FROM RUSSIA : ANDREY RUBLEV

Ok, so, going to the film festival requires a certain amount of dedication. There are, of course, more “lightweight” participants, but for the more seasoned viewer there are more “challenging” options available. This is why, I believe, the selection this year was highly commendable, it was a very VERY good “spread” indeed. In this context, I saw this “little” classic by Russian directing giant, master Tarkovsky, and decided to go for it. Now, a word to the wise. Watching any film that is three and a half hours long in one sitting is a challenge in itself. Especially if it’s black and white and you don’t understand the language (easier to dose off you see). It’s more of a challenge if you’re in a cinema. You know, no distractions, not even a loo brake or a chance to stretch your legs. Add to this that the material you’re watching is, well… Tarkovsky. The experience was fascinating, but it’s not one I’ll be repeating in a hurry.
So what is the film about? Well, it is loosely based around the life of 15th century icon painter Andrey Rublev. Master Andrey, along with two companions, leaves the monastery where he has trained and lived for many years and goes out into the world. His aim is to hone his art as an icon painter - without leaving the religious “context” of course. However, once out in the real world, he finds the task is by no means easy. Especially in 15th century Russia, where infighting and Tartar hoards were plentiful…
The film is, admittedly VERY loosely based around Rublev’s life. It was, however commended the world over for its realistic portrayal of Russia in the middle ages. The thing with Tarkovksy is that his work is heavily symbolic, slow moving, with beautiful images conveying deep meaning, stuff you really need to think about. Personally I didn’t so much as understand but rather felt the meaning of some of the bits of the film… But the main theme is how Rublev slowly begins to lose faith, in more ways than one. The Orthodox Church (of which he is, as a monk, a part) is a massive force of the era, making free art all the more difficult. Rublev looses faith in everything; his art, the church even, Tarkovsky suggests at the very end, his own faith… It is clearly a very “anti-church” very possibly “anti religion – or organized religion any way – as well. You may not necessarily agree with all his messages, but you HAVE to admire the striking way Tarkovsky puts them across. And this is the cinema after all… Presentation IS half the game…
Now, there is one interesting aspect of the film that a good friend and I discussed on exiting (and walking around for about an hour trying to gather our wits and downing a couple of beers to get our brains working again). This film was filmed in Soviet times. And the Soviets of the time DID NOT like the film… So much so that they cut a total of 39 minutes of it. (Now don’t panic, three and a half hours is the total, uncut version, the film in total is NOT four hours long) But I was sort of surprised. I mean, the Soviets weren’t exactly hot on Religion, “The opium of the masses” and all that jazz, you know… But then again, we have to take it in context. True, apart from a few allusions, the film is anti religion, not politics. But, the church of the time was the major determining factor in politics at that time, as were the Soviets in Russia. Andrey’s loss of faith in the major “father figure” of his time, might easily be construed as a loss of faith in the Soviet system of the time. So really, small wonder they didn’t like it. The thing with Tarkovsky is, as you know, symbols. Stripped bare, it is the story of an individual against a mass, the artist against “the wall” (think Pink Floyd) no matter what the wall is… It’s one to be watched again and again to be properly understood, I plan to. Just possibly not all in one go…

THEME OF THE WEEK : THE PAIN OF WOMEN

Now, my only "cause" in life is to watch as many films that are humanly possible before I'm beemed to that big old film archive in the sky. However, one thing is for certain in this funny old world of ours, it's that women suffer. Oh don't get me wrong, so do men. It's just that women have a set of rather specific problems attached to being women. The films I have chosen this week are films that underline this fact, whether the heroines are trying to gain equal rights in the work place or just grow up (Attenberg). I am sure you will find them interesting and enjoyable but I also hope it will give you some food for thought...

have a great week and happy viewing!
Essie

PAIN IN THE WORK PLACE : "MADE IN DAGENHAM"

So, there was a film festival where I live a while back. I look forward to it the whole year round and every year I spend a fortune on movie tickets and for a full two weeks just devote the majority of my time to movie-going. Sheer bliss. Now this has its numerous pleasures and advantages, however, one can find it a tad difficult at times to motivate oneself to get out of the house, especially if it’s raining and it’s a late-night show. Which was the case for this one; mind you it was also the first film of the festival for me so motivation wasn’t at a high point either… By the end however, fear not, I was perfectly clear in my mind why I love the festival so much. Home systems and such are all very well but it can’t beat the real thing can it? I queued for four hours for those tickets – I really worked for them, and now it’s time to enjoy them… You have to be a festival go-er to understand…
Right, made in Dagenham. Now, I love British films. I really do. This had a little added “Easter Egg” surprise for me (You know, those little surprise features they put in DVDs sometimes. They’re called Easter Eggs. Oh never mind…). Anyway, in one of the secondary parts was one of my favorite actors of all times, Rupert Graves. (You may or may not have heard of him, here’s his imdb page). And although I AM a huge fan of his I repeatedly lose track of what he’s doing (heck I repeatedly lose track of what I’m doing as well so no one should be hurt by that fact!) so seeing him appear on the screen all of a sudden was a massive and wonderful surprise for me. Not that I needed to be any more positively disposed towards this one. Oh no. This is the amazing true story of 187 women machinists who worked in the Ford factory in Dagenham in 1968. And they had a problem. The industry (all industries in general in fact) payed women a lot less money than men back then. So the ladies were classed as unskilled workers and payed a pittance. So this group stood up and did something about it. They threatened to go on strike. No one took that seriously either – so they went on strike. They had everyone, from their husbands in some cases to the biggest manufacturers of the times against them but they stood up for what they believed in. But did they achieve anything? Watch the film and see…
This film is a wonderful critique of the woman’s place not only in the work place, but in the world in general, in the ‘60s. And we’re talking about Britain here folks, not a developing nation or the Middle East. I must say that the position of women in the workplace is still far from ideal, even in developed nations ( I won’t even begin on the developing ones). In a lot of big companies, the higher you go up the proverbial food chain the more testosterone is pumped around. I am a strong believer in equality and that this will change one day, not just in Britain but all around the world, so it gave me great pleasure to watch the story of the brave group of women who took on the world and unwittingly took the first steps to change the world fundamentally. And it reminds one, no matter what the issue is, that sometimes in life, in the film’s own words, one simply has to do something. It’s a very real and down to earth movie this one. About real people with real problems who had the guts to stand up and take real steps to solve them. And that, dear friends, is what I call real courage. Highly recommended.

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…

A LITTLE BIT OF NOSTALGIA : WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY

“Oh yeah, I remember this one, Tim Burton, Johhny Depp, Freddie Highmore, right?” Err, wrong. 1971, director Mel Stuart, starring Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. Not that I have anything against the first movie mentioned, good Heavens no. Au contraire, I quite liked it, not that I remember it in any great detail. I mean, I do remember it but not the minutia. Anyway, I am taking a more studious view on films these days ladies and gentlemen, oh yes. Now, I don’t usually reveal a lot about myself but let me tell you this much, I will be going back to school this fall. Masters degree. In a foreign land too – foreign as in not the one I live in and have grown up in anyway. It’s going to be an exciting experience. The point, however, is that I will be studying Film Studies. Hence I am desperately looking round the cracks trying to salvage any major classics and directors that may have fallen through before the fall (notice the witty joke I slipped in there?) We wouldn’t want your friendly neighborhood film critic to get too many weird looks from her fellow pupils and assorted university professors, would we now? To get back to the point, I grant you, this is by no means a classic. I mean, it is, but there are bigger ones. Still, with the recent remake it’s a fascinating exercise to compare the two. Which I did, slightly (except for the minutia as I mentioned). The result was interesting. Not a bad movie, either…
Now, as Charlie and the Chocolate factory is a classic, a complete and utter classic, I will not go into the details of the story. Basically, in a small town there lives a young boy named Charlie Bucket. His father is dead, his family is poor and his four grandparents have been confined to bed for years. Hence they have nothing to eat but cabbage water and Charlie must work after school to help the house. In the same town there is the legendary Chocolate factory of Willy Wonka. Now, the factor y creates some of the most amazing chocolates and candies ever to be conceived of, but no one has gone in or out for years… The recipes are complete secrets. Until… Willy Wonka announces one day that he has hidden five golden tickets in Wonka bars all around the world. The people who find the bars will be taken on a tour round the factory and given a life-time’s supply of chocolate. Charlie is entranced, but with the whole planet competing for just five tickets and with the Bucket family lacking the money to buy bread for the table much less Wonka bars, does he even stand a chance?
And I assume pretty much all of you know the answer to THAT question. Now, there are big gaps, nay entire precipices between the Mel Stuart version and the Burton version of the film. I find it hard, however, to decide on the one I prefer. Now, in the 1971 version, I loved the setting. I mean, granted, in those days the technical abilities Burton used were non-existent. Thus it made infinitely more sense to style a more “real” town. I love the idea of the magical Wonka factory in the middle of a rather glum and very real little town in the middle of the United States. (though of course, Roald Dahl being originally British, the factory would have, no doubt be set in the UK originally this is a minor detail however. Anyway the general “gothic” and fairytale atmosphere that surrounds Burton’s version (as it does his version of pretty much anything) is fun. We all love it – that’s why the man’s a multi-billionaire. However, seeing a more “realistic” setting was refreshing. And the Wonka’s? Well, two entirely different interpretations… Now Depp’s slightly odd genius was brilliant – as usual – but I liked Gene Wilder better. True, Depp’s version suited Burton’s atmosphere infinitely better. Wilder’s Wonka is more “mad benevolent scientist” with flying hair and a top hat. A classic, you might say. On the other hand, Wilder’s version is EXACTLY how I pictured Wonka. Down to a t. so I’m on his side on this one and “Yaa, sucks booo” to anyone who says otherwise. There is, however a redeeming feature for the Burton version. And it is, in my view, a rather pivotal point in the matter. And that is Charlie. Now, the 1971 version introduces Peter Ostrum. A good enough little actor in his way. However, he is, I’m afraid, a little too much of an ideal of the times. Blond, blue eyed, fair skinned – not that there’s anything wrong with that – but also angelic, mild tempered to a fault and mature beyond the level any kid of his age would be. Unrealistic. Admittedly, Feddie Higmore doesn’t exactly turn the role on its head, but his advantage is that he looks and acts like he might exist. The 1971 Charlie could only exist in “Good Housekeeping” or TV Commercials. He annoyed me from the moment I set eyes on him. Not only that, the general attitude the film takes to children is well… I mean, I don’t want to give away too much of the end for the three or four people who have neither read the book or seen one of the movies, however, the 1971 puts a few twists and turns in the plot line. One last “little adventure” courtesy, supposedly, of Willy Wonka. Trouble is, I DO NOT remember this being in the original book. And apart from the fact that messing with the works of a genius like Roald Dahl is sacrilege in itself, they did it wrong. The main attribute of our hero, it seems here, is that he is a “good boy” who will “do as he is told” and not have his own opinions. On the one hand, having this attitude and then moving the film to the States, land of initiative and capitalism, is IRONIC. Secondly Dahl would NEVER want the hero of his books – the child heroes - to be “good as gold” and listen to their parents. Oh no, the kids in his books had spunk, character and they attacked the odds. I understand that this was just after the ‘60s, summer of love, political unrest and all that jazz. Possibly trying to impress the value of parental guidance on the next generation “at least”. They might have meant well but so not cool…
So the “battle of the Wonkas” is taken by a scarred but victorious Tim Burton. At least he stuck to the original ending. Depp will simply have to do as Wonka. Well, I’m not exactly heart-broken, he is rather yummy himself after all =)

A LITTLE SOMETHING THAT IS "ARTY": "ZELIG"

Now, Woody Allen is a tricky one. You either love him or you hate him. You either think he is utterly pointless or one of the wittiest directors alive. I am one of the fans. From the smallest thing to the largest thing, Allen’s films are choc-full of stuff. Real stuff you can get your teeth into whether to laugh or cry and as opposed to fluff. You know what I mean. Zelig was another film I “happened across” a while back. I watched it on a rainy morning when I was cramped for time, based solely on the two premises that I was short of time and I definitely wanted fill my “movie a day” quota. Zelig was 80 minutes long, so on it went.
It is, in fact a “mocumentary”. I mean, it is shot in the style of a documentary with “archive footage” and interviews with “experts and witnesses” but it’s really a story starring Woody Allen himself and Mae West. It is the extraordinary tale of Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen) an ordinary Jewish-American citizen with a rather extraordinary ailment… He “turns into” anyone he comes into contact with. Put him near Asian Americans, he starts speaking Chinese, African-Americans, his skin actually changes color. Put him in the same room as a doctor, he’s a doctor, confront him with an iron-monger, what do you know, he’s an ironmonger. The world doesn’t know what to make of him at first. Nobody except a young and beautiful psychiatrist Eudora Fletcher (Mia Farrow)She suspects Zelig’s transformation stems from his abnormally great desire for acceptance and love. Not only that, she also suspects she can cure him. Getting her hands on him, however, is going to be a good deal harder than she first suspected…
Now, I am a pretty smart gal as they go, generally speaking. But this being Woody Allen, I am still not quite sure what EXACTLY the film was poking fun at. But you can see the type, right? I mean, maybe it isn’t even a single type it’s a quality one can attribute to our society in general today. Preferences in society for instance (marked in the film by the public’s adoration of Zelig and their subsequent hatred of him), typical consumer society, we’re so phical these days. We want one thing one moment, two moments later it’s forgotten and we already have a new favorite. We change like “chameleons” with the times and we are led by advertising (let’s face it that IS what advertising is for but still…)
And then there are people like Zelig. On a more personal level they may be afraid to be themselves for fear of rejection (and that alone speaks volumes on where we are today as a whole if individuals are afraid to be themselves) or they may, a bit like Zelig, be rather “underdeveloped” (and this has nothing to do with age) as far as character formation is concerned. Or heck, they may just have an agenda, sucking up to all and sundry, making contacts, working their way up in the world. Whatever the case, you know the type. The people pleaser. Those who are what you want them to be. Who agree with everything you say. And it’s sort of ironic, because people like that are, most often, quite popular. So it’s funny – and well placed – that Zelig becomes the phenomenon of his age at first… A society of chameleons applauding the ultimate chameleon then? Mr. Allen can’t be thinking much of society today… Oh hang on, scratch that… I think we all know the answer to that one… =)