PAIN IN A MARRIAGE : 40 M2 DEUTSCHLAND

Ok, for the next couple of weeks ( I may or may not have mentioned this point) most of the entries to this blog will be made up of the films I saw in my local film festival. Not the biggest festival in the world, that’s for sure, but it sure comes up with the goods! The newest and most talked about films of the year rub shoulders with time-honored classics – and some films that should be cited among classics but are not - and we, the movie-goers, sit there and drool. And lament minor details like the inability to be in two places at once. Now, this is one you probably haven’t heard of. It’s by a Turkish director, Tevfik Başer, and it was shot 25 whole years ago, in 1986. This being a festival, he was kind enough to show up after the screening for a question and answer session, to which I will not be able to help but touch on in just a couple of minutes, after I give you an idea of “the plot”.
In the mid-eighties, a Turkish couple, Turna and Dursun move to Germany. Dursun, the husband, is a factory owner, Turna, the wife, is a housewife. Both are uneducated people who have come here from a small village in Anatolia. Nothing “new” so far, right? Dursun, like any other husband, goes off to work each morning. However, before he goes off to work, he makes sure he locks his wife in the house, because “she doesn’t know what these Germans are like”. So, for Turna (whose name, ironically, translates as Crane (the bird) ) a life of imprisonment begins. Nothing she says or does can convince Dursun to let her out, or even take her seriously, so for Turna there is only one option left. Finding a way of communicating with the outside world from within the 40 m2 she is trapped in…
First of all, as I watched the film, I was saddened by its relative relevance even today. Assuredly, in Turkey many things have changed, this cannot be denied, but especially in rural areas, small villages were education is not as wide spread as it should be, women live in similar conditions. And of course, if the family decides to emigrate, it is not unimaginable that they live in much the same state as Turna.
Anyone who thinks this “unrealistic” may be interested to hear that Tevfik Başer based this film on a true story. He studied abroad for many long years before returning to Turkey, and some of that time abroad was spent in Germany, training to be a cameraman and studying media studies, specifically documentaries. He had observed one of his neighbors – a woman like Turna, locked in her house day in and day out – and had begun to try and conceive of a way he could make a documentary on the matter. This slowly mixed with fiction in his head, and thus his first script was born… He was 25 when he shot this film apparently. Very brave move I must say; the film takes place in the 40 m2 of the house with almost only the two main characters and a handful of side characters all of whom we see for under 10 minutes. You might think it would be “unwatchable” so to speak, in fact, it is not. As you get into the psychological development of the characters watch their stories unravel, you can’t help but get caught up in it.
As he spoke in the question and answer section, Mr. Başer admits to being heavy handed with the symbolism in parts – a fair enough comment. “I was young” he said (Or so I recall) “It was the excitement of my first film; I would probably have done a lot of things differently if I shot it again today.” This saddened me immensely, kind of like a child being abandoned by a parent. The symbolism IS heavy handed in places, but seeing as Turna is trapped in a couple of rooms and thus everything in it is “blown out of proportion” so to speak, does this really matter so much? I think not. It gives a good sense of claustrophobia. The claustrophobia both the characters are trapped by, in a sense. Turna is trapped in the house and Dursun is trapped by his prejudices and he is completely unaware he is trapped… Very sad… No, I reckon the film is perfect as it is.
During the session one much-lamented fact that the film is rarely shown and not really available on DVD except within a few German compilations… But I decided to review it anyway, you really must watch it if you get the chance, it’s a real little gem you would NOT want to miss out on…

GROWING PAINS : "ATTENBERG"

Now, a warning to all you conservative viewers out there. This is one of those “new fangled” films. You know, one of the ones that use abstractions and weird settings to get a message across. In my opinion, however, it does it so well that even if it does grate slightly at first (it didn’t in my case) you quickly get used to it (that’s what I guess happens any way). Now, much to my shame I haven’t seen much in the way of Greek cinema, this may in fact be my first Greek film ever. However, I found it deep and I found it thought provoking – despite the weirdness going on. Oh, talking of weirdness, there is quite a lot of nudity and sex in the film as well, personally I didn’t find it disturbing – partly due to the way it’s generally handled – but still, this is not one for the kids…
Now, meet Marina. She lives in a small seaside town in Greece. In this life she has two friends, her widowed father and Bella, a girl her own age. Now, Marina’s age is actually 23, but you wouldn’t know it to look at her. On the outside, towards strangers, she seems normal enough if rather quiet. On the inside however… Well, the lack of social contact, the closed community and her sick father who doesn’t have the time or energy to take care of her, her development has been rather stunted. Thus, at 23, she is still yet to “discover” boys. Bella, who is still awkward but slightly “better off” than Marina tries to teach her the basics but Marina finds the whole thing “disgusting”. There is a problem however. Spiro, her father is dying. Since her mother has already passed away, Marina must rather abruptly begin to learn all the things she has missed out on before Spiro passes away. Otherwise, there is really no telling what might happen…
Now, sitting from the comfort of the western world, the storyline may sound a little improbable to you but in fact, well it’s exaggerated but I can quite see what they are driving at. In developing countries, or in countries where there is a tradition of strict religious upbringing or just in small isolated communities, social relations are not what they should be. Things are often “more complicated” than they should be, and more sensitive issues like intimacy and sexuality are often not openly discussed and thus well… Stunted. Not as they should be. Not having the chance to run their course and develop naturally, the behavior patterns become far from “normal”. Marina’s relationship with her father for instance – she tells him everything, including “boys”. When he asks her why she’s telling him all this Marina replies “I have no one else to tell it to.” (Bella is a bit of a flirt and thus a threat). Her father also is more “at ease” in expressing his views to her; “Sorry” he says at one point “I keep forgetting you’re not my buddy.” “That’s because you don’t have any buddies” replies Marina. So in fact the lack of social interaction is affecting Spiro too. Just with Marina it has come at a more developmental stage, affecting her outlook on many things. This is somewhat where the name of the film comes in. “Attenberg” is actually Sir David Attenborough (obviously mispronounced), and Marina and her father love nothing more than crashing on the bed together and watching his documentaries – sometimes even imitating the animals (rather indicative of the fact that Marina doesn’t quite feel “human”, she is like a different species and thus unable to “mate” with humans). And in fact Marina is quite happy with her little tribe of three, but Spiro is dying and Bella, well… They may be tribe-members but she is a threat to Marina, it is high time for Marina to grow up…
Now, at this point I have to say I am not entirely comfortable with the process of a woman’s development and maturing being almost equated to sexuality (a bit like Black Swan in fact, don’t you think? Completely different contexts of course...) but then again, I guess it is one of the real “big” signs of growing up. It’s not called the “facts of life” for nothing. And besides, the film is a wonderful essay on loneliness, love (in many shades, not just sex – we also see Marina trying to cope with her beloved father’s death) and growing up… A bit in your face with the methods but beautiful messages…

INTO THE MIND OF ERIC. OR ERIC(S). OR THE PROCESS OF LOOKING FOR ERIC

Life… Sometimes it’s tough. And when one of those times comes around we are often forced to sit back and reevaluate. Sometimes to pick up something new, get rid of the old, grow or change a little. This is not an “age” thing, it happens to us all no matter what our physical age, and this rather sweet film directed by Ken Loach gives a rather brilliant insight into the human psyche and the process of “growing up” and changing things…
Eric is a postman. He has had it rather tough. Two marriages later he has ended up looking after Ryan and Jess his two stepsons. His daughter from his first marriage is desperately trying to graduate from university –but Eric has to look after his granddaughter a few hours a day for that to happen. Not to mention ferrying said granddaughter between his first wife, Lilly, (who he still secretly loves and misses) and his daughter. His stepsons see him more as a convenience, respect is not exactly a by word in their relationship, so much so that the older son Ryan seems to be getting up to all kinds of no good nonsense without so much as a second thought for Eric, the actual owner of the house. Eric has reached that point in life where you look back and start wondering if you got some stuff wrong… Or right. He has grave doubts on that point, especially where Lilly his one true love (who he himself abandoned) is concerned. He seeks solace in Manchester United and his favorite football player, nay idol, Eric Cantona (who “pops in” to visit Eric from time to time. The two of them have lengthy chats and arguments much to the alarm of passersby and his stepsons). But there will come a time where even Monsieur Cantona’s council isn’t enough. Ryan is in a lot of trouble. And Eric has to really step his act up a notch if he’s to get his little family through this and get a second shot at love with Lilly…
I love films that portray real life so clearly. I’m not talking about films about real events like the Killing of John Lennon or The King’s Speech necessarily. No, I mean films that take real life situations, feeling and emotions and put them on the big screen. Like Away We Go for instance. Grand adventures and emotions, worlds of fantasy and mystery are all very well and good, but we mustn’t forget that real life itself is rarely like any of this, and yet contains a lot of adventure and mystery and emotions just the same… And they are all perfectly worthy of their own moment in the sun, if only because these are the moments our lives are actually made up of. This is a wonderful little gem about looking back and rethinking your life. It’s about those moments you simply know you have to up your game plan if you want to carry on. It’s about “growing up” in one sense, taking responsibility. It’s about finding yourself… And because we all have had or at least can imagine ourselves having such moments that it is so easy to sympathize with Eric. Oh and by the way, yes there is Eric Cantona in it and a bit of foot ball with Eric and the rest of the post office but don’t let that put you off, it’s part of the charm of the film… I mean, guys and their football, right? You couldn’t call the film realistic if they didn’t go together…

INTO THE MIND - OF AN ENTIRE VILLAGE : THE STONING OF SORAYA M.

Although it didn’t reach this part of the world, it appears that this story was a bestselling book before it was a film in the cinema. Now, you may or may not believe this is a true story. There is only one photograph of Soraya that survives, one that was taken when she was nine years old. You may call it just another money making venture, story made up to sell books and tickets. Fair enough – maybe it is. But this story is, as far as we know, the story of countless women in many different countries. It is the fate bestowed to women in countries where, as Zahra says in the film “the voice of a woman has no importance”. If nothing else it is a shocking example of the practice of stoning and how this horrific tradition is regularly practiced in the middle east. It is a tough film to watch but I feel that we owe it to the suffers to hear their story, even if we cannot do anything else to help them…
Soraya lived in a small, almost forgotten village of rural Iran. She had four children, two girls and two boys. She is a housewife, as are most women in Iran – especially in the countryside. Her husband Ali is not a good man. Not only has he turned their two sons against her, he wants to divorce her to marry a new wife, almost a child. Soraya refuses. She will be unable to take care of herself and her two daughters. Ali however is adamant. He is also well connected. He will use his connections and play on the sensitivities of his neighbors in the village to get rid of Soraya once and for all and completely. With no one on her side but her aunt Zahra, Soraya stands her ground. But the very ground will start to crumble from under her soon enough when Ali’s plan begins to bear fruit.
Now, I have not done any real research into the truth or falseness of the story told here. But what makes me strongly suspect the fact that it is real is in fact the characters. The film portrays the grayness of a lot of things in life that are neither black nor white; it shows us how good people can be manipulated or silenced. It shows us how terrifying “the crowd” can be… Soraya is not the typical “heroine” of these stories. She is pretty, but not a “stunning beauty” as is often the case, for instance. She is intelligent and strong but she is also proud and she will sometimes not listen to the voice of caution or reason because… Well because she doesn’t want to hear. And we have to admit we all do that sometimes. Personally, I cried buckets as I watched this one. And I am not a great one for “having a good old cry” either. It is one of those stories that tell us that sometimes the good and the right does not triumph over the bad in this world… And it gives us a rather harrowing portrait of how it comes about… A must see, in my view…

GRANDDADDIES OF CINEMA - THE SILENT MOVIE WEEK : THE GENERAL

Looking back on my previous entries, I’m pretty sure you must be slightly bemused by the fact that my choice of viewing matter seems to be less of a choice and more a series of fortuitous events that lead me from one film to another. I wish I could offer an explanation for it. Say I made it up for your amusement or something. But honestly, that’s exactly what happens. I have an archive of films and I paw through them going “Umm, how to amuse myself today”. I will happen across a film and say “ah, I’ve been wanting to watch that for a while” (not an entirely fair statement seeing as this sentence can be applied to the greater part of my archive) and pounce. I will, perhaps, decide to make a “theme” out of it and sort out some of its “brothers and sisters” in time for next week’s fare but basically the choice of theme is, yes, as random as it looks. Or Devine design (and in this particular case God is working in more mysterious ways than usual but anyways…). In some cases I will haphazardly watch a bunch of films and realize they make a theme (that was last week! I completely unthinkingly watched The King’s Speech on a Saturday and Cry Freedom on the Sunday. In Cold Blood was finished on the same Saturday). In short, if you wonder why and how we have skipped from “historical events” last week to “1920’s silent movies” this week, I honestly don’t have a clue. So there. If you figure it out, let me know – as far as I know I just saw The General with Buster Keaton in it and said “Oh yes, this has been lying around for ages” watched it, loved it and decided to follow it down with Charlie Chaplin and Metropolis the following days… I’m not sure if this is a fitting introduction for such great artists but they were the greatest comedians of our times and the situation is pretty darn funny so I reckon they won’t mind…
The General is not a general per se but a train. And Johnnie Gray (Buster Keaton) is its loving driver. There is one thing / person he loves more than the General and that is his best beloved. Now, the General is a steam engine of course for we are back in the time of the American civil war. And alas, the war has already reached her hometown in the South.His sweetheart's brother and father both enlist at once and she expects Johnnie to do the honorable thing – i.e. enlist as well. Now, Johnnie is more than happy to oblige but the authorities who hear he’s an engineer won’t have him – he’s much more valuable as an engineer, trains are the fastest modes of transport of the time. But his girlfriend's mind is made up. Unless Johnnie enlists, she wants nothing further to do with him. So poor Johnnie labors on as does the war… Until one fateful day, when Johnnie’s General is abducted by northerners… And to make matters worse his beloved ?? is taken hostage. With the two things he loves the most in the hands of enemies; Johnnie knows there is only one thing left to be done. Cross enemy lines and get them back. By himself.
Now this film was made in 1927. When movies were “movies” as opposed to the later “talkies”; no sound, constant piano music, a lot of the action and speech is mimed with “explanations” written on a black screen – you know what I’m talking about… So especially comedies had a completely different way of functioning. Slapstick was, basically, all they had. And heck, were they good at it! Now don’t turn your nose up at slapstick and physical comedy. I know these days it’s more associated with private parts and underwear but remember kids, this was the ‘20s! Bare flesh was a no – no. So were “rude” jokes of this sort. Some little comic twists took me completely by surprise even; I’m just not used to thinking that way! Now, I didn’t actually laugh out loud as I watched this film but I don’t think I stopped smiling once. It is brilliant, funny from beginning to end without once losing beat. You may call it “naïve” and look down your noses at it but well, remember what Zorba the Greek said : “Clever men and grocers, they weigh everything.” – one can have too much of a good thing. Thinking included.

GRANDDADDIES OF CINEMA - THE SILENT MOVIE WEEK: THE GOLD RUSH

Charlie Chaplin’s “little tramp” is, without any doubt, one of the great iconic characters of the 20th century. I mean, I’m sure you know him, even if you have never watched any of his films. He was the best of the entire comic genre; his gags, jokes and mimics have become classic parts of comedy routines. As for impersonating “the little tramp”, well… As we all know that can still make on laugh until one cries (by the way, did you know that Charlie Chaplin actually came second in a “Charlie Chaplin look-alike contest he entered just for kicks?). Anyway, of the many famous films he has left us as his legacy the one we will talk about today is “The Gold Rush”.
It is the height of the great gold rush in Alaska. The land is crawling with prospectors seeking their fortunes. Townships spring up like mushrooms and brave men battle the hardships with the dream of becoming millionaires. Here we find our friend the little tramp. He is not too successful at first. Friends and enemies come along as does Georgia, a beautiful girl who steals his heart in one of the townships. The little tramp may truly have a heart of gold, but will that be enough for him to reach the real stuff lying under the ground?
Now Chaplin’s comic genius in undeniable. Besides, there is a reason these films are timeless – Laurel and Hardy, Buster Keaton, the lot of them. They may be constructed in a completely alien way to modern films, there may not even be any sound, but if stories and technology changes, comedy does not. People still laugh at the same kind of things, and these guys are the ones who “did it first”. Staked a claim if you will – especially Chaplin. But Chaplin’s character had a different appeal as well. He was the little guy standing up to the bullies and outwitting them. Of course this is more apparent in some films rather than others but if you think about general themes it is in fact what Hollywood likes best – and most definitely what we like best: Good triumphing over evil. Only in this case good comes with a warning against split sides – and a ticket for eternal fame.
I once again say as I did in my previous post: don’t let the naiveté or the lack of 3D put you off. Just sit down, see what you make of it. I’m ready to bet you’ll surprise yourself…

GRANDDADDIES OF CINEMA - THE SILENT MOVIE WEEK :METROPOLIS

Now, watching silent comedies that are now considered classics the whole world over is all very well and good; however, it rather gives the impression that nothing serious was ever filmed during the 20’s. Now of course this was a long time ago and a lot of material has been lost since then but there are a lot of films worthy of note. Metropolis ranks high among these last mentioned. The version I watched was the restored version; and sadly a large part of the film is actually lost forever, the version of the film we are able to watch today is the version “reassembled” according to the original script from the unedited negatives. It is edited into a perfectly “viable” film with the original “intertitles” and everything; however, there are chunks (big ones) of footage that are irretrievably lost. Those bits are narrated from the script with modern intertitles. Well, the remaining footage amounts to about 2 hours of film. And when I actually finished watching the film, I found myself bitterly lamenting the lost footage that amounted to no less than a quarter of the film; around forty five minutes in total. Now I am NOT a big fan of sci-fi. Fantastic, things like magic, fairies, wizards and witches yes definitely. Robots and aliens (Dr. Furter excluded naturally) err no, I’ll pass. Generally anyway. However, this one…Oh boy… Fritz Lang, I take my hat off to you, your film kicked ass 50 years before the genre was properly invented…
We are transported to what we can only assume is “sometime in the future” (they weren’t all that particular on setting their stories steadily in time and space back in those days). The world revolves round the giant city of Metropolis. The rich and privileged live in towers high above ground in luxury. Then there is the “workers city”. Situated in the depths of the earth, the workers are basically everyone who is not privileged. Their lives revolve around the 10 hour shifts where they do back breaking work to keep the city’s giant machines working. They seem to be doing their work without questioning it but their patience is growing thin. One day, quite unexpectedly, Freder, the son of Joh Fredersen – the Master of Metropolis – is plunged into this world. And he realizes that as the heir of Metropolis he has many important things he must do to provide peace… But will he be able to mediate between the two sides effectively? And what of his father who is plotting with the city’s inventor over a “machine man” (read robot)? Will good prevail? Or will chaos descend on Metropolis?
Now even at first glance, there are so many messages on so many different levels in this film, you may be forgiven for just reading the plot and reckoning it would be unwatchable. And all this of course on unfamiliar, “soundless” territory. The theme of the workers against the privileged upper classes is easy to spot. There is also much said about the human condition, men working with machines and men being almost effectively turned into machines by modern living. And then there are the machines themselves, not to mention the Machine Man. Of course the “living creation” was a theme pursued since Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein but this is a whole different level. The setting is such brilliant sci-fi and Lang’s vision of the future so – for want of a better world – realistic it simply blows one’s mind. The whole thing would have been fascinating to watch; the machines and the heartlessness of the modern world is at one point set off with passages from the Bible but ALL those sections are effectively lost. I don’t want to elaborate in great detail but you will be left with more food for thought than you might imagine. So much so that when you look at the names of all the characters one sees clearly that Lang did his level best to make them sound like no real country on earth so no country’s regime would feel offended and think they personally were compared to this “Brave New World”-ish dictatorship.
There are many quintessentially “beginning of the century” things in the film as well. To site but one Freder the young hero for example; he is a typical “Candide”. Unaware of the real world, sensitive, naïve… He faces the “adventures”, learns and grows but his motives, thoughts and reactions remain “perfect” if you will; just a notch on the wrong side of human (not to mention the fact that he is prone to fainting fits and becoming delirious under great psychological strain) but it doesn’t go against the grain. He represents purity and goodness and we are so naturally on his side that we forgive him all of that; that was the case with me anyway… In short, the film knocked me for six. Highly recommended.

BIG IN JAPAN WEEK : "RASHOMON"

RASHOMON
Now, over time we have been together (and believe it or not it’s over a year now… I can’t quite believe it myself, can you?) You may have noticed that if I like one thing in life it’s a good, old fashioned “whodunit”. Now, when I stumbled into viewing Rashomon for my “a film a day” program I knew very little about it other than it was directed by master director Akira Kurosawa. I didn’t research the film any further; I had already watched “Dersu Uzala” and I thought watching another film by him would be an excellent way to garner the style of the director… I stumbled into a rather original whodunit. This is why I like Japanese art so much. Even if it’s a murder mystery (so to speak) they can put it in a way you never imagined, making the film something you would have never thought of – if you see what I mean. If a change is as good as a rest, I can assure you I feel well-rested after this one…
We are in Japan of the middle ages. A monk and a poor woodman are sheltering from the rain in an old ruined temple. They look particularly glum and thoughtful, so a third man who also runs to shelter from the rain asks them what is troubling them. They have been called as witnesses in a murder trial. They are confused, because the story presented to them is very curious indeed. You see, an infamous bandit has been caught as the suspect; his crime is to have murdered a wealthy man who was travelling from one city to another on horseback with his wife and to have raped the wife . The wife is alive, the husband is dead, but the three of them (the dead man who talks via a medium, the wife and the bandit) can’t agree on the sequence of events or even the way the husband died. Is there a sensible explanation to all of this? Or must we assume that even the dead man is lying, casting doubt on human nature for all times…
Rashomon is actually a very astute study of human nature. Why do men lie? Who is lying about what, and why? I loved the way that the viewer is not the “all seeing eye” but actually knows the same amount as the passer by who listens to the stories. Apparently Kurosawa called this film a “reflection of life”. So true… Everyone has their own interpretation of what is going on around them, or their own version of what they would have liked to happen anyway. Everyone lies to cover up what they feel is lacking in them and around them. When you read up about it, it’s full of technical innovations too, from the first use of the handheld camera to the first time the camera is actually pointed at the sun… It’s a very… Very serene film, pondering sagely about a serious topic. I like the way that in a lot of Asian art, specifically Japanese art, does not place itself “above” the viewers. It doesn’t place itself below the viewer either necessarily. It’s a feeling of mutual respect and admiration, presenting and discussing an argument… Rashomon is no doubt a very important film cinematically speaking, so you should watch it as a cinephile as well, but beyond that, I feel it’s also a very good example of all that is “good about Japanese cinema… A must see in my book…

MIXED BAG WEEK! : THE USUAL SUSPECTS

As I watched this one I got to thinking, Good Heavens the 90’s sure was a decade for “hard ass” action gangster films. The action of the 50’s, only revved up a bit. Now, The Usual Suspects is just such a film. It is in many ways very much a “boy’s film”, however taken in context it would appeal to anyone who actually likes crime movies. You know, putting the clues together, reaching a surprising and bigger picture that sort of jazz. I was “sort of ok” with it until the end. I was even mentally debating whether or not I should put it in the blog or not – you know I only write about the films I actually enjoyed. There are plenty more “unwatched classics” in the pile… But then I hit the punch line – or rather the punch line hit me. Punched me, in fact. At the risk of sounding like an antique dealer, it has a beautiful finish, a true classic. Imitations of it were made for a reason…
Thrown together in a seemingly random line – up, five crooks are thrown into big business together. Mac Manus and Finster (Stephen Baldwin and Benicio Del Toro) two notorious partners in crime, Dean Kent, a dirty cop trying to “retire” onto the straight and narrow, Verbal Kent (Kevin Spacey) a crippled con artist and an explosives expert make a bizarre but effective gang. They are then offered what appears to be the opportunity of a lifetime. One job, highly dangerous. The odds of surviving are iffy. The money waiting at the end if you do, is enormous… Their “patron” is what can be called a legend of the underworld, and backing out is not an option… Make no mistake, our little gang is in “it” over their heads… The question is, in what exactly?
This is an intelligent movie. I loved its logic. The thing is, it’s basically an action movie, don’t expect it to change your life… Plus it’s an action movie from the 90’s so don’t expect it to contain flashy special effects either. It has nostalgia value though, on many levels. Then there’s Kevin Spacey the true master and star of the show. I loved Benicio Del Toro as well, but unfortunately we don’t see enough of him for my taste… It’s a classic for a reason as I like to say and the precursor of many “hard ass” bad guy movies to come… The thing is this one has a lot more intelligence and finesse than the said “hard ass” movies that were to come. I mean that punch line I mentioned. I have actually seen it “employed” before. Never so well though. A good one for a Saturday evening in…

MORE CARTOONS ANYONE? TALES OF THE UNEXPECTED : "SPIRITED AWAY"

I want to give a shout to all my fellow “otaku” s out there! Now, for those of you who aren’t in the “know”, Otaku is a term used for an “anime” fan. Animes as you may or may not know are Japanese animated films and series. They follow a certain style have zillions of sub-categories and trillions of fans… Well not trillions but a goodly number, anyway. The only thing is that liking anime is considered the height of “nerdliness” in polite society and “otaku”s, the hardcore fans are at the top of the pyramid or lowest on the food chain depending on which angle you look at it from. Now, my knowledge of “anime” ain’t what it should be but I am a fan. Ooh yes. And there are some films that deserve world acclaim whether you’re an otaku or not… Among these gems (not little ones; think diamonds the size of your head) are the works of Japanese director Hayao Miyazaki. His drawings are truly magnificent, the stories imaginative and magical… He founded Gibli Studios and along with other brilliant artists they continue to churn out one work of art after the other) Not all of these reach a wider audience of course but “Spirited Away” most certainly did, winning awards all the world round and alerting quite a slice of the population to the existence of the genre… It’s a classic by a classic director, and I reckon if we’re doing “extraordinary cartoons” it sure deserves its place in the archives. And besides, if you’re looking for an introduction to anime, you won’t get a better one than this…
Chihiro is a little girl, and she is NOT happy. She and her parents are moving to a new city and she is not looking forward to getting used to a new school there. What starts off as an innocent stop on the way at a seemingly abandoned fairground turns dangerous however when they come across an open but unattended food store. Her parents tuck in at once and… Turn into pigs! Chihiro is terrified, because the sun goes down and the whole place comes to life exposing a magic bathhouse (remember, Japan is full of public bathhouses, going to one is considered quite everyday and normal) run by an evil witch and other magical creatures. The bathhouses are for the various spirits and gods (remember that spirits of rivers and forests along with various other gods are common in Japan too) and the only way to survive in this magical world (unless you have eaten some of the magic food and turned into a pig – in which case you get eaten incidentally) without disappearing (literally) is to find work in the bathhouse and “legitimize” your existence there if you will… Luckily a mysterious boy named Haku shows her the ropes and she starts work in the bathhouse, however she is determined this is not the end of matters. She will find a way of getting the better of the owner of the bathhouse, save her parents and return to her own world no matter what it takes…
Now, I don’t need to spell this out to you but this is pure, unadulterated escapism. And the great thing about animes is… They’re Japanese! As in they are not the Western stuff we enjoy, but are quite used to. Think of it as having a curry or sushi. You crave a change. You like eating exotic food. OK, you don’t eat it the whole time, but oh boy, do you love it when it comes along. These, I always find, are a double dose of escapism. Firstly you are swept up into a magical world, far, far away from all your daily strife… And secondly, although the world you step into has some “footholds” from the real world (they have to if you think about it) well, they’re from a culture you hardly know! I mean maybe you know a lot about Japan but even so it’s a culture you don’t live in (I’m assuming you’re a “Westener”) and don’t experience every day. The end result is you feel as if you ‘re catapulted to another planet for hours, you enjoy yourself thoroughly then come back to earth refreshed and renewed. All for the price of movie ticket /DVD. Don’t be shy now, step right in… You surely don’t have to be cool the WHOLE time… =)

BACK IN TIME - THE 1910'S - "AND QUIET FLOWS THE DON"

I am happy to report that after much effort, I am beginning to stem my “wholesale” film watching tendencies. Take this little gem for instance. Well the point is, it is NOT a little gem; at 330 minutes long it is divided into three parts. I watched it in three days despite the temptation and am happy to say it was the RIGHT choice. Each part is about 100 minutes long, the length of a decent film and besides, so much is going on that you need the time to “digest” it all so to speak. Having shared this little personal triumph with you, I will now get on with the film.
Now, this is an adaptation from the Nobel winning novel of the same name by the Russian writer Sholokhov. I am not too worried about it being an adaptation though. It is a Russian adaptation and it was shot in 1957 and 1958; not long after the events that were depicted so we can imagine that between the book and the film we have before us quite a realistic picture of life in rural Russia at the beginning of the century. The story is set in a little Cossack village. Traditions are strong and ways of life have been handed down for generations unchanged. The year is 1914; the First World War hasn’t begun yet. Scandal hits when married woman Akseniya openly starts having an affair with Grigory a hot headed young Cossack known for his emotions and temper. Before they can think how to put their lives in order though, the war strikes and shortly afterwards, the Soviet revolution. The Great War, the internal struggles that continue long into 1919 throw our heroes and their fates around like toys; death is everywhere as neighbors are set against each other along the lines of “white” and “red”. As the entire village struggles to find its place in the new order ,can true love triumph over it all? Or is there no place for such emotions in the new world order?...
This film touched me on many levels. First of all, to restate what I said in the introduction, it was shot merely 40 years after the events described. So the whole thing was pretty much part of living memory at the time. There is one scene, for instance, of the Cossack battalion charging across the plains. Now in case you didn’t know, the Cossacks have great renown as warriors and horsemen. They charged, on horseback issuing war cries and wielding long swords. Such a sight is part of period drama for us now, but at the time, they actually remembered what this looked like. It’s as close as we will ever get to seeing such things and I think this is very sad.
The story also describes wonderfully how the common people are tossed about in turmoil, lives are ruined and destroyed as great men argue with great words… The chaos brought by the revolution is concretely Russian here but the emotion can be transposed to any country in the world and any time of political turmoil… I cried desperately on more than one occasion during the film.
I have to say though; there is a slightly more personal reason too for my liking this film. My great grandfather was Russian. At the time of the communist revolution of 1917, he and his family were what is called “kulags” ; they were landowners; the owners of a big farm with many workers on it. The communists didn’t like the idea as you can well imagine. My great grandfather and one of his brothers escaped to Turkey to save themselves. They were a large family (9 siblings in total) but my great grandfather never saw his parents or his other brothers and sisters again. Some years later, he fell out with his brother too and they didn’t speak to each other for the rest of their lives. However, the story doesn’t end that sadly. He fell in love you see, the real deal too, converted to Islam and got married. They had a son (my grandfather) who in turn had children of his own and Ayza (we think this is how his name would be spelt in the Latin alphabet) spent his twighlight years playing with his grandchildren and telling them stories of the big farm in Crimea.
Unfortunately, no one in the family remembers Ayza (later Ali Rıza Efendi)’s Russian patronymic or surname, but we do have a picture of him and his young wife in the sitting room. I thought of him a lot as I watched this film, hence the short biography. This post is dedicated to his memory…

THE BEAST WITHIN WEEK 1 : "DEATHPROOF"

Now this, as you may remember, is part of a project Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez started up a while back. Two films – Deathproof and Grindhouse / Planet Terror, both of a certain genre, both using similar filming techniques, released at the same time. As these films are a duo, I will be reviewing them both this week, because naturally I bought both. I mean, if Quentin Tarantino directed it I MUST watch it… And Robert Rodriguez… Well, I think I mentioned this in “Four Rooms” but I was curious about him. So there you are you see. First observation; I should seriously stop watching films “wholesale” as it were. No, what happened was this; I watched Deathproof. I actually really enjoyed it. I had some spare time on my hands so I reckoned seeing as this is a duo, I could just go on to Grindhouse. Admittedly, I would not be able to finish it today but it isn’t actually a classic of modern cinema, no harm done, right? Wrong. Very wrong. I mean it’s totally OK to watch it in pieces (to anyone who watched either movie, this will sound like a very VERY bad pun). However, two hours of Tarantinian gore and violence topped up with Rodriguez gore, violence gunk and zombies… I don’t quite know how to describe it but it is not a happy place… Especially where my stomach is concerned and I have a sensitive stomach… I guess if you watch them separately it would be ok. In fact, I am pretty sure you would be ok if you watched them separately. This wholesale movie watching is a problem that I have to personally deal with…
Ok, Deathproof. Now, these films are, by the way, in the genre of old – 70’s – slashers. This includes the technical side of it: grainy filming, problem with the colors, missing scenes… If we didn’t know better, we might think we had dug something out of the vaults of yesteryear. It’s not only the technique but the storyline that harks back to an entirely different era (apart from the fact that it is actually set in modern day America. Small detail but there you go). You remember the genre: a group of young ladies about town. They are beautiful, confident, having fun and they really don’t give a damn… However, they are not aware of one thing… A dark stranger is watching them from afar, biding his time, and when he makes contact… Well…
I have heard a lot of people dissing this film. “Oh but it’s Quentin Tarantino, we expected something more”. The fact is the film is funny. And I don’t mean in the way that horror movies – meant to be scary – turn out funny. This is a class – and classy – example of horror – comedy. I say classy because, as with every single Tarantino film, Deathproof is packed to the gills with references to other films and inside jokes. I’ll give you one example; I know this is not really my style but I want you to get the ambiance. So we all know about Mr. Tarantino and his er… Love of women’s feet, right? This is no inside info if it’s the first time you’ve heard of this, just watch a goodly number of his films and more often than not SOMETHING, anything, to do with a woman’s feet will get into the story. Now, opening shot for Deathproof. We are driving in a car, and we see the road from the eyes of the person sitting in the passenger seat. The passenger is a lady; she has her feet up on the dashboard. Her feet are bare with red nail varnish… So what we see is a dashboard and a bit of sky outlining a woman’s feet and legs. Right on top of this picture comes the writing, in big bold orange letters “A QUENTIN TARANTINO FILM”. All I could do in response was say “Yes, it is!” and burst out laughing… That sort of thing… By the bucket load. Don’t take it too too seriously though, it’s a “peanut” movie, aiming to take your mind off the rest of the world for a couple of hours and give you a good ride… With everything a Tarantino movie entails of course… (Including the director himself in a cameo! I am so glad he is back to that, when I didn’t see him in Inglorious Bastards, I had begun to worry…) So fasten your seatbelts… It will be one HECK of a ride…

THE BEAST WITHIN WEEK 3 : "SPARTACUS"

Well, as long as we’re on the subject of blood, gore and violence, let’s do a bit of time travelling as well. Waay back, to the days of the Roman Empire. Yes, let’s give them their due; we owe the Romans many cornerstones of civilization: architecture, literature, law and many military formations. They were, for all that, a bloodthirsty lot. Ok, maybe not more so than anyone else then or today Now don’t protest; any fans of Quentin Tarantino among my readers? I rest my case. The only difference with the Roman gladiators (you probably guessed I was getting to that from the title, right?) and watching films with violence in them, is that we know that at the end of the day’s shooting, our actors picked themselves up from wherever they had been slashed to bits, were hosed off and handed a hot drink and possibly complained to the director about getting red dye out of their hair. The gladiators actually died at the end of the show. Leave aside the fact that this was a brutal and sad waste of a human life, a life usually captured and forced into slavery / gladiatorship, it was not particularly cost-effective either (you cannot re-use a dead gladiator unlike actors who can star in more than one film). There was, however, nothing to be done. The audience loved it and special effects hadn’t been invented so there you were.
One man however, decided to put a stop to this or die trying. This was Spartacus, a Thracian shepherd who was sold into slavery and made a gladiator. Now, the rich crowds in the Roman times usually preferred fights to be to the death. The life expectancy of a gladiator once he had been trained was 5 – 10 years if he was particularly good. Spartacus decided he had had quite enough of being the rather brutal plaything of the Roman aristocracy and started the biggest slave revolt in the whole of Roman history. Along with 6000 slaves from the gladiator school and those liberated from nearby estates they formed an army with the sole purpose of marching to the sea , securing ships and sailing back to their homelands (slaves in Roman times you understand were rarely if ever Romans – they were usually the natives of lands the empire had invaded ). Naturally, Rome could not allow this – the honor and name of the empire depended o it and… Well, you can pretty much guess what happened next…
Now, do NOT be fooled (and I had to check and encyclopedia too by the way) Spartacus is a TRUE story. And despite my rather flippant introduction the whole idea of gladiators makes me sick to my stomach and I have ENDLESS respect for Spartacus who took on, almost single handedly, one of the greatest empires in the world and actually gave it a good old shake. Like all great stories, there are MANY adaptations to the cinema of this one too. The one I watched (and recommend) is actually Stanley Kubrick’s version. It is 188 minutes long (but so was the Godfather so don’t whine about it being too long!). Starring such immortal names as Laurence Olivier, Kirk Douglas (as Spartacus) and the stunning Jean Simmons it is a true epic that won 4 Oscars® (Best Supporting Actor, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costumes) for its trouble among other awards. The film basically stays true to the actual sequence of events, there are, however, literary flourishes (love interests, tear jerkers and the like) but they take nothing away either from the event or the greatness of the man…
It is a great story of a great man who stood up for his own rights and what actually IS right despite oppression and almost impossible odds. This demands respect. And as such a great master as Kubrick himself decided to cover it, it only seems fitting to watch this version… Any old representation just would not do…

A CLASSIC IN ITS OWN RIGHT : "CARLITO'S WAY"

Now, hand on heart, I was not a great fan of gangster flicks before. I liked adventure films, car chases and all that jazz as much as the next person, but I had no particular love of the genre… I have to say that this film actually changed my outlook on the matter. Carlito Brigante, the hero that gives the film its name is played by Al Pacino who is dazzling and charismatic even today (even today as in he is, at a stretch, old enough to be my grandfather and I still think he’s hot…). And Senor Brigante is one of the most charismatic mobsters I have ever seen (I mean the character as well as the actor!) So if you’re tempted to go “Brian De Palma and Al Pacino? Right, lots of gunfire and tough guys… Next…” Don’t. Give them a chance – you might actually surprise yourself…
Carlito Brigante (Al Pacino) is out of jail. He should have 25 more years to go but his lawyer (normally a coke-head who cares about very little except himself – played by Sean Penn) has actually got him out on a technicality just 5 years into his 30 year prison sentence. Carlito was an absolute king in the underworld in his time but he has changed. All he wants is to get back with Gail, the girl he had to leave when he went into jail (Penelope – Ann Miller), get some money together and go to the Bahamas to make a fresh start. A legal fresh start. However, in Carlito’s line of business retiring is not that easy. And Carlito still faithfully sticks to his old fashioned morals and “code” despite the changing times… Will his experience and genuine will to change be enough to pull him and Gail out of the underworld?
You know how some films set a precedent and then other films desperately run after in trying to catch the same effect? I don’t exactly mean sequels, although they come into it too… I mean one film that is successful with a certain theme that “gives birth” to loads of other films on the same theme… Take the gangster trying to redeem himself against the odds for instance. I remember talking about this in The Town. The theme is definitely not new, heck it was probably discovered back in the 50’s or 60’s when gangster flicks were more “in”. But if there is one film that carried the torch to modern times and kept it glowing to this day, it is Carlito’s Way. Another thing, what is it with Al Pacino and his ability to play gangsters we can sympathize with? Think about it, the Godfather series, Scarface and here Carlito Brigante… We are all normal citizens who would have nothing to do with the “mob” usually but in front of the TV, we somehow end up cheering for Carlito – in this case – or Tony Montana or Michael Corleone… Well I guess there is actually a different reason for this in each separate case; however, I think the reason in Carlito’s case is the fact we all hunger for a fresh start. Carlito, for all his sins, is easy to identify with; he has old fashioned values, he is charismatic and he genuinely hungers for a new life and a fresh start – the way we all do some times. Maybe we subconsciously associate the mobsters forever closing in on Carlito with the real world closing in on us and our dreams? I don’t know… Anyway, this film oozes the quality one would expect from a director like Brian De Palma and actors like Al Pacino and Sean Penn… And if you are a fan of gangsters redeeming themselves and that kind of film, don’t miss this one. Much better to watch the original instead of the copies it gave birth to, no?

LIFE IS FULL OF 'EM : "DANGEROUS LIAISONS"

Love… Even the laws of thermodynamics don’t come close to its level of complexity… Most of the time the “problem” is that this field is ruled mainly by emotions. Thus the reaction of the person before us is ruled by the heart and impossible to foresee. Not however, that I said “most of the time”. There are also many instances that ploys and techniques are used to “reach our end”. We seek to manipulate the heart. It usually ends us manipulating us in the end. And this, my dears, is “the game”, “ the dating scene”… This has been like this pretty much for all times; however it wasn’t always openly voiced. This is why, when back in late 18th century France the novel “Liasons Dangereuses” was published it was an absolute scandal. People talked about it, read it and although they seemed to very much disapprove it reached immortality and is known even today. You may not know it through the book itself, not necessarily, there is a famous play, adaptations galore… But out of all the adaptations to the big screen, perhaps none are so successful or famous as this one. John Malkovitch, Michelle Pfifer, Glenn Close and Uma Thurman join ranks with director Stephen Frears to bring this little scandal right to your living rooms…
The Marquise (Glenn Close) is a rich widow. She has the arts of ruling men down to a “t”. She can have anyone she wants and still keep her good name. Her closest associate is Valmont (John Malkovich) a known rake everybody is scandalized by but who everyone receives – in their houses and otherwise. One day, a dangerous bet springs up between the two allies. Valmont must seduce a young newlywed known for her honesty and piousness, not only that, but he most obtain written proof of his conquest. Success means a night with the Marquise. But then again, as I said, hearts are tricky. And in the case of Valmont they will come into play when he least expects it upsetting all his plans. Add to that the unfortunates who get swept up in the wake of the unprincipled couple and you have… Well…
This is a brilliant film to watch on many levels. So much so that I am rather disappointed the actors didn't get awards in that year's Oscars; Best Art Direction, Set Decoration and Writing is fine but it gives the impression its another good period drama. I reckon its more than that... Think about it... Glenn Close and John Malkovich’s acting. The cold calculated moves mixed with the emotion. And the story that could just as well be set in today’s society. (I think the story actually has been set in the 20th century in one of its’ adaptations – I watched a bit of it if I remember rightly, nowhere near as good… ) I mean the film is extraordinary to watch, if only just to think that this story was written not in our days and adapted to the supposed values of the 18th century but written actually in the 18th century (1792 to be precise) by people who actually had the said values… It just goes to show, some things really never change… And now, don’t you pretend to be scandalized by all of this. This no more or less than that soap opera you love so much – you know what I’m talking about, right? It’s just set in period costumes and with a very cunning plotline… A bit of emotion thrown in too… Go on… You know you want to…

"SPELLBOUND" BY MR. HITCHCOCK / ONCE AGAIN

This is once again a classic example of old Hollywood at its finest; Alfred Hitchcock at the helm, starring Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck. A psychological thriller on more than one level this one; not only is it a classic Hitchcock thriller, it is also set largely in and around the human mind with plenty of psychoanalysis thrown in. I am not a particular fan of psychoanalysis. I am, however, a particular fan of Mr. Hitchcock so I persevered. And boy am I glad I did…
Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is a star psychoanalyst in an asylum called Green Manor. She is young, brilliant and beautiful. The only problem is she steers well clear of all emotion. This stems from the (rather old fashioned and very sexist) belief that a woman in love operates on the lowest level of intellect. Her peaceful life at Green Manor is shaken to the core when the new head of the asylum; Dr. Anthony Edwards (Gregory Peck) arrives on the scene. He is a lot younger than everyone thought. He is charismatic and good looking. Ok, he has some strange mannerisms but that can be overlooked. Despite her own misgivings about women and emotion, Dr. Petersen is madly in love with him in a thrice. Her feelings are by o means one sided… But even though their love is strong, there is something decidedly wrong with Dr. Edwards. As his outbursts and fainting fits get more and more frequent, Dr Petersen is faced with a rather strange question: Who exactly is this man she has fallen in love with?
If you checked in last week, you will have read my opinions on Notorious, another brilliant Hitchcock film, well my opinions stand for this one as well. I mean, Mr. Hitchcock went as far as asking the great Salvador Dali to design the dream sequences in the film. Now THAT is what I call not cutting corners. The plot is complicated and very intelligent as usual. And another thing I love about these old movies is they do not take the audience for fools. It was the same in War and Peace. One assumed you knew the rudiments of European History; no idiotic babble explaining the background for “those who missed it”. Here the same. The film does not have a scene where a professor is lecturing first year students for instance. No. The director feels that a brief introduction to the concept of psychoanalysis is necessary, so, he puts a brief definition of it, in writing, on the screen for a few moments. The audience reads, grasps the definition and carries on. Freud, dream analysis and guilt complexes hurtling at you left and right. You are assumed to have the capacity to follow all that. It’s not scientific at all, but as I said in Notorious, it’s just a good quality thriller. A thriller with quality. And perfect for those of us who do not want to watch monsters and 3D precipices for a thrill but prefer to use our intellects. Elitist? No. I loved Avatar, I just ADORED it. I would have gone again if I could afford the hiked ticket prices (hiked for 3D purposes you know). I just think that this should NOT be the only sort of adventure around. We are forgetting to use our heads as we watch films and that is very sad indeed… Well at least the film was given its due in Oscar nominations in its time (Best Picture, Best Cinematography, Best Effects, Best Director and Best Actor in a Supporting Role - it ended up only winning Best Music, very unfair in my view...
As I watched this film, I was thinking something else… Oh heck who am I kidding; I wasn’t thinking at all, I was positively drooling over Gregory Peck. Now HE was a stunner – that’s my view anyway. But the cinema business is funny like that isn’t it? One craves intelligent, quality entertainment but even old fashioned Hollywood at its best would not be Hollywood without Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck and all those who came both before and after; looking dashing or beautiful, making us drool or get quite hot and bothered… Well well, that’s the nature of the beast. I mean, both human beings and show business, naturally =)

A TRIBUTE TO THE HUMAN SPIRIT : "THE ELEPHANT MAN"

As you can imagine, directors are a pretty big thing for me when selecting films. And like all human beings, I have the ones I like and the ones I don’t like so much… Now, David Lynch I respect. Yes, I may have avoided him thus far but I do respect him. Lynch is one of those guys you know, you either like him or hate him. I err… Well, not to sound too sided I don’t exactly like him… Ehm… I bought this film never the less… The 8 Oscar ® nominations and the César Award encouraged me as did the presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins and the true and tragic story the film was based on… (Mind you Oscars® and awards don’t necessarily guarantee viewer happiness, look at Mulholland Drive – from my point of view I mean :S ) God, I’m on a rambler this evening, OK, The Elephant Man.
Now, The Elephant Man is the true story of a young man named John Merrick. He lived in Victorian England. He was intelligent and sensitive; however, he was most terribly deformed. His deformations were of such an extent that the only way he could make his living was in a carnival freak show – as one of the “freaks”. Not that he made his own living either; his “minder” was a man named Bytes who assumed Merrick was an idiot (because he never spoke). Merrick’s life was changed when an ambitious young surgeon named Frederick Treves (a dashing young Anthony Hopkins) visited the carnival. He convinced Bytes to “lend” Merrick to him for a symposium. He succeeded and made quite a name for himself in the process. But, despite all his initial doubts and prejudices he grew fond of John. Even further, he befriended him when he realized John could both speak and understand. As you can imagine; this changed Merrick’s life forever…
This film is not a happy one because the true story of John Merrick’s short life was not a happy one either… Well, except at the end of course. This, by the way is not a typical “Lynchism” with weird subconscious – dream sequences… I mean there are a few thrown in but nothing that doesn’t wash down with the rest of the story. No, this is your typical “film” film (in case you’re confused I mean that as a compliment). Seriously though, it just served to show me and the likes of me, that if David Lynch is known for his more err… “confusing” films it is by no means for lack of skill or lack of comprehension of the cinema as a medium. Oh no. I cried buckets all through the film that tells a touching story very skillfully (when I say buckets I mean buckets by the way, I was so upset I actually ran out of the room howling “I can’t take it” at one point) and with great composure. It is a Victorian “film noir” if you will. Shot in black and white for ambiance (and it makes a good pun too, no? film noir, black and white… Oh never mind…) this is a must see on many levels.
And one of them is a tribute to Mr. Merrick. Mr. Merrick to whom mundane tasks such as sleeping (his head was so large if he lay down to sleep he would break his neck; he had to sleep sitting up) or walking down the street (apart from the fact that people who saw him ran screaming his spine was deformed, making walking painful and difficult) were at times extreme challenges. Remember your office job you hate? Mr. Merrick had to work at a freak show as an exhibit (I will officially be very angry if anyone makes jokes about this in front of me from now on). Have to have a boring conversation with a colleague or a relative? Until the age of 21 Mr. Merrick (whose mouth was deformed making speech very difficult to start with) was assumed to be an imbecile and didn’t have a single conversation in his life. And yet, despite all this, he was gentle, sensitive, loved the theatre, rejoiced like a child at the idea of having friends… Puts our mundane little problems in perspective, no? Personally, I doubt I could have been as gentle and as good a person as him if I had his problems…Watch and cry my dears. And repeat, whenever you feel you have the world on your shoulders…

A CLASSIC THAT NEEDS NO INTRODUCTION..."WAR AND PEACE"

OK, I hear you. Yes, there is (or should be) a limit to the phenomenon of watching the movie rather than reading the book… I hear you and understand, but I do not agree, not in this case. First, there is the practicality of it (don’t cringe, I’m a pretty average representation of the modern generation and I do NOT read as much as I should and I’m pretty sure you don’t either!). So come on, hands on hearts, it’s only us here: How many of you have actually read War and Peace? (The full four-volumes; not the abridged version.) Ok, how many of you actually got through it to the end? I thought not. I have never read it either. The second thing is, the film in question is not any old film. There are just about eight million re-makes of this one so let’s just specify; this is the 1968 film directed by Russian director Sergei Bondarchuk. Now, I can also guess your first criticism : “Essie, there you are mouthing off about the book being four-volumes long, that will NOT fit into a film, even you will agree.” Well you are right of course, but you see, this film is 405 minutes long. So actually, it’s more of a “mini-series” than a film. It’s pretty easy to watch as well, I mean it’s divided into “films” as the book is divided into “sections”. (My edition is three DVDs long, the first DVD was one film two hours long, ending at a good stopping place, making it easy to pick up later). Then there is the film itself. Despite its enormous length, this film won the Oscar® for Best Foreign Film in 1968. I was rather surprised to read this on the cover when I first got the film but by the end of the first DVD, I could see why…
Ok, so the story. Good God, where to begin? The story spans the lives of a multitude of characters in the Russian aristocracy of the 19th century. Over a seven year period we follow their lives and loves and wars… Yes, for between these dates (as some of you may know) Russia was involved in two great wars, both with the same foe : Napoleon Bonaparte… Through the multitude of characters we discuss many different topics, from the academics who “know nothing of real life” to the old aristocracy, ready to dive in swords drawn to defend Mother Russia…
Now, there is one major difficulty about watching this film. First of all, don’t make the mistake I did. Don’t try and watch it all at once. The “film” is divided into four films (four books, remember?) for a reason. I, having a lot of free time on my hands, watched three of them in a single day. Big mistake. You see, since the story is so long you just glaze over and cannot get “involved” after a while. Which is a shame – or possibly not – because the war scenes are among the most lifelike I have ever seen, i.e. absolutely horrendous. And of course there is a lot both in the story and in the film to underline the “anti-war” nature of the film. One by one they may have been more effective. Watched in bulk like I did, well… As I said, I was glazed over… On a slightly more technical note, in the 1960’s, before CGI, I absolutely shudder to think how those scenes with THOUSANDS of people were organized… Brr…
Speaking of technicalities though, within minutes of starting the film, I was bowled over sideways by the director’s use of the camera and the editing. The quality is above and beyond ANYTHING I have watched in a very long time. (This kind of mastery just fills me with the despair of knowing that I will never be this good even if I do get to make my own films one day… Ooops did I let that one slip? J ) . Just the way we pass from one scene to another, from one sequence to another is breath-taking, intelligent and in some cases deeply moving (and yes, editing CAN be deeply moving and you will see what I mean if you watch this film!). Then there is the majesty of the film itself… No expense was spared to finish this film so much so that when the budget is converted to today’s currency it ranks as the most expensive film in all of history. For the war scenes alone, 1,200 people were used to form an actual army – that should give you some idea as to the grandeur of the film. The length is no matter, the story is so strong and the representation of it so masterful that you are swept away into the story before you can know it…
There are, of course some little “kinks” stemming from the fact that this is a 60’s film… First of all, I sincerely doubt dubbing is widely available for this one so you will have to watch it in Russian. (My Mother who is among the first to throw up her hands in dismay at the idea of a film in a “foreign language” did the same for this one. I explained that the sheer number of people it would take – ever read a Tolstoy novel? – and the length of time would send the costs soaring). Then there is the fact that the director assumes a certain level of general knowledge. Now I’m not being snooty, that in fact is the whole point; I didn’t have the said knowledge either! Of course, in the 60’s the cinema was not a “pass-time” but quite an intellectual undertaking, so you were supposed to either have read the book or at least be familiar with the particulars of the Franco-Prussian war of 1805. If you were not, you were pretty much left guessing (or alternately stopping the DVD and grilling your mother /laptop/smart phone on historical and literary details; much to the annoyance of my Mother who was already disgruntled at having the TV hijacked by a Russian film I might add). I mean, you are given a vague outline but no helpful introductory “in case you hadn’t noticed” dialogue you tend to find in U.S. movies or at the ends of crime dramas. What dialogue there is, I have already explained, is in Russian. So, if you don’t speak Russian, you are left to the mercy of the subtitler, your wits, imagination, internet connection or your Mothers’ (insert any helpful and available relative) patience. This, bizarrely enough, does not put you off though. I know it should logically, but it doesn’t. The film is just so well done that you WANT to find out. You are swept up in the film, you sympathize with the characters and want to find out what the heck is happening to them… So you get a dollop of general culture, almost read one of the world’s literary classics AND watch a brilliant movie / miniseries all in one. If that isn’t a bargain I honestly don’t know what is…
P.S. If you ever get your hands on this edition (and I sincerely hope you do) for my personal favorite look out for Natasha and Prince Andrei’s waltz – and the “aftermath”. One of the best filmed love scenes I have EVER seen…

BLACK AND WHITE SOIREE 1 : A TRUE CLASSIC "CITIZEN KANE"

So, the first black and white classic I want to discuss with you is one I think every cinephile should have watched at least once. And it actually sits rather well after the previous weeks entries – you remember I was griping about directors who play the lead in their own films, right? Behold Orson Welles and / in Citizen Kane. Surely one of the best films ever made, Mr. Welles wrote, directed AND played the lead in it (talk about multitasking). But I need to stress one thing though, THAT was Orson Welles – a cinematic genius. Not all of us are or ever can be Orson Welles. Just so you all know that even though I think this film and The Town were good, I am NOT contradicting myself. I am not (just for clarification) comparing Ben Affleck to Orson Welles either. I have every respect for Mr. Affleck but there is a VAST difference between his directing and his new film and Mr. Welles and the film discussed here (there are FAR too many “and”s here and my Mom (who is an English teacher) will probably murder me when she reads this, just in case you were wondering). The similarity is of course that by the time he made his debut as a director (aged 25 to be fair), Mr. Welles was an acting SENSATION (imagine that spelled out in bulbs on Broadway) in the theatre. Which kinda, you know, gives you clout and artistic freedom. Oh and money. That, however, is another story.

Citizen Kane is a man in the US of A. He is a media tycoon, a grand public figure and he has just passed away. Now, the newspapers all agree that there are many things to say about Mr. Kane, and all are fixed on finding “a new angle” on the matter. One newspaper chief hits on a true mystery: Mr. Kane’s last words. Or rather word: Rosebud. No one can make head or tail of it; it is a bona fide mystery. “Talk to everyone who ever knew him!” orders the chief. “Find this Rosebud”. So off we go along with the reporter on the job. With him, we interview his ex-wife, school friend, business partner, legal guardian, household staff and many, many more… They all have truly fascinating stories about Mr. Kane but still no one knows who or what Rosebud is… Is there a way of discovering Rosebud? Or will Mr. Kane take his secret to the grave with him?

Ok, so it doesn’t take much to realize that this is actually a very VERY good detective story. But it isn’t just that. Yes we track clues, interview people and search for Rosebud, but there is a second story, delicately poised within the story of “Rosebud”; the life of Citizen Kane. Now, the film in its day caused a grand furor for many reasons. First, the technical inventions and innovations brought by Welles to the cinema. I will not go into those very technical details – it’s hardly the point of this blog but there is AMPLE material on the internet on this subject if you are interested. Secondly, there’s the genre. The film was actually a “film noir” which came as a bit of shock in 1941 seeing as the genre hadn’t been invented yet. Thirdly, the story of Kane’s life bears marked resemblances with the life story of real-life media tycoon of the 30’s William Randolph Hurst. The resemblances were so great that Hurst tried desperately to actually stop the film from being aired so sure he was that the film was about him. Honestly, the list of resemblances is rather staggering, but the point is that at the time the film gave the feeling of almost being a documentary a “true story” kind of effect. You should watch this film because it is brilliant, way ahead of it’s time and a damn good yarn. You will leave the proverbial table replete whether you are a scholar of the trade or just an attentive viewer in search of some good quality entertainment.

P.S. interesting footnote : I was struck when watching this film by Mr. Welles’s good looks. I was therefore rather amused to find out later that Mr. Welles complained bitterly about how much he had been “made up” to play the young Mr. Kane and that he had to “live down” the fact that he never looked that good for years to come… Such, my dears, is the acting trade for you!

BLACK AND WHITE SOIREE 2 : THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE SHOW BUSINESS! "ALL ABOUT EVE"

There really is no business like show business… Honestly. On stage, the PERFORMANCE is sheer magic. The stars truly shine. Then, they gracefully float out of sight, the grease paint comes off, the claws come out and production assistants and runners are thrown flying through the air like toys (I can personally vouch for the last part being true metaphorically true and wouldn’t swear that it didn’t occasionally happen physically as well). Now, it is almost exactly 10 years after Mr. Welles turned the world cinema stage upside down. We are now in the hands of quadruple (counting his win with this film) Oscar® winning director Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Ok, he was a bit before our time so what else might you have heard of that he did? The Barefooted Contessa? Yeah, come on, you’ve HEARD of it even if you haven’t actually watched it. Anyway, Mr. Mankiewicz takes us backstage. Not to the backstage of his own movie (DVD’s, Extras and “Behind The Scenes” wasn’t invented in 1950) but backstage in the theatre. Come, come, the real “drama” is just beginning…

Margo Channing (Bette Davis) is a diva. There is no other way to describe her and she would tear you to pieces if you tried. She lives in that rarified atmosphere – “the art circle darling” – populated with playwrights such Lloyd Richards and his wife Karen who is “theatre by marriage”, theatre critics such as Addison DeWitt, directors such as Bill, Margo’s long suffering boyfriend. Margo is so famous and such a success everyone puts up with her “ways”. She brings in such big crowds she’s allowed to play parts of 25 year-olds even though she’s pushing 40. And she has fans. Oh hundreds of fans but none so devoted as Eve Harrington. The mousy young woman attends ALL Margo’s performances, every single one, rain or shine. Karen is touched by the young girl’s attitude and devotion. And she is very old friends with Margo so she decides to do the poor little thing a favor and introduce them. Well Eve even melts Margo’s heart and soon she is living with Margo as her personal assistant. She has so many qualities, is so efficient… She’s just the perfect assistant for Margo… Or is she?

Now, I am a movie buff. I have worked in television, I am still heavily embroiled in the media and hope to become even more so. I love everything to do with showbiz and “behind the scenes”. I, therefore, watch one heck of a lot of this sort of thing. Rarely in my life have I seen a film where the intrigue was so cleverly constructed, Plot twists fall out of thin air, Bette Davis is brilliant, Anne Baxter who plays Eve is brilliant, everyone is brilliant. Everyone, incidentally, includes Marilyn Monroe who has a small part in it. Small, but brilliant. Like a diamond. The other thing is, of course, this movie is chiefly about acting – and I don’t just mean the topic. This was 1950 people, no special effects, no 3D, no HD, no adrenalin-pumped car chases or whatever. There is, however, acting. Bucket loads of the stuff in the best quality as well… Which is very fitting seeing as the topic is, basically, us. Even in your average office, all of you will know, there is intrigue, back stabbing, plots… Ok, put it in a theatre and showbiz, glam it up, it becomes more “dramatic”, but this is basically the kind of thing that happens all the time. You witness it and partake in it every single day. This is precisely why this film is a timeless classic. You’ll know what I mean when you watch it. And you will “recognize” the story. Immediately…

P.S. Ok, I love a bit of trivia. And I want to share this little morsel with you simply to show you how true to life this film is. When this film was shot, Bette Davis was a star, Anne Baxter was just starting out. And apparently Miss Baxter actually managed to influence the authorities into nominating her as “Best Actress” along with Bette Davis. The word is, this move divided the votes and definitively prevented Bette Davis from winning an Oscar ®. So there you are. I told you the film was realistic ;)