THE TRUTH IS ALMOST ALWAYS STRANGER THAN FICTION... "SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN"

It’s funny, when you get multiple movie buffs together; generally there are as many opinions as there are people – if not more. We do tend to be an emotional lot. But when I talked to various different movie buff friends of mine, they all concurred on one point. The best film of 2013 so far was without a shadow of a doubt Searching For Sugar Man. Admissions that I had not got round to it yet were met with unfeigned amazement tinged with horror – and I claim to be some sort of amateur expert! I got the message pretty quick – I also got a tad annoyed because I’m an Aries. And while I’m all for taking direction and advice, we are, as a zodiac sign, generally more comfortable telling OTHER people what to do. Hence the blog. Ehm. However, never let it be said that I ignore advice and refuse to take direction so I dutifully set off on my quest to find sugar man this week. My, oh my… I was not disappointed.

Searching for Sugar Man is the story of Rodriguez. There’s a strong possibility you never heard of him. Unless, that is, you come from South Africa. Rodriguez is an American signer who released two albums in the ‘60s, was a complete flop as far as anyone knew, and sort of vanished into the ether. His songs were highly political, almost Dylan-esque and anti-establishment. The spirit of the sixties at its best, topped off with real musical talent. Most of the world went on to forget Rodriguez completely. Except one very unlikely country… In South Africa, at the time almost a pariah country because of the apartheid regime, Rodriguez became the voice of the revolution, of the entire anti-establishment movement. He was bigger than Elvis and everyone  who was anyone owned his records. The thing was though; no one had ever seen him live. No one even knew his full name. The record sleeves were very cagey when it came to information and there were outrageous reports circulating that he was dead – most of  the urban legends pointed to some form of suicide, the most popular story being that he had set fire to himself on stage.  A couple of South African fans, however, were not content to let things go. They wanted, no needed, to discover the truth behind all this legend, even though it may lie thousands of miles away. The road would be frustrating and full of obstacles…  But when they finally got to the bottom of the mystery… The truth would truly prove stranger than anything any screenwriter could dream up…

I love the way the style of this documentary fits in so well with the wonderful story it tells. It seems, on the surface, your common or garden “talking heads” type documentary with scenic shots and a little animation thrown in here and there to jazz things up a bit. You don’t explain a lot from it. You definitely don’t expect to be completely blown away, swept off your feet, shaken to the core type results. Yet, what you need to understand is, that this documentary is not “plain” per se. It simply rids itself of all unnecessary frills and bows. It just, says it like it is. Pretty much the way Rodriguez did in his songs. The simplicity of the documentary makes you concentrate on the message, the story and this is what draws you in. And the story is such a strong one that you know what? You don’t need the frills. You don’t even miss them. And THAT is one in the eye for some more “commercial” production if I ever saw one.

I am so grateful to this documentary. No, I really am. Firstly, the music – almost exclusively original songs by Rodriguez – is AMAZING. Why this man never became an icon of his age is beyond me. And ironically, these days it’s almost impossible to find an actual album so, this film is actually the largest collection of his songs you can probably find. Mind you, I’m sure this film will have a soundtrack released, right? Right? God I need to check on that actually. But apart from the music – though I find it truly difficult to set the music aside all together, you will also get to know about a truly extraordinary artist. The kind of person I am genuinely relieved to know still exists. If you think I’m simply bending over backwards to not give spoilers, by the way, you are wrong. I’m just… Staying true to the story. The mystery needs to stay. You need to take the journey yourself. Well… What are you waiting for? Start walking!... 

GET UP, STAND UP... FOR "MARLEY"

Ok, in these times of political turmoil and uncertainty, what better man to remember than Bob Marley, who brought us immortal songs like “Get Up, Stand Up”.  The combination of his unbelievable musical talent, his Rastafarian spiritualism and social messages made him an immortal musician, a phenomenon if you will, that will live on in the collective consciousness for ever. Or pretty damn close to for ever. But we must not forget that Bob Marley was, at the end of the day, a man. As you may imagine not exactly a simple man, not a person that one could find easy to understand. But if we make a bit of an effort to understand the man behind the myth, it might deepen our understanding. Give us more to think about, as it were. So let us take a step behind the curtain and see what the true Bob Marley was like.

Now I say “step behind the curtain” but of course, Bob Marley was quite famous for his openness in all things. And as a public figure his life story such as it is, is well known. So I don’t think it makes much sense to summarise it in this second paragraph traditionally reserved for the plot. Besides, this would retract considerably from the effect of the documentary. Marley is a wonderful, candid account of Bob Marley’s life, starting from his earliest years and going right through to his death. It mixes honest, no hold barred interviews with the people closest to him including his children and original footage of both concerts and interviews with the man himself. That Bob Marley was a musical genius goes without saying. It isn’t even worth discussing. But what of his faults? He was many things, but an angel was not one of them…

And then there is the “social” side of his life. By this I don’t mean his social life. I mean the social messages imbued in his songs. His spirituality. Marley’s life wasn’t an easy one. Growing up as a poor, mixed-race youth in Jamaica meant that he not only had to contend with poverty and the prejudice brought up by not being white, he also had to contend with not exactly being black either. It is possibly this rather harsh start in life that made one of his main social messages the call to fight against injustice, to struggle for peace, unity and harmony. For people to bypass all prejudices that life, “the system” or whatever you like to call it has imposed on us and come together to struggle for the things in life that are truly important. And it is this immortal message that has made his music so timeless.

Although it is sad that the message is still needed and does not happen “automatically” as it were, I think Bob would be happy to know that out there in the world there are people listening to his music, picking up the message and above and beyond just spreading it, leading by action and example. Yeah, you know what I’m talking about… 

CONTROL - THE TRUE STORY OF A MUSIC LEGEND

I watched this film a while ago during the Istanbul film festival. I loved it. The time went by and my memories of it dimmed a bit. I still remembered it as good though. Now, I shared this on my facebook page the other day so some of you may remember this comment but here’s the thing. I was wrong. It isn’t good. It’s f.cking brilliant. It’s the kind of film that makes you (well me anyway) run out, buy everything Joy Division ever recorded and listen to it on a loop for ever. And I would; only it wouldn’t be very practical. I will rant about why I like Joy Division’s music and more specifically Ian Curtis’s singing in just a sec. Let me tell you about the film first.

Ian Curtis was a rather extraordinary teenager. He was just over six feet tall, very into both reading and writing poetry (no doubt the birth of his lyrics later on) and rather quiet. He had friends, went out from time to time, but didn’t talk much. He met Debbie when they were in their late teens and by the time they were 18, they were married, much to the surprise of his friends. When a few of the local lads took him on as the lead singer of their band (then called Warsaw), they didn’t expect him to change their lives. At rehearsals (and this is actually quoting one of the band members) he just mumbled into the microphone barely audible. But once they hit the stage… Ian’s booming voice took over the room. His dancing (now a thing of legend) was incomprehensible to most who assumed (wrongly, history teaches us) that he was very high on drugs. He was on a natural high, lost in the music. Fame swept over Joy Division taking them to heights they never expected. In the meanwhile, Ian was diagnosed with epilepsy that doctors couldn’t seem to be able to help him with. He had a daughter now, but his marriage broke down when he fell deeply in love with Annik a Belgian embassy worker. And everything aside, Ian never wanted to be famous. Feeling unable to control his health, his emotions or his career, Ian Curtis took his own life, aged only 23 years old. Control is his story.

Corbjin, originally a photographer of great fame, does a fantastic job in this film. And his direction is only rivalled by Sam Riley’s performance, portraying the awkward, sensitive, angst filled lead singer of Joy Division. The film shows a Curtis torn between his responsibilities as a husband and father and his heart. I am not generally speaking at all supportive of extra-marital affairs but one can see how this happened. They were married so young. And then they grew up. Debbie continued loving Ian, but Ian had a new life with his new found fame. What is more, the film portrays his relationship with Annik as something very deep and emotional, not just a “passing fad”. Could one blame him?  I don’t think so.

The film itself, shot in black and white, gives a very clear portrayal of the underlying angst that dominated Curtis’s life and finally overcame him. The emotions are so sensitively, artistically conveyed, I defy you to not feel literally heart-broken by the end of the film. And the one other thing dominating the film is it’s extraordinary soundtrack. Filled with all the classics by Joy Division along with music from greats such as Bowie, Iggy Pop and the Sex Pistols Control is a true trip back in time. And possibly a chance to discover Joy Division. When I’m feeling down, when I’m confronted with a challenge I not sure how I am going to overcome, I find there is something incredibly and strangely cathartic about the music of Joy Division. Curtis’s singing, along with the lyrics convey a certain sense of sadness. This cannot be likened, in literary fashion, to a stormy sea. This thing is grey. It is dense. Like a fog, only it grips at your throat. And it is no shape, no form, no end. For most of us, the fog then slowly clears, for Curtis, it did not. But what makes me feel good about his singing is that, to me, that is what sadness sounds like. I don’t know what else to call it, but Ian knows. He gets it. And it’s very cathartic to listen to his voice and know that he gets it. Or got it. And knowing that someone else got it, always clears the fog for me. I am not sure if that last paragraph makes a lot of sense to anyone but me. But I guess what I’m trying to convey is that listening to Joy Division and watching Control are very healing, soothing things for me. And this film matters to me, a lot. I hope you enjoy it.

P.S. As an interesting aside, it’s rather sweet to note that the actor who plays Ian, Sam Riley and the actress playing Annik, Alexandra Maria Lara, started a relationship after meeting on the set of the film five years ago and live together in Berlin to this day… 

A CULT CLASSIC I WOULDN'T DREAM OF INTRODUCING : "TRAINSPOTTING"

Ok, let’s continue with our gallery of shifty characters shall we? While we’re on the subject of shifty characters and British cinema, not to mention having watched the film again quite recently, I really, really couldn’t pass over Trainspotting. I mean not really. The film is a legend in its own right, be it for the soundtrack, astounding special effects and crazy characters but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s get a lowdown on the story first.
Welcome to Edinburgh. Only when I say welcome to Edinburgh don’t think the Castle, the festival or any other big tourist attraction you read about online and see on the telly. We are talking the backwaters of Edinburgh, where the folks who have decided to “not choose life” (we all remember Renton’s opening speech, right kids?) or rather choose the sort of life that their parents and societal conventions disapprove of live. Renton and his friends Spud, Sick Boy, Begbie and Joey drink, use heroin and don’t give a hoot what their “future” is going to be. Their crazy lifestyle, punctuated by unexpected (and often uncalled-for and unprovoked) bouts of violence and Sick Boy’s off the wall schemes and theories will, however, after a time, start to come apart. Renton is the only one with the sense to try and abandon the “sinking ship” but tragedy, circumstances – not to mention his beloved friends – will make it very, very difficult for this to happen indeed. Will Renton finally be able to escape the snowball of mounting heroin and drug-related tragedy? Or is this just another pause before yet another relapse?...
Now, as I said, Danny Boyle’s Trainspotting is a legend in its own right. It gives an uncompromising look at the drug culture, and the interesting thing is that he doesn’t, in the vein of mainstream films, portray it all as doom and gloom. I mean, not entirely. Comedy and fantasy play a very, very big part in the film not to mention the music which is not only brilliant (and with names like Brian Eno, Iggy Pop, Blur and Pulp on the list I honestly don’t see how it could NOT be brilliant) it is also upbeat. I think it is precisely this, Boyle’s ability to mix the good and the bad so believably, that makes Trainspotting so watchable. Take Begbie for example. Begbie is a small-time crook. He doesn’t do drugs, but does pretty much anything else, including chucking beer glasses at innocent passers-by simply because he is bored and wants to start a fight. He would be a truly terrifying character if met in real life – and we realize this at the end of the film, when things get serious – but at the beginning he seems little more than a character put there for comedy relief. “Everyone goes on about how terrible drugs are, no one talks about how much fun it is.” Complains Sick Boy, “I mean, if it wasn’t fun, we wouldn’t do it!” I think that’s a brilliant summary of the film. If the film had constantly harped on about the truly horrible and sad things it portrays (and believe me it does) it would be a film notorious for its sadness and hard to watch, a bit like Darren Aaronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream. In its stead, our highly sympathetic leading man Renton, the plethora of characters that we cannot help watching partly because of their unbelievable and creative antics, partly out of horror of what they might do next and the uncompromising stare at real events that Boyle portrays brings us smoothly to the end of the film without us having understood where the two hours went.
So Ok, does this mean that drugs are encouraged, as some critics say? In my opinion the answer is a big, fat no. Because, like real life, the good is portrayed with the bad, the funny with the sad, it makes the negative events in the film all the more realistic, even horrific, and less melodramatic. Let me give you an example; a classmate of mine told me he watched this film with his 13 year-old triplets (fast – forwarding the sex scenes, naturally). At the end, apparently he overheard them talking amongst themselves, saying how horrible drugs were and that they didn’t understand how and why people did drugs… So go figure… They seem to have got the message at any rate =)

A TIMELESS SUPERSTAR - I GIVE YOU LOLA LOLA AND "THE BLUE ANGEL"

I am pretty sure that even the least film-savy one in our number has at least heard of this one… Oh come on, surely… Marlene Dietrich? “Falling in love again / Never wanted to/ What am I to do/ I can’t help it….” Surely it rings a bell? Yes, it’s parodied, we have heard it in voiceovers and such like more than once or twice, but nothing, I promise you, nothing beats the real thing… If you call yourself even a partial, marginal movie buff, I reckon you should see this. Like, really.
Meet Professor Immanual Rath. He is the teacher at the local high school and very, very prim and proper is he. That is why, when he discovers his pupils looking at risqué postcards in his class he is absolutely infuriated. He is informed that the lady in the postcards is the famous artist Lola Lola, and she can be seen in the local bar, The Blue Angel every night for a limited period. Naturally the professor does not at all approve of his pupils being corrupted in such places so he goes over to the bar the same night to investigate. There, the unthinkable will happen… Lola (Marlene Dietrich) will steal the professor’s heart away in one fell swoop. But this is the first step among many the professor will take into a life he could never have dreamt he would have…
This film has to be put into context. Lola (Dietrich) is unabashed, she flirts she is sexy, she is not ashamed of it, heck she uses it. Her open sexuality must have come as quite a shock for the audiences of the ‘30s. You may be tempted to scoff and say “Oh the ‘30s. They have nothing on us.” No. Trust me; Marlene Dietrich is sexy by any standards in any century. It is also interesting to note the specific way in which she was sexy. Hers was an unpretentious, completely natural and down to earth femininity, much in the same vein of Bridget Bardot a couple of decades later, in her earlier films especially. I mean, true, the film is very typical of turn of the century fare in its way, the “goodies” and the “baddies” are quite clearly marked (although possibly not as clearly as it could be, credit where its due Lola isn’t all bad) but still. Like a lot of early films, it depends a lot on typecasting as opposed to well-developed characters, I mean when all is said and done Lola is “the whore with the heart of gold”, a typical trope of a lot of films – even today. Naturally, at the end, following the “bad” path is punished; so in a sense I would have to retract my last comment and say that Lola is bad, at least as far as the values from those days go… And yet, you must watch this one. Lola is the first time so many things were openly portrayed on the big screen that you have to witness that historical moment… And when you do, you will see quite clearly that, that infamous song is a much-repeated classic for a very, very good reason.

DOCUMENTARY ON A LEGEND : "DON’T LOOK BACK"

Ok, honestly, I am not quite sure what you guys will make of this one. I mean I don’t blame anyone for it; I’m not quite sure what to make of it either. Or rather I wasn’t at first. Its style is a little unconventional but to be fair I personally fell in with it very quickly. I mean, you might ask yourself what the heck could be unconventional about a documentary; it’s a pretty simple format after all… Pertinent clips and footage is shown as a narrator explains and what is going on. My point exactly. What if there is no narrator?
This seems to be exactly what the director D.A. Pennebaker asked himself before he made this documentary, for this is exactly what happens here. The documentary is about music legend, philosopher and poet Bob Dylan. In 1965 he spent three weeks touring the U.K. with Joan Baez. D.A. Pennebaker’s camera (in the singular. No fancy multiple camera angles, close-ups and so forth here) followed wherever he went. Then the footage was edited, the most striking moments selected and edited together – with no fancy or frills you understand, just one segment on the back of another – and presented for our delectation. I personally thought this was NOT the brightest idea a director could have at the start; I stand corrected. When you think about it, it’s rather an ingenious idea…
In the age of the internet and the DVD, we have all seen quite a lot of backstage – behind the scenes clips, right? We almost inevitably have a guide, telling us who is who, what is what; we are the privileged guest being shown around the studio / backstage. But of course, even though these are basically documentaries they still reek of performance. And these days they are performances of course. I mean let’s face it – every film accounts for the “behind the scenes” footage in the production stage. With Don’t Look Back however, we are just spirited backstage and left there. We are not even told who is who and what is going on. Not even a sentence or two on the screen. So in the first place, this is no performance. Mr. Dylan has kindly allowed us to hang around that’s all, he has no time to stop and explain stuff to us, and so he just gets on with his life as if we weren’t there. This whole feeling is exacerbated by the use of a single camera – no continuity type editing and definitely no real concern with “painting pretty pictures”. But this in itself doesn’t really matter because the subject matter is just so interesting; it’s a historical moment, it’s Bob Dylan and there we are, face to face with the man himself – or the closest we’ll ever get to him at any rate.
In this footage Dylan is 23. But even back then, as he gives snappy answers to well-meaning reporters and tries to explain his unique point of view and message to the world the poet and philosopher side of him shines through. I was taken aback by the lack of guidance but by the time we reached the end I was staring absolutely mesmerized… It’s a proper oldie this one, so it may be a tad hard to find; but make the effort to get your paws on a copy. It’s an experience not to be missed in my view…

A BIT OF NOSTALGIA : "THE RED SHOES"

OK, so, we’re turning the clock back even further for this one. We’re back in 1948 and what we have before us is a “modern” re-working of Andersen’s classic fairy tale “The Red Shoes”. The story is an interesting one on many levels, not least because of Darren Aronovsky’s recent ballet, ambition and psychology themed, Oscar winning hit The Black Swan is so recent in our minds. The comparison is inevitable of course – the fact that they are both “ballet films” is enough in itself – and before we go any further I need to have it down for the record that I infinitely preferred The Red Shoes (also, by the way, a double Oscar® winner). Maybe it’s the fact that I have now changed the course of my life and my life is now a bit more “art orientated”, but the film is very self-reflexive, in fact it is reflective about art in general and that in my opinion is what makes it so interesting to watch. But I am getting ahead of myself; let’s hear something of the story first.
Victoria Page (Moira Shearer) is an ambitious young ballerina. She is beautiful and talented and she has just made the career break of a lifetime. Her aunt has introduced her to Boris Lermontof, the manager of one of the leading ballet companies in the world; what is more, Mr. Lermontof has taken a bit of shine to her. True, she still cannot dance anything other than minor parts, but this is a first step, the first step on a ladder that may well take her all the way to the top. The problem is, her heart is about to be torn asunder, as love also enters her world in the shape of the young and handsome composer Julian Craster. Soon Vicky must choose between her art and her heart; the question is can she muster the strength to make this choice – if it is possible to make the choice at all that is…
I have to say off the bat that there is more to this film than the typical “woman torn between two beaus” dilemma here. I mean, yes that is the main “leitmotif” of the film and there is really no way around it but although we all know about love and that doesn’t take that much consideration, a lot of thought is given to art, the nature of art and why precisely Vicky is so torn between the two. There are many parallelisms with Black Swan as well. The most evident of this is the phenomenon of the ballet Vicky is dancing in reflecting her own life and Vicky being torn between her career and her heart. Ofcourse what makes the Black Swan more “daring” was the fact that we went right down into the psyche of the character and watch her crack up. My personal opinion is that there is a fine line between setting bare the human soul and just trying to be shocking for the sake of it and I think Black Swan failed at that point. While in Black Swan the dilemma becomes the classic one; should Nina be a good girl (keep her soul pure and stick to her art) or a femme fatale (symbolized by her sexual awakening .) And don’t forget that the femme fatale is the bad character “par excellence” and is destined to die in the end. This is precisely what I didn’t like about the Black Swan. The Red Shoes gets the dilemma just right. And while Aaronofsky turns the “magnifying glass” onto the individual and love or the awakening of it, Powell and Pressburger keep the emphasis on art and consider the driving forces behind it and the nature of the beast. One of my particular favorites is a small passage concerning a discussion between Julian Craster and Lermontoff. What first brings Craster face to face with Lermontoff is the fact that one of Craster’s teachers has stolen his music and “sold” is as his own to Lermontoff as score for a ballet. Craster is livid when he learns of this and demands an audience with Lermontoff, if nothing to shame is teacher and put himself forward. I will not go into the details of the discussion but in the end Lermontoff concludes by reminding him that it is sadder to have to steal from someone in a situation like this than to be stolen from, especially since the “thief” is supposed to be Craster’s teacher and better. It’s the depth of considerations like that that make the film stand out for me.

THERE'S NOTHING QUITE LIKE AN OLDIE! SINGIN IN THE RAIN

I’m not quite sure how I should describe this one. Of course we have all heard tell of “classical Hollywood”, right? Of course we have. Singin in the Rain is my idea of “classical – classical Hollywood”. You know how when someone says “picnic basket” we all think of that little wicker one with a red and white checked table cloth? That kind of classic. Or the brownies your Mom used to make. Now, you all have your own ideas concerning Hollywood. Some approve, some disapprove, some don’t really care. I personally respect all these views. But I can say, with confidence, that if you want to watch a fun romance with some wonderful, sparkling, all singing and all dancing numbers thrown in, Singin in the rain is the one for you…
In this little beauty Gene Kelly is Dan Lockwood a Hollywood actor (someone see a contradiction in there somewhere? Hehe) just at the end of the movies and the beginning of the “talkies”. That is the advent of sound in cinema folks. He is famous as part of a duo, his counterpart being Lina Lamont (Jen Hagen) an actress with whom he is linked in every way by everyone else but who he personally despises. Still, it is good for business, so while he does his best to make it in showbiz, he keeps the association as well. Until, that is he meets the love of his life, Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds) a girl from the chorus line, by no means a big name in Hollywood but he mistress of his heart all the same… However there are storm clouds on the horizon. Sound may well mean the death of the career of his acting partner, and with his heart now in someone else’s hands as well, Lina will stop at NOTHING to keep her claws on what is “rightly” hers…
I have mentioned this before and I will say it forever and anon, we all LOVE films about showbiz. Realistic or not, it feels like a little peek backstage. And it may give us the “comforting” feeling it’s not what it’s cracked up to be, not really. But still we flock back to those movies. So I predict you will love this little showbiz number, and not just for its gossip value. Intrigue and flying claws are a-plenty but then there is the singing and dancing. By God, the numbers… They really knew how to do it back then… One word of warning is, that to the uninitiated, some of the number may feel a touch too long, but really I found them worth watching. Check out the comic numbers by Donald O’Conner who we see as Dan’s inevitable best friend and sidekick. One of the most believable and “real” sidekicks I’ve seen in a while that one… Anyway, for the dancing a last point is that Gene Kelly himself was the choreographer – and I secretly feel that he made them out to show himself to the best advantage but there you go. He kinda deserves it too.
I mean, others among you may remark that the film lacks, well… Substance. And it is true, it is a a-typical boy meets girl movie with good songs and dancing thrown in. A bit like candy floss - lovely but well, slightly pointless. Then again, there is nothing at all wrong with a bit of candy floss from time to time. If you want to unplug for an hour or two and toe-tap to some good old fashioned tunes, this is your fella!

AN LASTLY, A MODERN TWIST : "HAPPY FEET"

Ok, we’ve had the classics, we’ve had the off-the-wall versions, how about musicals today? I had a couple in my selection. And until I watched this one, for a completely different reason, I had a completely different film in mind to make up this trilogy. However, the more I watched Happy Feet, the more “right” putting it here seemed. I mean, it is an all-singing, all dancing extravaganza with a star cast this one… I mean, so what if the ones doing the singing and dancing are animated penguins?
Mumble Happyfeet (who borrows the voice of Elijah Wood) is a seemingly perfectly normal penguin. I mean, his father Memphis (Hugh Jackman – or the voice thereof) did drop the egg for a few seconds when he was incubating but still… His mother Norma Jean (Nicole Kidman) loves him all the same. But as Mumble grows, a problem emerges. A little-known fact about penguins is that they can sing. Indeed, they must sing. This is how they find their one true love; singing is what their society is constructed around. And Mumble cannot sing to save his socks. He can do something else, it’s this funny jigging around with his feet, but the older penguins do NOT approve of it. Besides, what with the great fish shortage, times are tough, there is no time or energy to be wasted on such frivolity. However, Mumble is determined. He knows in the roots of his claws that what he is doing is right. And that there is a way for him to somehow fit in and belong. Oh, and that he can figure out what is happening to the fish. Mumble is about to go on a voyage of discovery beyond his wildest dreams…
Even the most hard-hearted anti – animation – and - musicalist among you will not be able to resist this one. The songs are so skillfully chosen and so well performed that you simply cannot help toe-tapping and heck, even singing along. And the range of songs is just soo great that you are bound to come across at least one of your old favorites – I did! (Somebody to Love by Queen – I startled the entire household by spontaneously breaking into song; since I was actually watching the film on a laptop with earphones, it took some explaining afterwards not least because my level of singing is round about the same as that of Mumble, as anyone who was karaoked with me can testify). The themes are well-known ones. Society, change, being a late developer, not fitting in at high school (yes, penguins have a high school), finding your feet (ho ho) and, last but not least, (and rather unavoidably) the evil things mankind is doing to the planet and how we have to do something about it. So, Ok, you will not discover new worlds with this one. But it will sure as heck rock your world. I mean, pollution is an important issue, and as we are NOT doing anything about we should be reminded from time to time. As for the rest, well… We can all relate to each and every one of those themes on some level so we may complain that they’re classics but they are classics for a reason… In short, watching this film was some of the best fun I have had in a very, VERY long time. If you have somehow missed it, this is definitely one to catch up on…

THE TRUE STORY OF DAVID HELFGOTT : "SHINE"

This was actually my second attempt at this film. The first time round was actually in the cinema. I didn’t get through it that time around though. Those of you who have watched it will know, the first half of the film is absolutely heart-rending. I was young (possibly too young) and my mother has always been of a sensitive nature especially if there are children or young people suffering in the movie. So we left thirty minutes into it. I was not looking forward to watching it again to be honest. And believe me when I tell you, it is as difficult to watch as I remember it. But it is also greatly rewarding. And it has a happy ending – well… No not sort of. It definitely has a happy ending… Which, considering that this is a true story, is a very comforting and uplifting thing to know.
David Helfgott was put on this earth to play the piano. This is very obvious to everyone around him from a very young age indeed. He wins competitions, distinctions and scholarships to famous music schools. There is however, a problem. David’s father is a strict , rather old fashioned man (to put it very mildly). He encourages David to play the piano, he is in fact his first piano teacher, but breaking up the family? Going to far away schools? Never. Mr. Rozen, David’s second piano teacher insists. David who is shy and quiet by nature puts up as much of a fight as he can, but to no avail. All seems lost, and David almost gives up until that is, the Royal Music College in London also gets in touch a few years later. David knows this chance will not come around again, and despite his father’s threats to cut all connections with him for good, goes out into the world. And he sores, becoming one of the most famous concert pianists of his time, until… Mounting pressure leads to a mental breakdown, leaving him with schizoid personality disorder and completely unable to even complete the most mundane daily chores, let alone play the piano professionally. Until, quite by chance, an old fan discovers him in the mental institution his family have put him in back in Australia. This well meaning lady will be the unwitting beginning of a chain of events that will lead David further and higher than he could have ever, ever dreamt of…
There are two things I particularly want to talk about concerning this film. The first is Geoffry Rush, starring as the adult David Helfgott. You probably know that he won an Oscar ® for this part. We all know that the Oscars® aren’t always exactly fair representations of an actor’s performance in a film, a lot of the time other factors come into play. But in this instance, rarely have I seen anyone present such quality acting that is more deserving of any distinction it can get its hands on. David Helfgott’s disorder means that he talks almost non-stop at a great speed making the role incredibly hard to interpret for anyone. I mean, it’s just so incredible that Shine is worth watching for Rush’s performance alone.
But then there is Helfgott himself. And his story. And as we all know every film begins with a good story. This story is about knowing what you were made for and pushing on. Helfgott never quite lets go of the piano. He play nonstop – and brilliantly to the point of obsession whenever he comes into contact with one after his break down. His determination and will to carry on gets him noticed. I strongly believe, that no matter what obstacles life throws at you, if you know what you want to do is, you can do it. A way can be found. Life will throw you obstacles, but if you stick at the game, life will also throw you allies. It is all about believing. And working at something, never minding the odds. This is what Helfgott has done and for his troubles, is touring the world giving concerts to this day, a thing his doctors once told him he would never, ever be able to do again…
An interesting footnote is that Helfgott’s siblings raised a number of objections to the film, notably the treatment of their father. In the film, Mr. Helfgott is a complete and utter tyrant; it was his treatment of David as a child that drove me and Mom out of the cinema 30 minutes into the film. I guess it is fair to say there may well be some artistic license in there somewhere. But that doesn’t make the film any less worthy of praise or Helfgott’s story any less worth watching and taking a lesson from. Worth watching at least once, if not more I say..

DON’T DREAM IT – BE IT! WITH THE "ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW!"

I’m sure the title has caused a lot of you no little confusion on a lot of counts. The older among you will exclaim – “But that was a musical – surely they haven’t made a FILM of it – that’s BLASPHEMY!” And the younger among you will say “Rocky WHO?” Ok, let’s recap and begin at the beginning. In the United Kingdom, in 1973, there was a musical. It spoke openly of sex and sexual awakening (which was not usual for the 70’s) and also caused no little controversy because one of the protagonists (Dr. Frank N. Furter – now most definitely my FAVORITE any kind of character of all times) is a transsexual . In platform shoes. Underwear. Suspenders. Makeup. The works. Kids broke out of their family homes and collected pocket money for weeks to go and see it. Parents strongly disapproved and worried – but with most things of this genre, could do nothing about it to prevent it spreading like a wildfire. In the mid 70’s, seeing the success of the musical, the company decided to turn it into a “motion picture”. Starring big names like Susan Sarandon (Good LORD she is young. I barely recognized her!) the one and only Tim Curry (the original Dr. Frank N. Furter from the musical) and rock singer Meatloaf (of all people). Now, I knew shamefully little about this. I knew sex featured heavily. That it was considered the granddaddy (or grandmommy?!) of absurd comedy. That it was probably a musical. That was it. I saw the DVD on discount in the foreign land I was travelling in last week and picked it up. I did not speak the language of this land and therefore only got to learn the story by watching the damn thing. It turned out to be the best purchase I have made. Like, ever.
However, I guess you lot want to have a touch more forewarning about what you are going to watch and its topic so I will now proceed to give you a short summary. Meet Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon). They are you’re a-typical engaged couple of the late 60’s – early 70’s. Very “good” no “heavy petting” nothing “unusual”. They are going through life “the normal way” and are preparing to go through life pretty much on the same route - until they get a flat tire one night when they are in the middle of nowhere. Well, it isn’t exactly the middle of nowhere, there’s a rather spooky looking castle in the middle of that particular slice of nowhere. Janet is scared but Brad is reasonable. The castle may have a phone that will allow them to call civilization for help. The castle, however, is no ordinary castle. Its master is Dr. Frank N. Furter – and he has plans for our couple. And neither telephones nor returning to the car is included in these plans…
Now, first and foremost, don’t even go near this DVD if you hate musicals, disapprove of comedy of a sexual nature or think that 70’s movies are lame and absurd comedy is pointless. Just forget I mentioned it and move on to the next post. If, on the other hand, you are not one of the above, get this DVD by hook or by crook. Even if you have watched the musical, the particular edition I have includes such delightful extras as a “participation prompter” – where you are advised as to how you can participate in the musical as you watch (it’s not complicated and you don’t necessarily need a prompter. For instance, in the middle of writing this, for a distraction, (I have a migraine as I write this so I can only stare at the screen and concentrate on it for short periods of time) I slapped the DVD on and did the “Time Warp” round the room. No prompter used, just common sense. Well, when I say common sense…) Or, if you would rather see the reactions of others, you can listen to the reactions of an audience of veterans (I’m guessing fan-club members) singing along to it – it makes for a PRICELESS experience. Even the DVD menus are hilarious. Curious? Then “go up to the lab and see what’s on the slab!”

P.S. For those who are now “full on Frankie fans” here’s the link to the fan club website. I’m definitely signing up. Like, seriously… Oh and by the way on the same website you can purchase tickets for the musical itself in various countries... Check it out! :D

AMADEUS

I long considered the wisdom of adding 80’s and 90’s films to my reviews. Not because I find them “outdated” or something, quite on the contrary, I love them. The trouble is you, my beloved readers, might find them outdated. And there is more of a chance you’ve watched them of course. But when my memory (or indeed my good self) stumbles across an old favorite (Beetlejuice, Hook and the like) I cannot resist. This is one such time. I have to share. I have to gush. And I am almost gushing tears as I write this review – this is the first film – first grown-up film I liked. It got me interested in movies. It’s “the one”. It won 8 Oscars ® and was nominated for a further 3. It walked off with BAFTA’s, Golden Globes, César Awards and David Di Donatello Awards – impressive but I don’t really give a damn because it was my favorite movie of all times before I was old enough to comprehend all that… “It” is Milos Forman’s AMADEUS.

Amadeus is, as the name suggests, the life story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, told by his rival composer Antonio Salieri, now (in the film) residing in a mental institute. I will not give a detailed account of Mozart’s life (and if you do not know it you will find out in the film he he ). But I will tell you the film focuses on the rivalry between Mozart and Salieri, an Italian born composer settled in Vienna. It actually was not very much of a rivalry; Salieri was a good composer of his day but not on a par with the genius of Mozart… Historical accounts as to the actual relationship between the two men differ – some accounts claim Salieri did indeed do everything in his power to put obstacles in Mozart’s way, others claim that the men were in fact colleagues and had an amicable relationship. This film explores the theory that Salieri envied Mozart’s genius bitterly while respecting and admiring at the same time. And it shows us how far this envy may have led him…

The film contains, in truth, everything a good film should. The acting is brilliant, although the two lead actors – F. Murray Abraham who won an Oscar ® as Salieri and Tom Hulce who was nominated – seem not have worked on anything I’ve seen after that ("that" is 1984 incidentally). The direction, well, is by Milos Forman. The soundtrack is largely composed of Mozart’s arias that are beautifully rendered. And of course, there is Mozart. His life and tales are well worth watching in themselves – to say he was “quite a character” would be an incredibly British understatement. Ok, it is 160 min long but honestly in my view you actually CANNOT have too much of this one.

And to those of you who were curious – yes, I did LOVE the Opera as quite a small child. And murder mysteries (oops…). What can I say? I was a very strange kid…

UP FOR SOME REAL TIME TRAVEL ? TRY "TAKING WOODSTOCK"

Woodstock. Were you there? Do you wish you were there? I sure do but it was waaay before my time. Now that was a revolution. And as stories go, it doesn’t get much truer than that. Well, did you ever stop to consider how Woodstock came about? Because with an event like Woodstock one tends to put it in the same category as the forces of nature, magically appearing on its own so to speak… However as magical as it may have been the Woodstock music festival had its beginning rooted in very solid reality had VERY real organizational problems and by all accounts one would have trouble believing some of the characters involved were real off the screen…
Such as Elliot Teichberg. In the beginning Mr Teichberg had nothing what so ever to do with Woodstock. He is an interior designer and painter (well, friends and family buy his paintings) and a gay rights activist in New York. His parents run a small motel in The Catskills. Well they try to – their attitudes have scared off all the customers… With foreclosure looming Elliot has no other option but to go back to White Lake to somehow save his parents. But the situation is pretty dire and Elliot is getting pretty desperate until Elliot happens to see a news item in the local newspaper… A three-day music festival was going to be organized in the next town. Something pretty damn big and impressive. However the townspeople had (successfully) run the organizers out of town fearing a “hippie infestation”. Now Elliot has in his possession one permit for a music festival (he organizes the town’s festival every summer), an empty motel (a little run down but ideal for a H.Q for the organizers) and a neighbor, Max Yasgur who owns a dairy farm with HUGE fields (and we can all guess what THEY were used for)… Elliot communicates this fact to Michael Lang, the organizer of the festival and low and before he knows what’s happening, millions (literally) are on the road to the Catskills for three days of music peace and love…
Taking Woodstock is HANDS DOWN the sweetest film I have watched in a long time. But with a master director like Ang Lee at the helm, how can one not expect a show? Mr Lee literally transports us to the heart and soul of the festival. The best thing about it is that on slight inspection, the film is pretty full of what could be called “clichés”: 60’s clichés, hippie clichés, small town clichés, even a few Jewish clichés (I have to put a disclaimer here and add that what starts out as seemingly an amusing oddity takes a rather serious turn at the end of the film – but I’m not giving away anything, watch and see) The thing is, these are so beautifully managed they are not caricatures or clichés but little things that convey the very soul of the festival… That is why the film portrays the “spirit of the 60’s” so well, with complete honesty, openness and simplicity – to the point that it feels like time travel! The characters are naturally taken from real life but they are so well portrayed that you can’t help sympathizing and empathizing with them all almost immediately. I especially enjoyed watching Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin) and Jonathan Geoff as Michael Lang.
Some bits in the story made me laugh out loud. Yes, there is some nakedness… Ok, a lot of nakedness… But when I say nakedness I mean just that – naked people. NOT what you were thinking… Ok there are drugs – but come on for God’s sake, it was the 60’s! It was Woodstock!! And don’t dismiss it as something that will fall down the generation gap – you’ll love it. Word of honor.

NICK AND NORAH’S INFINATE PLAYLIST

When I stumbled across this bizarrely named little gem, I honestly had no expectations for it what so ever. An hour and a half later, I stood corrected. It was (is, in fact) possibly the sweetest film I have ever watched…
And let me add straight away that I am not a great fan of calling films sweet. The problem is that there is no other way to describe it. The characters are all wonderful, believable, funny, faulty and very easy to sympathize with. The storyline is not that new and contains some clichés but funnily enough none of it is cheesy. I mean, even the “gay best friends” (who seemed to be an obligatory accessory for many films in the 90’s) have a fresh, fun take on them that make them real (by the way, one of the said gay friends in question is played by Aaron Yoo, who it turns out I have seen in a number of other films one of which was The Wackness I picked last week! Seen and admired I should have said incidentally, I greatly enjoyed his performance here as well) In short, it is very much like a real love story, and leaves you feeling all fuzzy and glittery inside… Yes yes, you DO know what I mean, don’t deny it.
Now the story: High-school student Nick (Michael Cera – star of the Oscar winning film Juno) has a problem. He can’t get over his ex – Tris. To be fair, Tris was a man-eater who cheated on him and dumped him but such is life. He is a musician and is in a band, and his depression has even started to affect the band. He tries to reconnect with Tris by making mixed music cds for her, but Tris just laughs and discards them. But they do not go to the trash, oh no. They are adopted by her “friend” Norah (Kat Dennings), whose respect for Nick and his taste in music are growing daily – even though they have never met. Norah, by the way has an affliction: a famous father. It makes her suffer greatly, but she just does her best to live a normal life and in the mean time tries to keep her party-animal friend Caroline from getting wasted. Again.
One night, a completely random encounter after Nick’s band’s gig will transform what could be a completely random evening out into a crazy adventure. And will transform Nick and Norah’s lives forever…

A TRIP BACK IN TIME – TO THE BOAT THAT ROCKED!

The Boat That Rocked is one of the newest creations of the team that brought us such classics as Four Weddings and a Funeral and Noting Hill. And although it is a “fun” film in many ways it definitely lacks the star quality of its more famous siblings.
Not that the film is lacking in stars, in more senses than one : Phlip Seymour-Hoffman gives a superb performance as the inevitable “Brash American” set among “The Brits” without being in the least bit cliché or annoying ( or at least annoyingly cliché) Bill Nighy is your typical “Brit on the ocean waves” with just the right Bohemian overtones, Rhys Ifans is… Well no other word for it absolutely “yummy” as Gavin and Tom Sturrdige is the perfect “naïve young beau”
Reading back on my previous paragraph I find that I seem to have hinted at what I find “wrong” with the film – it’s a cliché. Although it starts on a very interesting point – history of Pirate Radio Broadcasting in the U.K (a concept I was not personally aware of incidentally) and in the meanwhile offers an absolutely wonderfully nostalgic soundtrack of 60’s rock and pop classics, the actual storyline itself is nothing new. Young beau arrives among rebels. Defies authority bravely. Succeeds at last minute where all seems to be failing terribly. Gets girl in the end. * Yawn*.
But, as can be expected from the team that creates such classics – and such great actors - the film has a saving grace apart from its soundtrack (that is so good it deserves a second mention). It’s funny. It does, I have to stay, stray once or twice into a realm the American Pie franchise has exploited in my opinion once too often but other than that it is embarrassingly Britishly, wonderfully funny. I gurantee you an entertaining and depending on your generation VERY nostalgic couple of hours if you make the time to watch it. Just don’t expect it to change your world. Or stick in your mind for more than 2 days…