different. And yet the world goes on around her, most of the things she has known all her life, her friends, her job, relatives, they are all exactly how she left them except – and unbeknown to them – Morvern herself has literally changed overnight.  And now she has to rediscover how to approach them again. It is during this period of discovery that she will decide what she needs to do next…  

As far as we can tell Morvern is a pretty average girl. She doesn’t like her job and lives for the weekend, liking nothing more than getting high/drunk/both with her best friend Lana. Morvern’s first reactions seem pretty heartless, it would appear that for her it’s just business as usual. The thing is, both we and Morvern will quickly discover that this is affecting her a lot more than it would first seem…

We all have upheavals, pain, change and surprise developments in our lives. It could be, like Morvern, a death or something else that causes it but sometimes, one morning you just wake up and you know you are no longer the same person. The world around you may very well not understand, or indeed they may not have a cause to do so. This is especially true when coming to terms with the death of a loved one, we stare with disbelief at the world – untouched by our loss – carries on as normal and we wonder how we could ever have been a part of it and wonder if we can ever join it again… Yet we do. Sometimes we truly will never be the same again and sometimes the change is a lot subtler than we think it is…

Intense and hard to watch at times, Morvern Caller is definitely NOT what you need when you come back home tired from work and need something to uplift you. You will sympathise with Morvern, get frustrated with her and want to give her hug , sometimes all at once. Or maybe you will feel neither. The film is a truly extraordinary exploration of human emotion and one thing I can guarantee is that you will end up feeling something. Something you really do not want to miss.  

AND NOW, A LITTLE MUSIC... "DANCER IN THE DARK"

We all know what Lars von Trier is like by now. His films are dark, not for the faint hearted and heavy with the kind of twist that makes you go “oh surely not… Oh NO! He did!”. You (or at least I) need a stiff drink afterwards more often than not. So the fact that he had made a musical starring Bjork does not exactly make one think  “It’s The Sound of Music all over again…” In fact, like a lot of von Trier’s films, Dancer in the Dark comes with a warning – it is notoriously difficult to watch. None of the usual blood and gore and shocking visuals this time though… Von Trier is playing around with our emotional landscape and reminds us what horrible beings we humans can be…

Selma (Bjork) is an immigrant living in the United States. Her life is hard – her single solitary purpose in life is to build a future for her son. To this end, she works hard in a factory, saves every penny she earns and plans for the future… Her one escape from her toils is old fashioned Hollywood films and especially musicals – she even acts in the factory’s acting club… However, Selma has a secret… Time is running out for her and she has to use all her strength if she wants her son’s future to end up the way she hopes it will. The problem is that human beings – even the friendliest looking ones – are unreliable beings and… Well the long and the short of it is that you can never, ever know who you can really trust…

Alongside Bjork, whose striking voice and musical talent are the exact “secret ingredients” this dark musical needs, we have the legendary Catherine DeNeuve starring as Kathy, Selma’s friend and right hand woman at the factory. I almost couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw her, she is as ever, a pleasure to watch. And incidentally, please don’t get hung up on the fact that the film is “technically” a musical. True, there are quite a few very striking musical numbers in there but given Selma’s dreamy, almost otherworldly nature –  a nature that Bjork portrays so very well – it’s hardly out of place and any Bjork fans will follow her with quiet enjoyment as Selma drifts off into her own little world…     

And if you really hate musicals, well, at the end of the day the musical numbers that DO exist are Bjork songs, so it’s all a far cry from the face-splitting smiles common to this kind of production. To be honest with you, the second big difference is the atmos. As we all know musicals tend to be BIG. I mean, the good guys are practically angelic and the bad guys are “evil”. In Dancer in the Dark, it’s not so much an extreme of any kind but a sense of painful pathos that reigns supreme. We have a villain we simply can’t help pitying, a prince charming who annoys us – and yet we can’t help backing – and an heroine struggling against it all, not only ailing but also proud to a fault, refusing to ask for help, which ultimately leads to her demise… And the best bit ? It’s all set in rather oblique contrast to The Sound of Music, the musical Selma and the factory theatre company is putting on. Selma’s positivity and stoicism in the face of mounting odds is greatly comparable to Maria’s, the sad difference is that this story is very much set in the modern world. For all her sweetness Selma is ultimately consumed by the system and no pity is shown to her – at least not by the people who can have any influence at all over her destiny.

So first of all for Von Trier and Bjork fans, but also for fans of musicals – who want to see a bit of a different take on their beloved genre - and non-fans of musicals alike this is a must see. I am not saying you will find it easy to watch – but you won’t regret having done it either… 

AMERICAN SNIPER - YET ANOTHER CLINT EASTWOOD FILM ?

This was another big name last Oscar season, even though it only managed to take away the award for Sound Editing. Well, with names as big as Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper attached it could hardly help being in the limelight. I have infinite respect and admiration for Clint Eastwood. I quote High planes drifter on a regular basis when I write. But I do also have to point out that I – and quite a few other – people have accused him in the past of basically playing himself in films and making the same film over and over again. This time he has a rather extraordinary true story on his hands – so how has he fared? Same film again – or something a little different?

The hero of our story, brought to life by Bradley Cooper is legendary American sniper Chris Kyle. During his four tours in Iraq, Kyle quickly raised to rank of legend through his sheer dedication to service, accuracy when shooting and determination to do what is truly right. The men admire and support him, his superiors admire him and the public read about him with admiration in the papers… But one cannot see the things Kyle has seen without changing. Every time he comes home to his wife and children, Kyle finds it harder and harder to leave the war behind… In fact, even if he does survive the fighting, his memories may well end up consuming him… The question is, will he admit this – even to himself – and start fighting back in time ?

Looking at the list of wins, I can’t help but think that Bradley Cooper deserved a little more than he actually ended up receiving – his performance is pretty much what makes the film not just another Clint Eastwood film. Because given the subject matter, I cannot quite imagine anyone else making this film. And Eastwood makes it exactly the way we imagine he would make it. Kyle was evidently quite an extraordinary man, don’t get me wrong, but the way the story goes, how all American he is throughout, his easy rise to stardom as a sniper… It is all… Just too smooth. Eastwood finishes the film with real footage of Kyles funeral (I reckon his death is not a spoiler as it pretty much counts as common knowledge) which was of course a military, patriotic affair. No wonder his critics accuse Eastwood of tubthumping banality – it is JUST like a  million other films made to show the horrors of war. Smooth, polished but without an original bone in its body.

Take a film like The Hurt Locker. Jeremy Renners character William James is Kyles equivalent in the film and paints a completely different picture. He is a lot harder to like, he is a lot less of a gentleman, he has lost a lot of his positive emotions in all aspects of life and, to be honest, I think he is a much more realistic portrayal of what war can do to a good man. I almost feel the film is in denial about the sheer amount of trauma Kyle would have had to cope with. We do not see the grit and dirt of the matter at all, only the polished surface you present to visitors. 

Which is precisely why I say Bradley Cooper needs a few more accolades for the work he did here. Cooper sticks to the letter of the script, it is true. His character is always polite smiling and courteous, and yet… The nuances, the tiniest gestures, the little moments Cooper manages to insert into his all round good old American cowboy routine give us hair raising insights into what must be going through Kyles mind. It is without a doubt the tonic the films overly varnished surface needed – I just devoutly wish there were more of those hints. If our imaginations were meant to make up the rest of the horrors, well, the film does not give us enough to work with.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that all films pertaining to war should necessarily end badly, be dark and not have any positive emotion in them at all. But the trauma Kyle went through lies at the heart of the story. The characters ark consists of his entering this state of trauma and coming out the other side – at least supposedly. We have to be able to see the trauma so we can rejoice with him and his family when he comes out on the other side. If we do not believe in the trauma in the first place, well, there is a part of the film that becomes completely pointless – the emotional journey has been aborted before it even began. Bradley Coopers extraordinary performance rescues the story to a certain point, but the other failing is, in my opinion, simply too great.

American Sniper is without doubt a good film. It is fascinating to watch, it is a story well worth being told. But it is, sadly, yet ANOTHER war film and something of a missed opportunity. By all means watch, but don’t expect it to change your world…    

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY FIT FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY ARTIST - "MR TURNER"

I am SO glad I caught this one. In an awards season characterised by biopics, Mr Turner should have been in its (his) element but it was curiously passed by… The one mention I remember of it was from several different critics tearing out their hair when the BAFTA nominations came out this year about Timothy Spall’s perceived snub in the Best Actor category. I say perceived simply because I had not perceived it myself at the time. It then got nominated for four Oscars, in fields such as Cinematography, production design, Costume Design and Original Score. Now these categories are more than worthy – not least because the film is a visual feast more than worthy of an artist such as Turner. But they are not the categories that get the massive headlines and the endless discussions on various film related talk shows that emerge around the time… Anyway, as you will have noticed, as the DVDs hit the market here in the UK, I have been scrambling to catch up and keep up with cinematic output. I am rather pleased my progress so far. So, long story short I got round to perceiving this little number. Consider this film a belated rant about why this film didn’t get the attention it deserved – it has the makings of a huge masterpiece.

This is the life story of British painter J.M.W. Turner (Timothy Spall). We specifically focus on the last 25 years of the great painter’s life. He is now a celebrated painter, but his celebrity has come at a price. And the price has a lot to do with Turner’s own rather difficult character. While Turner is personable (if a little eccentric) in public, in his private life Turner’s relationships are marked by his cantankerous nature – and more often than not breakdowns and arguments. Leigh takes a sensitive look at what makes Turner tick as an artist, but also, what gives him peace…

Leigh’s Turner is a complex and fascinating character. Clearly a very accomplished artist, Turner has revolutionary ideas about painting (I know. It’s a little hard to imagine a household name like Turner as a revolutionary painter whose works weren’t always well received, but there you go… ). He experiments with his art, he is in the heart of “the in crowd” in the artistic circles of his time, he is an active (if not always easy to get on with) member of the academy and his works are almost a given in the Great Exhibitions over the years. He is without doubt a businessman and makes his living, in the true sense, with his painting and with his business sense.

What Turner cannot seem to take too much of is the personal relationships this kind of life requires. For most of his life the only people who can truly tolerate him are his doting father and their long-suffering maid Hannah Danby (admirably portrayed by Dorothy Atkinson – don’t you be fooled, she is more than just “the help”). He is estranged from his wife and his grown children, has few friends outside of business circles and is all in all quite difficult to get on with if you were to approach him as he seems to have a minimal interest on getting on well with you if it was not for business reasons. However there is more to Turner than a cantankerous recluse from the world. What he actually wants is to live a simple life, by the sea, make sketches and have the love of an honest woman (as opposed to a “London lady”). Spall handles this duality of Turner’s character quite beautifully. He is unapologetically terse and sometimes quite difficult to watch throughout, and yet ably portrays the softer side of Turner’s character that is harder to come by, barely seen but still very, very much present – and of course a great part of his art and his work.

Leigh has, it is quite clear, paid close attention to the fact that this is a film about a painter. Turner’s muted tones and colour scheme dominate the film, as does a lack of close-ups or extreme close-ups, thus the film mirrors the style of the painter it depicts throughout which brings us one  step closer to the inner world of the artist.

The honesty of the physical depiction also rather beautifully continues through into the way the entire story is told. You will look in vain for the clear blacks and whites of normal popular and mainstream films. Every single character is beautifully developed and come together with extraordinary harmony to tell the story of a rather extraordinary man.

Of course when the awards seasons come around we look for something a tad more grandiose. We need jazz hands and technical gimmicks, a classic true story of extraordinary people overcoming difficulties or, perhaps, a rather more dramatic insight into debilitating illness (now I come to think of it there is a little sub-theme of disease running through this awards season too, no…). The British costume drama is seen as just the tiniest bit twee as a genre. But if the genre is considered twee, this does not mean that the combination of a visionary director, talented cast but perhaps more important than all of them the enigmatic and extraordinary artist J. M.W. Turner at the centre of it all make for a truly extraordinary film in this case… 

ESSIE ON THE BIG DEBATE PART 2 - " BIRDMAN (OR THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE"

Well… Welcome to the second half of the big dual of 2015! From the moment Birdman hit various festivals earlier on in the year, it had critics up on their feet, applauding and stamping their feet. “A masterpiece in the making!” They cried, “An unforgettable experience!”  And most critics nodded knowingly as they applauded director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu as he took away not only the Oscar for Best Film but also for Best Director. I personally hadn’t watched either Birdman or its “nemesis” Boyhood during the Oscar season so had no opinion on the matter. And now the film scene has calmed down a bit and I have a tiny tad more time on my hands, I decided to take a gander at the two and see what I thought for myself. You had my opinion on Boyhood last week. A couple of days ago I finally sat down to watch Birdman…

I am not saying that Birdman is not a masterpiece. I am not saying that it is truly an experience to watch. But in case you hadn’t pieced it together, yes I am firmly in the #Boyhoodwasrobbed camp. In my post today, I will attempt to explain why, while giving as objective a review as I can of it.

Of course if you have any connection whatsoever to films and news, you have some idea of the plot. Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton)is a washed up actor, best known for playing iconic comic book inspired superhero Birdman (cue endless comparisons made with Keaton’s own career playing Batman). In the autumn of his years – in any case in what looks suspiciously like the autumn of his career – he is trying to do something that truly “matters” artistically. He is putting on a play on Broadway. He has written an adaptation of Raymond Carver’s story What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, he is co-producing it with his best friend Jake (Zach Galifianakis), directing it and playing one of the lead roles in it… If he pulls it off, it is going to be one heck of a debut on Broadway. However, with what artistic reputation he has left (and his fans would really prefer him to just do Birdman 4) and his life savings riding on this, Riggan is in the process of finding out that there is more to putting on a Broadway play than he might of thought. It all starts with him having to replace a key actor at the eleventh hour. Mike (Edward Norton) – the replacement – may well be the talent the team needs but his ego threatens to destroy the project. Then there is his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) who is really worrying him… And on top of all that, the shadow of Birdman, the old character he loves and hates so much just will not leave him alone in more ways than one… As the previews begin Riggan sure has a lot on the line – and so far he seems set to lose it all…

This is the first heads up to me, to be honest. I enjoyed writing that blurb, but anything that takes that long to explain needs to take a good long look at itself just to start with. I am a big fan of philosophy being used in film of course multi-layered stories and metaphors are a delight to watch when well-executed. But I reckon, the minute you have to explain a film to death as a mere introduction or if you have to google multiple concepts to understand what the film was trying to tell you, well… Something has gone awry. Birdman is absolutely knee-deep in metaphors. It is laugh out loud funny and heartbreakingly touching when it comes to the storyline itself just on face value. Sprinkled into this beautiful story are truly extraordinary and deep considerations on being an artist, growing old, how the two combine and how we come to terms with our own fading glory – be it as an artist or simply as a human being past their prime… By and large the metaphors are quite easy to follow and we can marvel at the way Innaritu has woven them into his story. Except, of course, there is the obligatory few incredibly obscure ones, you know, the ones you have to have pages and pages online discussing. I am, principally, talking about the famously obscure finale. I personally lean towards the “it’s the afterlife” interpretation of it. I also think it’s the scene what pushes the film over into having one foot firmly planted in “pretentious” as opposed to both feet in “intelligent”.

This is not the only showing off going on of course. A lot has equally been said about the “extended shot” format of the film. I have to say I was filled with dread when I first read this – my first encounter with the style was in Magnolia. I found it nauseating (as in, it made me physically feel sick, I did respect it cinematically). This one is a lot “tamer”. It’s like the camera has its own mind and it wanders the halls of the theatre quite playfully. Another famous sore point was the sound track – I wasn’t that bothered by the drumming to be honest, but the whole gimmick with the drummer (you know what I mean if you’ve seen it) is again, in the domain of the pretentious as far as I’m concerned.  

But of course, between it being a story inherently about art, acting and Hollywood itself (Birdman – Batman, what’s a couple of letters between friends!) the technical “showing off” and Innaritu openly trying to make a film that “cannot be explained”… Well it’s showy. It’s good but in my humble opinion in tries too hard. It crams in too much. Yes, Inarritu crams the too much in with elegance. But there is more skill involved in doing less sometimes. I would argue that Boyhood achieved to make a much deeper philosophical point with less show and a single “gimmick” that was executed with grace and dedication… Birdman is definitely a carnival you should pop in to see. Just don’t go putting it on a pedestal… 

IN WHICH THE AUTHOR IS REALLY, REALLY NOT AMUSED... "COSMOPOLIS"

Stop and think for a second, if you will, what kind of things Mothers tell their daughters. To smile more, wear prettier clothes, make more jokes, you know, be more positive... Not mine. Mine reads my film reviews on my blog and goes “you can’t like every single film you watch dear, be a bit negative from time to time”. I don’t even know how to deal with the comment and it keeps coming up roughly every three weeks.

It is true that when I started off I only wrote about films I liked. Because I had started the blog to recommend films – in a funny kind of way it made sense to me that I would write about the positive and not the negative. I have – even Mom agrees – changed my tone a little as I have continued writing on this blog – and on other websites  - I have begun to veer more and more towards films that have – for better or worse – incited strong emotions in me.

Cosmopolis is one of those films. And the strong emotion it incites in me is a deep sense of disappointment. I mean, hand on heart, I have never been a massive fan of Robert Pattinson (I haven’t even been just a tiny bit of a fan of Robert Pattinson) but I wanted him to do well on this one. The plot looked surreal and intriguing, I am a massive fan of David Cronenberg, you know… I had hopes…

This is the story of young millionaire Eric Packer. One day he gets into his limousine and orders his driver to take him across town, for a haircut. This is easier said than done because this is no ordinary day; there are many “happenings” along the way that will waylay him. In the process, Packer comes across all kinds of characters; some known to him, some strangers… Some friends, some foe… And as you plunge with him deep into this extraordinary odyssey, you can be sure, this is no ordinary drive across town.

Ok so here’s the lowdown. Basically the film is a poetic and philosophical essay on our times, delivered to us mainly through Pattinson and a plethora of other characters  whose main raison d’etre seems to be to demonstrate various philosophical points rather than to actually advance the storyline in any way.  I mean, I say storyline. The film has the bare bones of a storyline and little else besides. For the most part, Cosmopolis is a slow moving essay, read out loud by multiple, changing voices. And how does the film solve the problem of these multiple voices – by harmonising the tone and delivery of all the characters throughout the entire film.

As far as logic goes there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Even if you don’t really expect a 22 year old computer genius and a Packer’s 41 year old mistress (Juliette Binoche) to speak in the same way, ok, let’s suspend disbelief like a good audience. The one main thing about Cosmopolis that really, really stuck in my throat was the complete unnaturalness of every single actors delivery all the way through the film. I have read a lot of online commentary blaming it largely on the writing. And the writing is no doubt a part of it, it does have some very strong, very valid philosophical points buried in there but it couldn’t have been expressed in a more roundabout way if it tried. The aim with the delivery was, I think, to make it slightly stilted to give a sense of a sort of “end of times” brand of ennuie. The whole “problem” Eric has is that, at 28 he has reached the top, he is at the pinnacle, and he gazes out in a world-weary way around him (at 28. I know) and sees… Well, nothing good. And more importantly nothing new. And at the beginning I was very tempted to lay the blame on Pattinson’s door and an inability to convey subtle emotion but as the film advanced, I realised they were all talking like that. By like that I mean a distinct falseness that is almost certainly put on. The aim is probably to firstly give an impression of the uncomfortable and “false” world Eric lives in and is sick of, but also to stop us from “connecting” to the characters and makes us concentrate on the contents of the philosophical discussion – a sort of self-reflexivity, if you will. The problem is, where it should have just hinted at this and left it as an almost indiscernible undertone, Cosmopolis cranks the volume up to “are you nuts” and leaves it there.

Now let me make another point clear. I usually love films like this. They are not everyone’s cup of tea, I myself am not always in the mood for them. But Terrance Malik is one of my favourite directors. I love loosing myself in a good philosophical point. But the problem with this kind of film is that it has to be very, very delicately balanced and very well thought-out. Otherwise the film stops being a dialogue-driven philosophical masterpiece and wanders off into the domain of pretentious drivel…

I am sorry to say this, but I found Cosmopolis grossly miscalculated and utterly unwatchable. I devoutly hope that in the future Cronenberg will stick to what he is good at, i.e. making philosophical points via striking stories and actions, not explaining the living daylights out of it…

FOR AFTER THE NIGHT, COMES THE DAWN AND THE DAY

The Night of the Living Dead. Not the remake by the way – the George Romero original. Analyzed, talked over, written about ad infinitum. But the thing I always find is that if you are not into deepest darkest Film Studies (ehm, like some people) the fact that the film is actually part of a trilogy seems to be quite quickly forgotten. For reasons best known to itself, the Dawn of the Living Dead has found its way back onto TV recently (don’t get wrong, it is more than welcome it’s just a little random that’s all) so I thought now would be an excellent time to remind ourselves of the rest of the trilogy. Not least because the Day of the Living Dead is one of my favorite zombie films of all times.

As some of you may already know, the series is an “anthology” series (I don’t know if you’re the same, after American Horror story, I’ve started noticing so many anthologies everywhere it’s a miracle I didn’t give it more in depth thought before). The inexplicable event has happened, the zombie apocalypse is here and everywhere there are small groups of humans fighting to survive against diminishing odds.

As a side note and just before we begin, let me tell you unequivocally that the trailer by NO MEANS represents the tone of the film. It is scary. Yes there are flesh eating zombies. But it is NOT as "shock horror" as all that. No, really. Still, I love the classic '70s alarmist style of the trailer - so I kept it.
Dawn of the Living Dead takes us one step up the food chain from Joe public. We kick off at a local TV channel, the place we all turn to for info in times of trouble. But this time the channel is in no fit state to guide as chaos as taken over there as well. Francine who works at the channel and her boyfriend Stephen who is a helicopter pilot (funny how in these Romero films there is always one (but never more than one) helicopter pilot knocking around and the whole affair of -but he’s our only way out- comes up again and again buuut anyway… So, sorry, Francine and her boyfriend. As you probably guessed they make a dash for it in the helicopter. On their travels they team up with two very hard hitting police officers (because honestly, you’re not going to survive long if you’re anything less) and ultimately end up in a mall. And being surrounded by such bounty (granted, they are also surrounded by a good number of zombies) they decide to stick around a while and catch their breath…

I would be the first to tell you that this is not my favorite film in the trilogy (my personal fave is the 3^rd, Day of the Dead, followed by the 1^st, with this fella bringing up the rear) but you would be wrong to dismiss it as just some sort of re-hash of the first. Group dynamics, claustrophobia and the way each and every member of the gang copes with the apocalypse and the tough decisions it brings with it every day makes for a fascinating viewing. Ever present throughout the film is dark humor and of course, a damning and barely obscured criticism of capitalism as zombies trample dollar bills, knock over luxury items and just shuffle around the mall aimlessly consuming –whenever they find anything to consume – merely for the sake of consuming. In pretty much all three films they are described as –mechanized instinct – and very little else besides. Of course when all is stripped down the only thing is left is consumption for the sake of it (the dead bodies need no sustenance) and savagery. Not exactly complimentary of the human race but… Dare I say it, he may have a point…

But if you thought this was bad, I would honestly steer clear of Day of the Dead. No, honestly. It is the bloodiest and most brutal of the three as far as physical violence goes and it doesn’t exactly let up as far as the psychological pressure goes either… For the third film, we move one rung up the proverbial ladder. We are now in the bastion of the last remaining authorities (pretty much, anyway) in the country. It is a military facility guarded by a handful of soldiers and housing a handful of scientists and a few technicians. The scientists are trying, against hope, to find some sort of cure for the epidemic. The advances are minimal however, and as practically every day brings a new loss in their ranks, the patience of the military men is beginning to wear a little thin… Tensions rise slowly and surely, leading to a showdown the group can’t really afford to have under the circumstances… But with neither side backing down, it seems like less of an option and more of an inevitability…

In this film, we see Romero enlarging on several themes and storylines we have seen in the previous films. The military authority is shown as closed in on itself, selfish and crude – much like the group of security guards in the Night of the Living Dead (the 1^st film that also by and large took place in a mall). They are pitted against pretty much all the civilians in the compound and approach them with disdain –only the helicopter driver (again there is only one)can feel some level of actual security, based purely on the fact that he is the only one who can drive the chopper… It is, in short, a nightmare scenario – the rule of law has broken down on all levels, and armed militias rule the roost. In this chaos, however, there is one positive and fascinating breakthrough… One doctor, Dr Logan, may actually have broken through and managed to communicate with one of the zombies…

The question is of course will he have the time to elaborate on this and actually use this advance to some advantage. Romero being Romero, the answer is no. This is where it all winds down ladies and gentlemen. This is where the nightmare reaches its climax, and yet you cannot wake up… True to previous form, come the end of the film, the safe house (and by now it is feeling like the only one left on Earth) is overrun and zombies chew on the broken remains of the last humans…

Romeros trilogy is, in short, a prolonged nightmare where there is no real escape and no real solution. We neither find out what caused the outbreak nor if there is any solution to it. But with our very survival as a species now under threat, we suddenly manage to take a good long look at all those things -  status, money, power and the rest of it – we used to deem so important. We ask ourselves who we really are when put under pressure – and if the way the film paints the authorities, the people responsible for protecting us , even the most seemingly virtuous of us has a few nasty skeletons to hide, deep in the closet. This is why Romero’s zombie films will remain classics. No matter how much time goes by, we will still be scared by the already old-fashioned zombies and the characters reactions to them. Not because we are afraid of the living dead, but on some level, we know we have been confronted by potentially one of the greatest monsters that still walks the earth today… The dark depths of our own souls… 

BUT DON'T FORGET "THE ANGEL’S SHARE"

Well folks, as some of you know I spent a good few weeks ın Turkey catching up with some much missed sunshine and my somewhat neglected family. Of course this does not mean I stop watching films, oh no. It just means that, partly thanks to my Mom, it becomes just a bit more eclectic. It`s almost like a return to the blogs slightly untidy origins. It feels homely and natural. Which is, coincidentally, what our next film is all about as far as style is concerned.

There may come a day when each and every one of us needs a fresh start in life – you know the old adage; every saint has a past, every sinner has a future. Robbie is just such a sinner, in dire need of a new start in life. He has a lot of what he would need for that new start in place: His loving partner, Leonie and a little one on the way. He also has a criminal record a couple of yards long, a scar on his face that puts off those rare potential employers that get past his criminal record and a father in law who would not stop at physically injuring him to ehm ``convince`` him to stay away from his daughter. In short, Robbie is full of genuine good intentions but his entire universe seems intent on preventing him from going on the straight and narrow. But allies come in many strange shapes and forms in this life and for Robbie no one is surprised as he is when the little group he is doing his community service with after his latest fight and the long-suffering social worker Harry who is in charge of their merry band. Harry does not realize this himself but has actually put the entire band, but especially Robbie well and truly in line for a road to Damascus experience. Salvation can truly come in the strangest guises…

This film also marks my Mom`s introduction to a more realistic brand of filmmaking. “What I loved about it” she said, “ıs that it is almost like watching a documentary. Like watching something happening on the street.” Which is of course completely true of Ken Loach`s realistic style of filmmaking. The film takes place ``up north`` as do so many others of his films; the accents are pronounced and Scottish (so much so that my 91 year old grandmother just gave up on being able to understand them and went to bed early) and the characters are raw, day to day folk that you might well come across in a group doing social work. Even the visuals are unpolished, oh expertly done , of course, but it really does give the impression that Loach literally picked up a camera and followed a band of mates throughout the streets of Scotland – the exact and feel he is so good at capturing. It really goes to show that if you have a really good story and some strong actors to bring it to life, you don`t really need technical bells and whistles to make a really great film. I mean, I say that but there is a risk of underplaying the whole visual aspect when you go down that route. It is much like women`s fashion and getting the ``smart casual`` look just right. The whole ``studied`` casual look is so hard to achieve – it is almost easier to dress up completely formally and get it right because there at least we are all 100% of the rules. It is when you start dropping rules here and there when you actually have to sit up and take heed, because you actually have to know all the rules very well to be able to make a good film by using less.  There lies the real territory of directors who try to play around and ``bend`` the rules without having a clear idea of what they are bending. It comes from being overly ambitious, overly confident, dreaming too big… It comes from wanting to run before one can crawl. But it actually takes a master like Loach to get simplicity completely right.

It is also incredibly refreshing to see such completely real characters in film as opposed to Hollywood cut-outs. I do lean more and more towards indies and non-Hollywood productions for my personal entertainment these days but of course one cannot completely avoid ``mainstream`` cinema and I despair sometimes at the sameness of it all. Robbie is, of course a type in himself. He is the criminal fresh out of jail who wants to make a fresh start. This is a character played and re-played by so many of the grates and not so grates – but in this specific case I am thinking names like Al Pacino, Robert De Niro… Robbie is not a grand character of cinema. He is a lad off the streets, a small time thug who just wants to live a quiet life with his partner and his son. The mastery of Loach and the cast is that they make him come so alive that we get completely enthralled with what will happen to him next during the two hours of The Angel`s Share. 

Curious about this little number - then just scroll down! The trailer is at the end of the page!

WHERE HEARTS AND MINDS COLLIDE IN A WOMRHOLE... "INTERSTELLAR"

Well this was a big one – in so many senses of the word! Not least because it was yours truely’s first ever IMAX experience! I did smirk slightly when the usher warned the audience to look away if they felt disoriented or sick – but I did actually feel quite sick during one portion of the film (although, ironically, telling you which bit would constitute a spoiler) and I felt as if my head was full of cotton wool for quite a while after the film… I still loved IMAX though… Especially with a highly visual film like Interstellar, it’s almost obligatory to have it either in 3D or in IMAX… I mean, there are some films (*cough* Gravity *cough*) whose entire USP is based on its visuals and being viewed with “advanced” technology. Interstellar’s aim is to be a bit more than a pretty face though. And Christopher Nolan being Christopher Nolan – the film has plenty to say for itself. Is it all coherent – I hear you ask – or does the film actually deserve the hashtag Interstellarplotholes Well…

In a dystopian world where “the system” has been destroyed and everyone have become farmers in a desperate attempt to  keep the world (and by that I mean the entire planet) from starving to death, Cooper, once an astronaut, is restless… His children have known nothing different but he remembers a world where mankind was adventurous and exploration of the final frontier was still on the cards… That is why he is delighted to happen upon a top secret space mission run by what remains of NASA and headed by Dr Brand Sr (Michael Caine) and his daughter (Ann Hathaway) Cooper gets the chance to return to his vocation, and possibly save the world while he is at it… However this is a mission like no other, Cooper is headed for truly uncharted waters and picking the new planet humanity is going to live on is a tricky business at best…

Now, this film has, you may have noticed, a huge number of fans. This is because the film is ambitious, incredibly ambitious, on so many fronts… First of all, visually… Well what can I tell you the film is a stunner… There are so many so called set pieces of space, the planets and (mild spoiler alert) the wonderful visuals of the galaxy beyond the wormhole and (major spoiler alert for like one sentence) the universe actually inside the worm hole (this is the point at which I started feeling nauseated by the way) are wonderful feats of technology and imagination. Best viewed with some form of HD, you will definitely be visually satisfied by Interstellar…

You will also be emotionally satisfied by it. Nolan produces quite a few very successful full-blown tugs at your heart strings. Even the toughest in my group welled up a couple of times during this one. I cannot state examples without giving spoilers as a lot of the most emotional moments come at crucial parts of the story – sort of jump cries as opposed to jump scares if you will…

But on the third hand (I appear to be an octopus for the purpose of this review) the film is also very, very cerebral. Nolan puts in a lot of science and a traditionally complicated storyline, successfully blending quantum physics, theory in a dystopian space context… Or I mean, does he really? This is where the hashtag Interstellarplotholes comes into play… Because Interstellar is a thing to be felt and enjoyed, sure… But if you start actually thinking about it seriously, holes begin to appear… I mean it starts from the smallest things – how, for example, in a world where purportedly nothing grows except corn, does mankind still have beer? How come Cooper never loses his tan for the duration of his “decades” in space? And – this is a big spoiler so look away now if you’re sensitive but I need to get this off my chest it’s a big pet peeve of mine  - why oh why oh why does this wormhole somehow magically end up behind a bookshelf? I mean I get the whole circular storyline thing, much like the Alchemist of Paulo Coelho we find the answer to the mystery we were searching for back where we began as it were but… I mean why of all things behind a book case?? I mean I get the importance of circularity. I really do. It’s the whole Humanist mindset of human beings “not needing any mysterious beings to take care of them”, that we and all the resources within ourselves are the only guides we’ll ever need if only we realize our own full potential. And I have to say, this is one of the more beautiful and intelligent ways I have seen of putting this message across. But I do wish Nolan had paid a bit more attention to the science as he went along. I mean I’m not even getting started on the fact that the only explanation we have of a wormhole is the same old folding a piece of paper thing every other sci-fi movie seems to do. Nolan either wants to mystify the viewer or, and I feel this may be the actual answer, this is not necessarily about “accurate science”. It’s a parable of love, humanity and life in a science fiction context and we should follow what our heart is picking up and not get “entangled” in the whole scientific context making sense to the “t”. Then again, it is the 21^st century and there are people out there who have made a bona fide hobby out of hunting for plot holes so I’m not entirely convinced this was the best way forward for this film if this was indeed what Nolan was after…

Whatever it was, true to form, we will very obviously be chatting about Interstellar for a good while yet… 

ESSIE RANTS ABOUT AND ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT "CLOUD ATLAS"

The moment I found out that Cloud Atlas was a story involving reincarnation, souls meeting in different lifetimes etc. I felt a worry beginning to brew in the pit of my stomach. I know this kind of film only too well. Full of grandiose messages about life, “the truth” and the universe. So packed full of metaphors and similes you need a dictionary of filmography to work your way through it all. Coming out way too pleased with itself at the end. This kind of film often annoys me because, well, firstly I don’t believe there is a single, easy “unifying theory of everything” so I get annoyed with films that claim they’re it. Secondly, while I do appreciate double meanings and depth in a film I certainly don’t think I should need to actually have to do research to figure out what exactly is being said.

Now I will not say Cloud Atlas is easy to follow. I mean there are six stories, separate yet interwoven, with the same characters (or rather the same souls) changing bodies, sex and race in practically each one and the stories are of course in true Buddhist style, repetitions, variations or rather, on the same theme, each one evolving with time, adding something, taking something out, some mistakes being repeated through the ages, other ones being changed, and changing history. I have gained infinite respect for the Wachowskis, not least because it must have been a complete mind-f.ck to write, never mind to film. But shall I tell you something? Unlike Donnie Darko (who I watched once and then discarded on the basis of having entire websites dedicated solely to deciphering the story) I will watch Cloud Atlas again. The Wachowskis have tried something rather daring and, would you believe it, they have pulled it off. It comes together beautifully, just like a symphony.

The film is, of course, full of grandiose emotions – but we all expected that, right? Concepts like eternity, everlasting love that survives death, immortal souls that death cannot separate… But never fear. It never reaches the point where it begins to get sickly, and we do go to this kind of film precisely for a dose or two of this kind of emotion, after all. In short yes, there is a certain amount of the preaching mentioned in the introduction, but not too much. Just enough. The same actors are often used, especially in the minor roles, as the same “type” of character, or rather the character that has the same role from one story to the next. Our heroes however, seem to almost change with every story, which doesn’t seem to make sense, but then again don’t try and read too  much cold logic into it. The whole point of the story is to give us a feeling of transcendent love, and this, the film manages very well.

I need to re-watch the film to clarify this point, but one thing I am not entirely sure of. As the same actors are not always used to represent the same souls, I did not quite get the pattern in how the bodies changed around. I am pretty sure the Wachowskis didn’t simply pull names out of a hat. There is, for example, the curious case of Tom Hanks. Now I know he’s meant to be the bad guy who evolves into a hero in the last story – or at least I think that’s what he was meant to be – but then there are discrepancies. I mean Ok, up until the very last story but one (chronologically that is) (and here it starts raining spoilers so look away now if you’re sensitive) – i.e. the one with Sumi, the clones and the Purebloods etc – I have to presume he is the third party who is trying to thwart our couple, the one who is trying to ultimately harm or use the protagonist (whichever character who was born with the shooting star mark in that particular story). If we follow that pattern, we have to assume he is the government official that Sumi “turns” just before her execution at the end of her sequence. Well ok, then it makes sense that he would be reborn as a good person in the next chronological sequence – you know the post-apocalyptic, cannibalistic humanity bit starring Tom Hanks and Halle Berry. I mean ok, sure, he evolves, he becomes a hero, he gets the girl in the end and that’s all very nice but here’s the problem  - what happens to the other protagonist? You know, the love interest. And if you tell me that was Halle Berry, well what happens to the original hero then? Ok another thing, let’s assume he has been evolving through the story, in the sequence in the ‘70s, he is the scientist who actually decides to help Halle Berry (as Lisa Ray the journalist) so I mean, ok, he’s becoming a better person etc, right? Wrong. Fast forward to the ‘90s, he murders a book critic in cold blood and then, albeit as a different character in a comedy sequence clearly inserted for comic relief more than anything else, he is also the brother who locks our protagonist (Jim Broadbent) up in the first place. There has to be something I’m missing here. Because we KNOW Tom Hanks is the protagonist of the (chronologically) last story as he has the birthmark. But then, THEN, the whole premise of love everlasting falls apart as he was the bad guy in like, 4 of the other 5 stories (in the ‘30s story the main big baddie is Jim Broadbent, Tom Hanks is the inn keeper, not a nice guy but not a major player either). So ok, then it was completely random, in fact he doesn’t evolve at all, the bad guy Tom Hanks was playing somehow just vanishes and they put Tom Hanks as the last hero to make it a nice, Hollywood-style beautiful couple for the closing scene with the shooting star in the sky and all that… Because, I would like to point out, that the 6^th story does not actually have a proper, focal “bad guy”. You might argue the cannibalistic tribe, but no, their actual equivalents in the other stories are the “muscle” baddies, you know the racist captain in the first story, the hit man in the ‘70s sequence, the CEO in the Sunmi sequence, Nurse Noakes in the comedy sequence…

So yeah. I mean maybe we’re not meant to puzzle over it too much. But worst case scenario, the 6^th story only kinda fits in with the other five. A good job as been done with hammering it in, but it is still a square peg in a round hole. One thing we can stop and admire is the commentary made on the universality of love, as the souls seem to change body indiscriminately, Forbischer comes back as a young black woman, Lisa Ray and actually sees  her/ his true love again. I found the sequences where she puzzles over the letters she herself wrote in her previous lifetime particularly touching. She is then reborn as a clone waitress – making a rather neat comment about artificial intelligence and the future of machines.

Like I said, I’ve got every suspicion that I am missing something here and it will all come clear if I watch the film a few more times. Either that, or I am really loosing myself in details. But in any case, rest assured the film is an incredibly enjoyable and emotionally charged way of spending a couple of hours. 

"LUCY" THE NEXT, "NEXT GENERATION" HUMAN...

When I began bemoaning my utter disappointment upon watching Lucy, I was met with loud protests from my male friends. I was amused by their argument : “Did you watch it on a small screen? Well that would be it then. It’s an action film, you’re supposed to watch it in cinema!”. I do realize that action as a genre is supposed to be heavily visual. You know, don’t ask too many questions. Enjoy the spectacular fight scenes and the big explosions. OK fair enough, the genre has its fans, and I am just as capable of appreciating a good explosion as the next man. But when putting Lucy into this context, two questions spring to mind. Firstly, since when have “pretty action sequences” been a legitimate saving grace if the rest of a film has gone awry? Secondly, my main point would be that Lucy is actually trying to be more than that. It’s just… You know… Failing.

The story of Lucy is told quickly enough. “Baddies” have discovered a new drug. Oh the kids are going to love it! It is the synthetic form of a hormone produced naturally by pregnant women and induces growth. Lucy is the typical “innocent stander by” roped into a dastardly situation. She, along with a few other randoms, are chosen by what looks suspiciously like the Yakuza (but we are in Taipei so possibly not) to be the couriers of this drug to European capitals. The thing is, Lucy’s trip goes horribly wrong, the packet she is carrying in her abdomen bursts and the drug starts seeping into her body, which in turn allows her to unlock the “unused” parts of her brain. This… Well… It has unexpected results…

Now, here’s my argument as to Lucy trying to be more than just an action movie. I mean, before I get into it let me underline this, the action sequences are nothing short of stunning. I am not; as you may know by now, the biggest fan of one single hero steamrolling every single opponent without so much as breaking a sweat but… You know. Let’s not get lost in details. It’s a genre, and in its own way its very well done – it’s just not to my own personal taste.  But come on. This is Luc Besson we are talking about. Since when has he been into making “just” action films?

From pretty much the get-go we are surrounded by hints that the film is trying to ground itself very firmly in science. The action in the film interspersed with what appear to be stock images from a David Attenborough documentary that “cleverly” parallel the action. You know, we cut from Lucy just before she is attacked in some way to a group of deer grazing in the Savannah, then she is attacked and we see a lion attacking the group of deer. That kind of thing. Rather too  much of it at that – but ok, you have to be blind to see what the film is trying to do, we are grounding ourselves in natural history, disenchantment of the world and all that jazz, humans are animals, predators in fact, and we should not “separate” ourselves from it by pretending any “mystic” side. Okey dokey. Then we get a looong explanation of the whole “humans only a limited percentage of their brain… Let’s imagine what would happen if we could use it all” theory. The saving grace of the whole “lecture” (both as a filmic device and in the actual storyline) is that it is delivered by Morgan Freeman. By that time, of course Lucy is now rampaging around the globe, able to control electronic devices from a distance (I’m still not exactly sure how that conversation between her and the doctor from Taipei to Paris actually worked on a technical level but ok, moving on) and her aim is to get to the Professor so she can pass on the “information” she has gained to the next generation just like any other mammal. OK HERE COME THE SPOILERS. Then she spectacularly kills all the baddies, she reaches 100% brain capacity, this makes her immune to the concepts of space and time and we finally see that she is tantamount to becoming God, as she sends a last message to the cop who has rather ineffectually being “assisting her” (he at least has the good grace to point out that he is not being much help) “I am everywhere”. Yeah, so she becomes God. It’s a wonderful atheist / humanist parable of how God is a construct of our own minds and if humans would only unleash their own capabilities they would be the only God they would ever need… There is even a slightly Nietschean rant in the film about how men limit themselves from realizing their true potential etc , just in case you missed the actual point of the film.

To make a complete aside for two seconds, in an age where we are seriously debating uploading our consciousness onto computers this is definitely a matter to be discussed. I mean the concept isn’t even new, think of Ghost in the Shell, think of Neon Genesis Evangelion – the Japanese, true to form, saw this coming 20 years ago. My point is that Lucy tries to clunk a very complex ontological concept onto a very flashy action movie packed with clichés and add it weight with a mock- David Attenborough documentary. Oh and to get this whole thing across in 80 minutes. Err… Yeah.

And if you thought that our final “God” is a woman is some kind of saving grace, think again. Lucy is pretty much the only speaking female part in the film (her flatmate hardly counts, she is only on for 2 minutes and has about 20 lines, almost all, incidentally about her date the previous night so yeah. It barely passes the Bechdel test because Lucy ends up giving her some advice about her health – but does it count if the other party doesn’t respond? Weigh in here someone… ). We barely get to know her anyway, apart from one conversation with her mother and the mention of exams, so she is some form of student... So yeah, she is the only woman literally surrounded by male gangsters, academics and police officers and she can only “outsmart” them by becoming less and less human and decidedly less feminine. So her whole empowerment actually amounts to beautiful blonde beating up a bunch of guys which, I believe, is considered a fun night out in some circles…

 We have had quite a few ones about computer-human hybrids and how we as humans would cope with consciousness  levels amped up infinitely, haven’t we? There are clues in this film that it is possibly meant as tongue in cheek, ranging from the very fact that Morgan Freeman’s iconic voice is used to lecture us to the fact that the secrets of the universe actually end up on a USB stick… I dunno, maybe I’m taking this a tad too seriously… But… I mean lay aside the pretty action sequences… You do see what I mean, don’t you? Go on… I know you do… 

THE MANY FACES OF "AMOUR"

Those of you who know me in real life know, I have quite a number of nonagenarians in my family. So it may be said of me that I think of old age and the things it will bring a tiny bit more than the average 30 year old. We tend to put it off, live as if we will be young forever and old age, if we think of it all, is a slightly more romantic vision of growing old with our significant other (if we have been lucky enough to have found them) happily sharing memories of youth and going through life a bit slowly perhaps, but gracefully, hand in hand. We very well may be lucky enough to have such a blessed autumn in our lives. Reality, however, as Amour not so very gently reminds us, is often much, much less sugar coated than this.

Meet Georges and Anne. They are retired music teachers in their eighties. They both enjoy a healthy interest in music and culture and their bond of love is as strong as the first day they have met. They have one adult daughter who has a family of her own in the UK who they keep in touch with. All in all they are preparing to end their years peacefully and together. Their peaceful world however is shattered when quite out of the blue Anne has a severe stroke. The condition claims first her body – rendering her an invalid – and then her mind leaving Georges quite alone. Georges is now left with the mere shadow of what his wife used to be and has to come to terms with becoming her carer. He also needs to cope with one of the severest tests their love has received.

Michael Haneke presents us with a typically unflinching and unforgiving stare at old age. Anyone who has at some point had to care for elderly relatives will testify to the realism of the depiction. Veteran actors like Emmanuelle Riva and Jean Louis Trintignant skillfully show us the horrifyingly sudden way Anne’s mind unravels and Georges’ trauma, confusion but above all undying love for his companion of so many years. It is no coincidence that the characters are music teachers – the contrast between Anne before the stroke – an able and knowledgeable housewife but also clearly a very capable music teacher who has raised musicians of world renown in her time – to Anne post the stroke towards the end of the film, inarticulate, screaming wordlessly like a baby, unable to tell Georges what is wrong and unable to understand what he or her daughter says to her. Quite apart from being incredibly difficult to watch, it is a stark reminder that it may be our very own future; Anne is peacefully having breakfast when the stroke strikes and has no previous symptoms whatsoever. Or indeed we might end up as Georges, left with only the shell of our loved one; trying to accept that for all intents and purposes the person we fell in love with has died. 

And of course the way Amour is filmed is as big a factor in its message as what the story actually tells us. The camera is often static and placed at a “respectable” distance that is often beneficial for us, the viewer to take in the house as it changes from Anne and Georges’ home to a house that needs to accommodate an invalid and all of her needs. The sedate and minimal movements of the camera match Georges very well as he presents a relatively calm and almost matter of fact exterior to his daughter, the carer and even us the viewer, while it is the tiniest cracks that show his real emotions boiling up all the way up to the breath-taking finale which I will not spoil for any of you.

Another interesting point is that the film takes place almost exclusively within the confines of Georges and Anne’s home. This is actually a very effective mirror of life in old age. In developing countries especially it is true that a lot of older people enjoy quite active lives, for one reason of another it is very easy for an octogenarian to become housebound. So we get a real taste of what old age may be like, but contrariwise we also bear witness to the ever-changing universe that can exist within four walls. This means of course that details of the film that take place outside the four walls get missed – we must use our heads to follow the story, although the effort will not be so great. We even miss some things that happen within the same house, but hey, that’s a pretty realistic depiction of real life as well…

Amour is, in short, a wonderfully sensitive and insightful look at the “happily ever after” of love. It shows us what happens after the sun we previously happily walked into with our other half has truly set. It is an incredibly sad film but not a hopeless one. Love, Amour tells us, doesn’t really die in events like this, It merely changes form…

THE ROLE OF A DIVA AS PLAYED BY A DIVA... "CALLAS FOREVER"

It’s funny, I always thought Maria Callas was Spanish. I know how this came about too, I was brought up on a rather eclectic diet of nursery rhymes and operas and Carmen, as sung by Maria Callas was one of my favourite things ever. I still love it and the recording has been listened and re-listened to within an inch of its life. I guess at some point Carmen and Callas merged in my head, so she became Spanish. I was a little surprised to find out she was Greek. Surprised, yet proud in a funny way, you know, the Greeks are neighbours after all. But you know, in a way, it doesn’t really matter that much. Callas was, above and beyond anything else, a diva. A gigantic talent. And above such things as nationality. This is why it is so fitting that a grand actress like Fanny Ardent is the one who portrays her. A diva to play a diva. And of course we have Franco Zefirelli at the helm, one of the old masters of cinema and a close friend of Callas herself. The result? Yes. It indeed is the showstopper you expect it to be.

Callas forever joins Maria Callas in the last year of her life, 1977. She is only 53, but her voice is nowhere near what it used to be. Callas, a consummate diva, has shut herself up in her home in Paris, rarely going out and slipping further and further into depression. Her friends are worried about her but are unsure how to go about helping this proud woman until Larry (Jeremy Irons,) her old manager, has a brainwave. Technology means there is a way for Maria to return to the screen, if not the stage, despite her failing voice. The question is, will Maria accept this partial return to the limelight? Or is Larry’s idea too little, too late?

That was another mythic bit about Callas wasn’t it? I am pretty sure I remember the whole “thing” of the reclusive artist, going over and over the recordings of their former glory, finding its place in a lot of films, sometimes as a tragic element, sometimes as a comic one. Personally, I don’t think there is anything really funny about it. Anyone who lives long enough to reach retirement age is going to be plagued by feelings of doubt and depression. The feeling that they are no longer “useful” that they are “ready for the scrap heap”. The way the creative industries function today, the “retirement age” is a lot younger and the “fall” a lot steeper as one goes from absolute adoration to complete anonymity and this can go to the head of even moderately famous and talented artists, much less a musical talent like Callas who has been one of the top performers in her field for decades. It is the realisation that while you were once capable of so much, you are now maybe capable of only half that – or even less. It must be quite frightening to feel that you have decade upon decade of “absolutely nothing” ahead of you. No wonder Callas was trying to hang on to her days of glory.

Of course with subject matter like that, the film cannot go far wrong – a good story is definitely the backbone of any film but I honestly think Fanny Ardent does make all the difference. Much to my delight (spoiler alert, people) a good chunk of the film is taken up by the filming of Carmen and the cast watching back some of the most popular scenes. This gives the film the slightly musical, actually no, operatic quality a biography of Callas simply must have. But it also puts Ardent herself in the rather awkward position of having to pretend to be Callas who is pretending to be Carmen who is pretending to sing – and is actually singing with Callas’ own voice.  Because, of course, Ardent’s own interpretation of Carmen is one thing but Callas’ interpretation of the part is something completely different… Boy it must have been a challenge to work that one out! Another mention simply has to go to Jeremy Irons who is absolutely marvellous as Larry, who is almost as much a diva as Callas herself, a typical industry professional a little too tied up with his career to take care of his private life. Another strong character in the film is that of Joan Plowright as Sarah Keller, the journalist and their common friend who is also trying to get Callas back on her feet. The portrait is a wonderful, unflinching yet very humane portrayal of a very extraordinary woman. Ardent’s performance makes me hanker for the old days, the old fashioned stars. I strongly recommend this film, even if you aren’t a particular fan of Callas or the opera. Because, let’s not forget, the original Callas Forever was meant to open up Callas’ works to a new generation… Who knows… It may work its magic on you too… 

"THE GRAND HOTEL BUDAPEST" WHERE SIMPLY EVERYONE FINDS A LITTLE BIT OF HOME

I saw the trailer for The Grand Hotel Budapest a while ago. The moment I saw the trailer I wanted to see the film then and there. Right away. You know the feeling. The anticipation has been toe-curling but at the same time, as I always say, slightly daunting because the higher your expectations are the further they have to fall. But the Grand Hotel Budapest came up and beyond my expectations. Not only has Wes Anderson come up with another masterpiece, he has done something rather extraordinary in the person of Monsieur Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the hero of the film. Allow me to endeavor to explain.

See I work as staff. You may even have seen me – I may have served you drinks, lunch or dinner. So I know first-hand what it means for staff to be “invisible”. A well-staffed establishment runs smoothly and it looks as if things are magically falling into place. In actual fact it’s a bit of a “swan” number going on – mad paddling underneath to keep up the appearance of calmness above. In a hotel, the beating heart of this phenomenon, the keystone connecting and directing the staff and liaising with the guests at the same time is the concierge. And the Grand Hotel Budapest – once one of the most celebrated hotels on the continent – was once the area of operations for M. Gustave, one of the best concierges known to the hotel industry. Now, how magnificently well things are running is worthy of lengthy praise – but it doesn’t really make for a brilliant story. What does make a good story is what is going on behind the scenes, and this is precisely where Wes Anderson is taking us. Because if you think the front of house at the Grand Budapest was amazing, you may not be able to take what is going on back of house…

First of all, rest assured, Wes Anderson fans are going to love this. It’s his dry sense of humor running through the film through and through and through. And if you’re not sure what that means, this is the film to try. Anderson builds a wonderful, surreal, colorful world filled with characters who, bizarrely perhaps, are some of the most believable we have ever met. I think it is the author’s (a wonderful, almost cameo-esque performance from Jude Law) straight faced every man approach to everything  that makes the whole semi-modern fairy tale just that tad more believable. But then again poker-faced absurd comedy has always been a very Anderson thing. It’s basically what I love about the man.

But we must, simply must spare a paragraph or two for M. Gustave. It’s an absolutely stellar performance from Fiennes, one of his most “fabulous” characters to date. And the best and most historic part of it is, he’s bisexual. Now, openly bisexual heroes are thin on the ground as they are. The whole concept of bisexuality is generally linked to something fishy. They are generally villains that stab you in the back in 1980’s movies. This of course is linked to the lack of comprehension of the fact that a person can be sexually attracted to two genders. It sounds… Fishy. My point has always been that one shouldn’t really have to fully understand something to accept, live and let live and even love a person. But then again, that’s my inner old-fashioned hippy. That said, M. Gustave makes no bones about using his sexuality. He charms and beds the older female clientele to make them “regular” clients. And yet at the other end of the spectrum Anderson makes Gustave openly camp in places; be it his obsession with romantic poetry, his cologne, his appreciation of delicate pastries or his effeminate gestures. But the fact that he is effeminate does not mean he is “ineffective”. That’s another thing that really annoys me about the “effeminate” hero is the incompetent one. You know, the one that falls on his face, not strong enough to do whatever it is… You know. The screen needed an openly effeminate action man like Gustave who can single-handedly (yet quite realistically) outsmart the villains and win the day in the end. This film is just about all the proof you need that if you keep a straight face and act natural you can pretty much make the most outrageous suggestion look normal - which is what Gustave does. My especial favorite is the fact that, just in case anyone is confused, one of the baddies yells “You’re bisexual!” at Gustave. Gustave’s answer is a facial expression but amounts to “Yeah, fair enough.”

I could write for pages and pages and still could not convey the atmosphere of The Grand Budapest. You really have to visit it yourself to understand. You will definitely fall under Gustave’s charms. I mean, there’s a reason it has barreled into the IMDB Top 250. 

NOTHING QUITE MEASURES UP TO ``HER``

Those of you who know me in real life know that I still (yes, still) don`t have a smartphone. This makes me incredibly annoying if we are meeting up somewhere I`m not familiar with (not least because not only do I have no GPS, I have absolutely no sense of direction whatsoever – one friend of mine rather historically had to `navigate` me to a club for all of two hours. I was very lost.). Anyway, so I`m oldschool. I check my e-mail from home. I can`t tag myself in venues. The concept of a selfie is slightly lost on me and I don`t have Instagram. Now, 2014 may well be there year Sedef converts to smartphones but for now my little old `dumb phone` does me just fine. So when you guys all whip out your smartphones and get stuck to them doing this and that, I will make fun of you. My favourite quip is that you are surgically attached to your phone, or that you are in love with the thing. My quips a little more than jest, but Her makes the very valid point that artificial intelligence is here to stay and that well… Where there are intelligent beings capable of personal development … There will, inevitably be love.

Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is a writer. He works as a writer at the `handwritten letter company` composing letters for other people. He is good at what he does – he is considered one of the best writers in the company. He was once the life and soul of the party, he and his wife Catherine (Rooney Mara). All that is gone now. Theodore and Catherine are getting divorced and this has pretty much knocked Theodore for six. Theodore seems to be closing in on himself more and more and getting more and more depressed with each passing day until, completely on a whim, he buys a new, artificially intelligent operating system, OS1. OS1 is an artificially intelligent operating system designed to meet the users every need and be as close to being human as possible without having a body… Thus begins a very extraordinary relationship. Because the one thing Theodore needs from life is love. And Samantha (as the OS decides to call herself – voiced by Scarlett Johansson) may just be the girl for him…

Human VS Artificial Intelligence used to be something merely for the sci-fi geeks. You know, something you thought about if you happened to be a fan if writers like Isaac Asimov or series like Star Trek. But the technological developments of the last couple of decades mean that now artificial intelligence is, potentially, part of our everyday lives. Which in turn means mainstream art has begun to think about it. I mean fair dues; Spike Jonze is by no stretch of the imagination mainstream, but the point is that this is a film that was seen by a good many people, was awarded an Oscar and a good many other awards besides. I has raced its way through lists of iconic films and ``to watch`` lists. It has clearly struck a chord. And although relationships with computerized beings (what DOES one call them ??!!) are, for now, only really frequent in high-tech countries such as Korea and Japan, well, this may well mean that the trend is heading our way… 

I think this film has struck such a chord because it touches on a very sensitive point. A point only single people in their thirties will get. Your thirties is a time of life where most people around you are settling into their relationships. If not already married, people are moving in together, having children and generally taking step after step in that particular area of ``adult life``. Now don`t get me wrong, I am one of these single people. I am not discontent with my singledom either. But come on guys, put your hand on your heart and admit it. More or less frequently – depending on your nature – there are moments when you are filled with the sense that you will never find ``your other half``. There is a moment you look around at all the happy (or seemingly happy –but that is a different post all together) couples around you and think ``that will never be me``. And if you have been a confirmed bachelor, this is one thing, because you do probably know by now that just because you are single at the moment your world is not actually coming to an end. If however you exit a long-term relationship, it may feel as if literally all is lost. The whole story line with the friend Theodore got set up with annoyed me at first. It seemed to me, for a second, that it was a re-hash of that hoary old chestnut about clingy and slightly mad single women in their thirties (and there is definitely an element of this thought in the film. Think of the ``choking on the cat`` bit if you have watched the film.) Because clearly, if you are above a certain age and single there must be something very wrong with you *sigh*. But when I thought about it a little more calmly I began to get it. Because more often than not that IS how you approach potential new relationships if you are in Theodore`s shoes. If you were dumped I mean. Nothing and no one measures up to your ex who was, clearly, the most perfect person ever in the world. All those other people `left on the shelf` couldn`t even begin to compare to that perfection. Hence at first any new potential partner is riddled with faults. Even if they are not.

The other, not completely disconnected point is most clearly put across by Theodore when he talking about Samantha. On more than one occasion he says of Samantha that it is ``great to be with someone who is excited about the world``. I see what that is about completely, although I find it hard to put into words. We all get hurt at some point. We all get jaded. And rather unfairly we desperately search with this joie de vivre in others, without exactly being generous with handing it out ourselves. We have in Samantha someone who is only just discovering the world, combining all the qualities of a child, truly excited with new life, with the sensibilities of a grown woman.

Her is a very, very deep film. It asks a lot of serious questions about love and relationships. And although if were to go into a detailed analysis of what I think of each one I would have to possibly start up a new blog or something like that, I think there is one last very valid point to be made. In a world where we are more and more obsessed with appearances, Theodore ends up bypassing the gorgeous single woman he gets set up with and falls for a woman without a body. They have ``phone sex`` and go on dates ``via camera``. So whatever other points the film makes, I think Her makes it perfectly clear that for a relationship to truly work out you have to know to look below what is only skin-deep.

On the surface a simple boy meets girl… Only with so many twists and turns… Spike Jonze has truly outdone himself this time. Definitely a must-see.