A SERIOUS MAN

This week is definately one of my “visit the favourites” weeks. Because now that we have passed through my latest review of Truman Capote – now one of my newest “favorite” authors – and we are hankering for something to watch, why not go for an old favorite this time. My favorite writing – directing – producing duos the famous “two headed director” , The Coen Brothers. More specifically their latest film, A Serious Man. Now, A Serious Man was highly publicized. I usually have very high expectations of the Coen Brothers – they are my favorites after all! And ladies and gentlemen, this film did not disappoint either…
Meet Physics Professor Larry Gopnick. He is a devout Jew, a family man, an idealistic teacher. A serious, sensible man with a serious sensible life. Then, quite unexpectedly he hits a bad patch – or rather, the bad patch kinda hits him. One of his students decides to bribe him for a passing grade – and that in itself starts a chain reaction of unfortunate events but there is more. His tenure is now in danger because of anonymous letters that circulating about him. At home, his brother Arthur is stuck on the couch indefinitely and is causing mayhem in more senses of the word than one. His son’s Bar-Mitzvah is approaching but his son only seems interested in the television and his radio. Oh, and his wife has just told him she is cheating on him and she wants a divorce. She also wants him to move out of the house. Yes, Larry Gopnick is most definitely in a tight spot. But at least things can’t get much worse, right?
First and foremost I must hasten to tell you that those among you who usually avoid the Coens because of excessive violence (with classics like Fargo and No Country For Old Men no one can blame that attitude, although it is not my attitude in the least) need not do so this time.
Ok, so I was in two minds as to wether to point it out but it took a while for me to notice this (I started watching the film with virtually no research) but it’s actually a modern adaptation of the Book Of Job (from the Old Testament). I hesitate on “banging on” about this fact but really, the film makes a lot more sense if you bare it in mind I foundBut don’t let that put you off – there isn’t a single actual reference to this fact in the film. I mean, the Gopnicks are a devout family but reference-wise that’s about as far as it goes. Infact, in the able hands of the Coens, the film almost becomes a dark comedy in parts. And there are some very intelligent jokes and references. I mean, I am not Jewish and I was not alive in the 60’s so a lot of the period stuff was lost on me. But there are some very intelligent details that become apparent on closer inspection so this double Oscar® nominee (Best Picture and Best Writing, Screenplay Written Direct For Screen) is definitely worth your attention. Hell, I’m thinking of watching it at least twice… And that’s not just because I’m a fan…

ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED

Although it’s actually rather rude to ask a lady her age, I can divulge that I am too young to remember the Roman Polanski incident. He had deflected to France a good while ago by the time I was born. But naturally, I had heard a lot about it. And naturally, the idea of a grown man having sex with a 13 year-old is in a word, disgusting. Which is why I strongly recommend you watch this documentary on Roman Polanski, his life and the incident in question. It’s easy to categorize this event under the label of “simply disgusting” and dismiss it, but the truth of the matter, and the truth about what went on in the courtroom is very far from simple. Roman Polanski is, no matter what you think of him as a person – on any level – one of the greatest directors of our time. This is why I believe you at least owe it to him to make an informed decision about him. Not an easy mission, believe you me.

At this point I should technically give you an account of the story, but really I am not sure where to begin. My point is, the whole reason one would watch a documentary on an event so “talked about” as the Polanski case is to get a fresh angle, more information. If I gave a detailed account of the documentary and the things it uncovers, in my opinion, there would hardly be a point in your watching it. A cursory summary of events would not do either – most of us know so much about Polanski’s life one way or the other. The tragic beginning he had in life is known: after having lost both parents in the Dachau concentration camp, he was left completely alone in the world in his early teens. He didn’t let that drag him down, rose like a comet in the world of cinema and not only made it to Hollywood but also managed to hold his own and stay original there. He was adored by both the stars and the public. Then, fortune smiled on him once more – he found love, true love. Indeed, his marriage with Sharon Tate is also well documented; it was one of the great love stories of his era. She was eight months pregnant to their first child – a baby boy – when she was brutally murdered at their home at the hands of the Charles Manson family. Polanski almost physically disintegrated from the sheer misery – this is also well documented. But he is, as all who know him testify, a survivor and survive he did. Then came his encounter with Sandra Gates and I will not be going into that as what happened there is technically still being discussed in courts – and is the main topic of the documentary. But add to that the courtroom shenanigans that ensued… Suffice it to say, it ended in Polanski’s lawyer Doug Doulton giving in a petition declaring the judge assigned to the case was too prejudiced to give a fair trial. If you think “that serves him right”, let me also add that Mr Doulton had as a very willing witness the assistant D.A. who should have been his “rival”, Roger Gunson. Believe me, it’s a story you would be interested in hearing even if you aren’t particularly “in” to courtroom drama.

In my initial paragraph, I talk of “giving an informed decision”. Considering the subject matter, this documentary is about as objective as you can possibly get. Interviews with Sandra Gates herself, the afore-mentioned Doug Doulton and Roger Gunson, journalists and courtroom employees of the day make up the bulk of the documentary. Mr Polanski himself does not figure in it personally; however, he is naturally present in the great quantity of archive footage of the day, not to mention extensive archive interviews with him – and he basically does say all he - I can only presume – wanted to say there. The extensive use of archive footage is important – the director has succeeded greatly in giving the ambiance of the day. It was one of the first “media feeding frenzies” of modern times. Naturally, we are used to such thing now, but it’s fascinating to see things develop, “all those years ago” back in 1977. And the way the documentary itself is actually put together is also quite spectacular. I mean, you may be bothered by the “subject matter” if you see what I mean – have no fear. No seedy reconstructions here. It is strikingly edited (striking as in it received the prize for best editing at the Sundance film festival in 2008. While we’re on the subject, Wanted and Desired was nominated for the Grand Jury prize for Best documentary at the same festival, won 2 Emmys (outstanding directing and writing) and was nominated for a further 3 Emmys : outstanding nonfiction special, outstanding picture editing and outstanding sound editing. In truth, if you are at all into media studies you wouldn’t do badly to watch the film purely from an academic point of view). And said editing gives the full impact of the importance of the event – without letting it disintegrate into the realm of the seedy, which is a great accomplishment. In fact, director Marina Zenovich has done such a good job of it, I am actively searching for more of her work. In short, it is a frank and open account – that is artistically put together to boot.

Another good thing is the fact that the documentary doesn’t hold sides. You may or may not think this a good thing, but the whole point is that nothing in life is that simple – especially not something as grave as what Polanski’s being charged with. I mean, there were things in the documentary that disturbed me – but it had little to do with Polanski : the way the courts handled the victim Sandra Gates in a word, made my skin crawl. And here’s another piece of information for you to chew on : Roger Gunson (as I mentioned before, the assistant D.A. in charge of the case) plainly states on tape that he “is not surprised Polanski left the country under those circumstances”. He is not some “hippy” by the way. He is a Mormon who seems to be renowned at the time for his straight-thinking and common sense…

In short, Wanted and Desired doesn’t want you to “pick a side”. Just listen to the whole story and make your mind up then. No matter what you think of Polanski and considering what a long and complicated story it is, that’s fair enough, wouldn’t you say?

NE TE RETOURNE PAS / DON’T LOOK BACK

This has happened before – and I have never made any bones about it. I watch a film, cannot decide what I think of it and a dilemma raises its’ head: To blog or not blog, that is the question... I loved it in a lot of ways – yet was also disappointed with it. In the end, I decided the enjoyment it provided largely outweighed its shortcomings, but well… Watch it and see, it’s not a bad film, no, not at all. I mean, everything to one side, the main stars are Sophie Marceau and Monica Belluci which to my mind, indicate the film is “watchable” at least but to be hones,t in my mind, it didn’t live up to what those great names promise…
Anyways, meet Jeanne. She is a writer, lives in Paris with her husband and two children. She is successful in her job and happy in her home, all in all a pretty average situation. There is, however, one strange thing about her: Her memories start at the age of eight. Absolute blank before it. This has actually become her new project and she is trying to write an autobiography when strange things start to happen. Things seem “different”. Furniture seems to have changed place. She starts forgetting telephone numbers and losing addresses. Her husband and children just… Look different. To add to all this, her family seem to have no idea what she’s talking about, claiming everything she claims has changed has always been that way… Until she starts seeing changes in herself as well. Everyone around her is denying it and it seems incomprehensible and scary to Jeanne herself – but one thing is very clear: She is literally turning into someone else. But then, a clue comes her way. In her mother’s house, she discovers a photograph, containing a vital clue. She sets on a journey following that clue which will lead her to a rather disturbing secret in her past, a secret she doesn’t even remember…
Now, as I said there is much about this film I like. First of all Monica Belluci and Sophie Marceau are both absolutely brilliant. As you can imagine, acting plays a major part in this film and both actresses show us once again their considerable talent in their portrayals of Jeanne’s fear, confusion and at times sheer agony as she transforms. And the story is absolutely wonderfully told it is, in a word, riveting. (So much so that even doing overtime to finish the work on it didn’t seem like a bother!). It is very well directed and both our tension and confusion mounts as the story progresses – oh what in the world is happening to her? Your reaction to the answer provided by the film may well be “Oh. What?” It’s not a bad conclusion. It just lacks development. I honestly think if they had added about half an hour or forty minutes onto the film to explain certain points, give more detail, enlarge on certain emotions and illusions the film would be a masterpiece. As it is, it ceased to be so and ended up being a cool movie for a Saturday night at home. As you may have guessed, the film is not “supernatural” but a psychodrama (slight spoiler but I thought I’d risk it; the film has been extensively talked about in art circles so there’s a good chance you already knew that). So you might argue that it isn’t necessarily meant to make complete sense. And the lack of sense makes sense in a funny kind of way but well… Like I said, I felt it needed developing…
Don’t let me rabbiting on about developments put you off it though – oh no. I have often said before, man cannot survive on A + films alone; watch it and enjoy it. Just don’t expect it to change your world. I sort of expected it to change mine, so I was disappointed but you have been warned so you should be ok ;)

SPREAD YOUR WINGS - "AMELIA"

As you all know by now, I have a soft spot for a true story. I also, you may have noticed, bend over backwards most of the time not to give “spoilers”. This is basically because I personally absolutely HATE spoilers. There is no point, I find, in watching a film if one knows the end, 90% of the time anyway. But then again, what do you do about true stories? Especially, if you’re talking about an historical event. I mean, if you’re watching a WW2 film, you’re basically screwed : no prizes for guessing what happened at the end of that one!! So there are exceptions to the rule. Especially, in the case of “Amelia”. The story of Amelia Earheart – first woman to cross the Atlantic solo by air.
But of course, some of you may never have heard of her – which is understandable. So let’s learn a bit more about her. Amelia Earheart (Hilary Swank in the film) was originally from Kansas. She was extremely interested in flying from a very young age – which was not considered the “done” thing in the early 30’s. That didn’t stop her from going as far as learning how to fly a plane though. Nor did it stop her from replying to an advertisement searching for a woman to participate in an attempt to cross the Atlantic by air. She is extremely excited but John Putnam, (Richard Gere in the film) the promoter of the event, very quickly brings her down to earth. She is to be no more than a passenger and a pretty face. This doesn’t stop her from attempting a solo flight (where she actually flies the plane) a few years later. Having seen her spirit and obstinacy, no one stands in her way – least of all John Putnam who is now her husband. Her success as an aviator makes her a celebrity in all the senses of the word. She has her own brands, all the fame she could want and a short affair with the dashing young entrepreneur Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor in the film). But all that never eclipses the two great loves of her life: John Putnam and flight.
Now, you may or may not know how Amelia’s story ends. Personally, I did. But that did not for a minute stop me from loving every moment of the film. And another small surprise for me was a short appearance from Christopher Ecclestone who I grew especially fond of as a fan of Dr Who (and admit it – he has to be one of the best Dr Whos, right?). Now, you read the cast. No prizes for guessing that the acting is absolutely faultless. I was yet again reminded of the talents of Richard Gere – and I haven’t seen him around in quite a while but I guess that’s my doing not his 
The story you may find slightly Hollywoody – and it is a VERY Hollywood film but the thing is, it’s absolutely true. She herself was larger than life, their love with John Putnam (J.P. as she lovingly called him) was larger than life and the adventures her love of flying brought her were definitely much larger than life… In fact, you may find yourself having to remind yourself that all this actually happened but it did. In the end, however, as it’s usually the case with larger than life events and people, you will find you are swept away by it completely… It is not a “work of art” but I definitely do NOT regret watching it. And if you don’t know the story of Amelia – DEFINITELY watch it. Or at least research Amelia Earheart on the internet. 20th century true adventure stories are few and far between and I would NOT want you to miss this one!

SUMMER CROSSING

Well, hand on heart; it has been a SHAMEFULLY long time since I reviewed any literature… And truth be told that’s because it has been an equally shamefully long time since I actually read any good literature. But in my defense I was out to remedy that last weekend when I made another discovery: I have never read any Truman Capote! I’ve seen the film starring Philip Seymour-Hoffman, yes, but never actually read any of his work. And there on a shelf in a bookstore was Breakfast At Tiffanys (the book not the film) and assorted stories and his recently discovered début novel, Summer Crossing.
By recently discovered, I mean that his lawyer and friend Alan U. Shwartz discovered the four notebooks it was written on some time after Capote’s death. When dated it turns out to be his début novel – so it’s a little ironic in my view that it should be printed posthumously. Shwartz ponders whether he did well in publishing it in the short annex he provides to the book (in my edition) where he describes the book’s discovery. He ends up not regretting it – and I am glad. We would have been deprived of a true gem.
Now, this little 120-page jewel (Good news for those of you who get put off by books that are too long! – And don’t you deny it, I know you’re out there!) is the story of Grady. Grady is the 17 year-old daughter of a rich American family in New York, in the 50’s. And for the first time in her life she is completely alone all summer this year – her family are taking a boat to Europe. And why pray does Grady chose to waive such a chance at a European adventure? Well, that would be because she has a secret… And the secret’s name is Clyde Menzer. He is a Jewish car park attendant and they are madly in love. Left alone and completely free for the first time Grady clings to Clyde, intensifying their relationship and bringing it to a point Grady never imagined it would come to…
Now, I am not a particular fan of romances (nor am I particularly averse to them – I just am not “addicted” to them) but this is BRILLIANT. It is first love concentrated, boiled down and poured into a book. It is told exquisitely; it is gripping and is also full of all the mannerisms and quips of its age, giving a marvelous insight into life in the States at the time, right from the inside. But as I read Summer Crossing (not only crossing the Atlantic you understand – that comes into it as far as the parents are concerned but also Grady’s crossing into womanhood) I felt it contained more insights than first caught the eye. Take the rather bizarrely named Grady (named after her uncle apparently). One of her major characteristics is that she is DIFFERENT from her sister and parents. They are “nice” and “usual” she is “not like them” . Clyde is merely a more “obvious” demonstration of this. Now, this is a very common (and in this case very well described) state of mind for a 17 year-old but could it possibly be an insight into Capote’s own feelings towards society – or maybe even his family (this is a début novel right at the beginning of his career don’t forget) ? And then, Clyde, the Jewish car park attendant. A gloriously inappropriate lover for high-brow Grady. Maybe a consideration on Capote’s own homosexuality that was considered “very inappropriate” at the time ? Capote wasn’t “Capote” then you remember, so he didn’t have the liberty fame brings… I don’t know. And you really should read it and make your own judgments. But Mr Capote, allow me to say this: Do not regret the printing of this book even if you never meant for it to be seen. It was an amazing gala to your career that deserved to be shared with the world…

MAN ON A WIRE

I have never quite understood why Oscar® winners in categories such as Best Documentary or Best Foreign Film are so quickly pushed off the edge of the stage and forgotten. Such was the case with Man On A Wire. It won the Oscar® for Best Documentary last year and to my knowledge was never heard of again. But then again, it is a documentary about a French wirewalker. Not what you would consider a riveting night’s entertainment. The thing is, Man On A Wire is not really out to be “in your face”. It is out to tell a story, simply, beautifully, unexpectedly.
Well the “man” mentioned in the title Philippe Petit, French wirewalker. And the “wire” mentioned in the title is a high wire, in this case fixed between the Twin Towers (of yore) in New York. But ofcourse, as you can imagine, doing this is actually illegal. (and why that would be I find it hard to understand, I seriously doubt there are enough people trying wirewalking between skyscrapers to actually cause a problem). Anyway, Philippe isn’t going to let a small matter such as American Laws get in his way so he gathers his accomplices round him and hatches a plan. The documentary tells us of the accomplishment of this plan. It makes for quite an exciting story and a fascinating insight into Philippe’s mind…
I strongly recommend you shed your prejudices and watch this film. But don’t expect it to grab you and carry you off on a journey the way Hollywood films do. It has a more minimalistic approach. By this I don’t mean minimalistic in the cinematic sense per se, I mean yes there are plenty of reconstructions but not as much or as in your face as you might expect from a counterpart. Infact a lot of it relies on the European story-telling tradition with just a camera and Philippe, Annie (his girlfriend at the time) or another one of his friends and accomplices telling the story. Their narrative is interspersed with reconstructions and recorded footage of Philippe practicing, pulling off other stunts (highwire between the towers of the Notre Dame in Paris for instance).But apart from the bits you are shown (mostly as they were at the time) there is plenty left to the imagination. I would go as far as saying the experience is cross between watching a documentary and reading a book… But there is great grace and beauty in this minimalism. In fact, the sight of Philippe, reduced to almost the size of an ant in perspective with the New York sky line, reclining (yes reclining. As in lying down. Oh, by the way, I have vertigo!) on an invisible wire suspended between two of the highest buildings in the world is surprisingly… Poetic. Definitely esthetic. And I privately feel that that “snapshot” captures the very soul of the film. You’ll see what I mean once you’ve seen it.

HE SEES DEAD PEOPLE... "GHOST TOWN"

You may or may not have figured out as you browse the pages of this humble blog that I have a soft spot for comedy. I like making people laugh in life and I like people who make me laugh. So I have a soft spot for comedians as well. And as far as people I have a soft spot for goes, Ricky Gevaise features pretty highly on the list. He first made a name for himself with The Office (the ORIGINAL BRITISH version) as the absolutely stranglable boss David. In addition to all this, he keeps knocking off some pretty damn good films, and Ghost Town is one of them.
Meet Bertram Pinkus (Gervaise). He is a dentist. And also, very possibly, the most antisocial and stranglable man on the planet (yes even more so than David) . He hates human contact of any kind, thinks most human beings idiots and would prefer to be left well alone which is just as well because not a lot of people like him. However one day, during a colonoscopy, his life changes. He dies you see. Only for a couple of seconds but he does die. When he comes back, his life has changed : He can see dead people. It turns out that the dead walk among us (those who have unfinished business with the living naturally) waiting for someone who can transmit their last messages to us. They naturally flock round Bertram begging him to help. Bertram just gets annoyed and tells them to piss off. The ghosts insist. They are decidedly at an impasse when a rather unexpected member of the “living” dead come along. Frank (the talented – and Oscar® nominated Mr Greg Kinnear) is a businessman who was killed in a freak accident. His wife has got over is death pretty quickly (because he was rather a cad and had been cheating on her) and is infact preparing to remarry. Frank is at his wits end because he can see that her fiancée, despite looking perfect in every way, is a con artist. He decides she deserves better, especially after the way he treated her. Being a savvy businessman among other things, he sees his opportunity and makes a deal with Bertram : If he helps him separate his ex-wife and her fiancée, he will help Bertram with “the ghost problem”. Bertram who is also at his wits end at this point, accepts. But as they start working on Frank’s “cunning plan”, another complication shows its head : Bertram seems to have grown feelings. And the feelings are all centering round Gwen, Frank’s ex-wife…
The thing about most of Ricky Gervaise’s comedy is, in a bizarre way it tends to be a bit of a “niche” event. I mean, The Office. I LOVED that show but personally felt that a lot of the situations in that would mean very little to anyone who hasn’t worked in the private sector. Again, another movie of his, The Invention Of Lying. I am told it is hilarious (I haven’t watched it) but reviewing the subject matter I have a nasty feeling it would be lost on you unless you were an atheist (I may of course be wrong, but that’s what I gathered on first inspection). Ghost Town isn’t like this. Bertram is a common or garden annoying anti-social bloke and I’m sure you know at least one person like him. So you will by definition LOVE seeing him in trouble. And if by any chance you watched The (British) Office and thought David was funny you will LOVE this (experience talking) . It’s very VERY good quality situation comedy, with a bit of Hollywood thrown in. Ok, I mention Hollywood and there is NO getting away from this matter here especially at the end (For God’s sake,the tagline for the film is: “He sees dead people. And they annoy him.” If you see what I mean.) So Ok, it will not change your life. But the sight of poor bloody Bertram trying to grapple with the ghosts will make you laugh out loud. And really, you DO NOT want to watch serious stuff the whole time. I mean, the frowning will give you wrinkles to start with… ;)