A - POTENTIAL - MODERN CLASSIC : "TRANSAMERICA"

When a dear friend gave me Transamerica insisting that I watch it, I was overjoyed. I had read a lot about Felicity Huffman’s rather stunning performance as a transgender man getting ready for a sex change. In fact the only reason I never ended up seeing it probably had a lot to do with the fact that it never made it to the bargain baskets back in Turkey. I can assure you people, yes, it deserves all the accolades it got.
So meet Bree (as she prefers to be called.) She was once known as Stanly but is now preparing for one of the biggest moments of her life. In literally days, she will have the sex change she has been waiting for, for so long and be the woman she has dreamt of being. Until she gets a phone call (OK, slight cliché alert). Her one single sexual encounter with a women (that Bree classes as “so tragically lesbian it didn’t count”) has, unbeknown to her, born fruit in the shape of Toby her 19 year-old son. And her son is in one heck of a lot of trouble. His mother has passed away and he is in jail, with desperate need to be bailed out and got off the streets where he has been living on his own for a while now. Bree would be perfectly happy to wire him the bail money and forget the whole episode but then her therapist feels that she should “make peace” with her past and that part of her past, i.e. encounter her son. So reluctantly, Bree accepts. Posing as a church worker she bails him out of jail, and her initial plan is to deposit him back with his stepfather but as it with these things, things do not go according to plan… No, not one little bit…
Now on the one hand, this is definitely a road movie. And by that I mean a pretty darn typical one. Especially the son who “appears out of the blue” theme. However, Bree and her transsexual identity give a significant twist to the whole affair, transforming it from something that could be incredibly cliché to something quite extraordinary. Gently, not at all in an “in your face” kind of way, Transamerica informs us about the lives of transsexuals, a complicated affair, and I don’t just mean about the makeup and clothes.
Key to the whole affair is Bree’s reluctance to reveal her true identity to her son. It is not that she is ashamed of being the way she is, more that she is almost certain of being rejected. Later on in the film we meet Bree’s family and that pretty much shows us, if we ever had any doubt, where the certainty comes from. Bree’s identity has pretty much upturned her relationship with her parents and she is sure that her son will react in the same way – a risk she is more and more unable to take as she gets attached to him. And beyond that, there is the small matter of her being his father, a veritable minefield that we watch Bree negotiate with baited breath.
We get other tit-bits of information too as Bree is a veritable mine of information, among which, it has to be noted, is the nature of the sex change operation. “No I will not have it “cut off” !” Bree exclaims indignantly at one point of the film – but if you want to find out the rest of that sentence, watch the film or do your research. The film as a whole is funny and touching, wonderfully acted in all quarters and does a wonderful job of being in your face and controversial and impossible to adore. But at the same time, as you watch, spare a thought for how difficult it is to be openly transsexual or gay, even in our modern times some times; rejection can be just round the corner, and the people you care about are the toughest ones to tell because there you have the most to lose… That’s very sad and it shouldn’t be this way… Just for the record…

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.

ONE FOR THE MOVIE BUFFS : "BLOW-UP"

I have to be honest with you; this film was “homework” for me. You see, since I am now officially (and have been for a while in fact, by the time you read this article) a student of film studies, we get assigned “homework”. Oh it’s not obligatory of course, it is more in the form of a suggestion but this being a master’s degree, following your lecturers “suggestions” aren’t such a bad idea. I must say I found it hard to see the point of the film until the very, very end. And before you say anything, one of my flat mates – who also had to watch the film as “homework” for a completely different course and reason – agrees with me. But it does have a point, a good point, albeit hidden right at the end, up to you if you want to wade through 106 minutes to get to it. At least unlike some directors I could name you don’t wade through 3 hours of film and arrive at nothing. Antonioni being one of the old masters, he definitely has a point in mind and is not afraid to show it.
Thomas (David Hemmings)is a professional photographer. He is a bit of a celebrity in his field and lives quite a charmed, nonchalant life until a couple of chance snaps he takes one day unknowingly records a murder that was taking place. Thomas will not notice this fact until he develops the pictures and blows the relevant pieces up; and now, not only does he have to make sense of the pictures – and make sure his eyes and the lens are not deceiving him - but he also has to grapple with a mysterious woman (Vanessa Redgrave) who was also caught in the snapshot and has her own agenda as to what should happen to the photographs…
Now, this is, in all honesty, the story. I have not added a single fact. And reading something similar (albeit a good deal shorter) on the back of the DVD I thought I was in luck; we evidently had a crime – thriller on our hands. Err, no. The thing is, if it were a crime-thriller, the “point” of the film would be to expose the crime asap (preferably within the first 15 – 20 minutes of the film ) and the whole narrative would be structured around solving the afore-said crime. Here, the crime is exposed (as in, discovered, a good 40 minutes into the film and the rest of the narrative is very much focused on Thomas and his dilemma as to what exactly he has captured in the shots and what should be done about it. A lot of things happen seemingly for no reason at all other than to demonstrate Thomas’s character and his confidence in himself as an “artiste”. This confidence is shaken by his discovery of course and his subsequent reactions will reveal a lot about his own true nature and that of his trade. The “point” of the film is an “in-discussion” (as opposed to an in-joke, I mean this as a discussion a set group of people will be aware of but the rest of the world will be pretty much oblivious to) that will make sense to no one except either people who are actually working with film / photography be it in theory or in practice or possibly the hard-core cinephiles. In fact, the film is trying to make a very valid and serious philosophical point and you may find it very interesting to watch so don’t dismiss it off hand. But don’t go in there expecting an adrenaline rush either. As long as you have your “philosophical hat” on, you’ll be fine.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF QUEER MOVIES

Ha ha, no, not queer as in strange. Queer as in gay. And no, I'm not calling names, queer cinema is the legit name for a cinema movement started by gay filmmakers. Look it up, it's kinda cool.

I've been doing some work on Queer cinema in the course of my masters degree lately. I've seen quite a few films involving gay people and their lifestyle now which I'll be sharing over the next couple of weeks. I sincerly hope you enjoy these films, all three of them hit me like freight trains.

Oh and Merry Christmas. And a happy new year. Must dash, I'm up to my eyes in essay deadlines :)

happy viewing!
Essie

A CLASSIC IN ITS OWN RIGHT : "ANGELS IN AMERICA"

Now, I have mentioned more than once how I approached something with definite negative prejudices and turned out to be very, very wrong indeed. Never more so with this series. I had, quite a while back, watched an episode of this series (for it is the HBO adaptation and not the Pulitzer Winning play we want to talk about here folks!) . Credit where it’s due, the said episode was from the middle of it. Taken completely out of context, with absolutely no backstory, you won’t be surprised to find out that I hated it and never went back to trying it again. Until, a very dear friend pushed the box set into my end, assuring me that I would love it. I distinctly remembered disliking the small bit of it I had watched passionately but smiled politely and put the case into my bag. At home, I thought for a bit, then I took a deep breath and put it on. Here was a valued friend whose opinion I trusted. At the very least I should be able to explain why I didn’t like it – and “I think I watched an episode some years back” wouldn’t quite cut it. So I took a deep breath and took the plunge. Rarely have I been so glad I have taken a risk. This is not only my favorite out of the three films this week, it is one of my favorite series ever and will be, I think, for always and always. Let me try and explain why.
Angels in America is the story of five people living in New York in 1985. Louis and Prior are a gay couple, whose lives are torn asunder when Prior is diagnosed with AIDS and Louis proves less than capable of coping with this development. Joe and Hannah are a Mormon couple with their own problems. Joe is caught between his beliefs and his sexuality – battling daily to “overcome” his homosexual desires, while Hannah is addicted to Valium and unable to cope with day to day life, much less support her husband. However if Joe’s personal life is complicated his career is going strong; he’s chief clerk in the D.A.’s office and works for Roy Cohen (supremely played by Al Pacino) who is homosexual but refuses to accept both this fact and the fact that he has been diagnosed with AIDS – adamantly claiming he has liver cancer. Cohen’s diagnosis comes at a bad time for him as from his death bed he must battle a rather deserving smear campaign based on the fact that he is a rather unpleasant character and not an entirely honest person at that. Their lives come together, dragging along friends and family members with spectacular results that I do not wish to reveal at this point in the review.
The “epilogue” at the end of the series – and I assume the play as well, clearly shows the work’s message. It harks of a moment when the AIDS epidemic was pushing the gay community to speak out clearly, in a time of great human suffering and death what is needed is solidarity. We have no time for petty preconceptions, we must work together to stop the suffering Therefore, Prior tells us (and I’m paraphrasing a bit but this is the gist of it ;) “We will no longer live secret lives and die secret deaths. The world spins forward, you may want it all to go back to the time where we lived and secret and you could pretend we weren’t there – that’s just hard luck. You’re just going to have to cope with it. Not just because we have to, but because we have a right to. “
But don’t get trapped into thinking that the film consists of “in your face” activism. On the contrary, Angels in America shows anyone who had any prejudices that what they baulk from is actually not so different from well… Any love affair any straight person has ever had. Throughout the series you will bear witness to some of the most truly touching and emotional dialogues, the most passionate loves and some of the “hottest” love scenes (and I’m not just talking about the fact that I am a straight woman and I kinda don’t mind extended opportunities to admire the male physique, the energy infused into the scenes is just so electrifying I defy your toes not to curl. At the very least that is. ). On the other hand there is a deeply symbolic narrative as well, through somewhat extravagant symbolism we see the gay community’s battle against the conservative part of society that somehow refuses to accept that the world goes forward and the time has come to embrace what is different. Blind rejection is not right and is no longer an option…
The story is also remarkable in its portrayal of characters. Al Pacino’s character Roy Cohen may be both gay and an AIDS victim but easy to sympathize with he is not. In actual fact he is quite despicable, but we can’t help but stop and ponder his open refusal of his homosexuality, based (as he explains in a rather impressive monologue) on the fact that in this world if you want to be strong, you cannot afford to be known to be gay. Gay is what nobodies are. If you’re somebody, you’re straight. And Roy is somebody. So there. His attitude stinks, but at the same time reflects a sad truth about society where openly gay men and women are at a blatant disadvantage no matter what their personal talents are. Then there is Louis. He is not the knight in shining armor nursing Prior to the end, on the contrary he is revealed to be deeply, seriously lacking. At the same time, he is so utterly human one cannot help but sympathize with him – even though one might want to throttle him at the same time.
And though it is incredibly sad, the end carries notes of optimism. No, the characters don’t all “live happily ever after”, such is not the way of the world. But there are changes, the consequences are as painful as the changes themselves but they are no less necessary for being so – and they are probably better in the long run, although we leave our characters at a worrying moment as far as their futures are concerned. Others change for the better, and one character that has to be mentioned is Mother Pitt , Joe’s conservative mother (played exquisitely by veteran actress Meryl Streep) who is a Mormon through and through but will end up opening up… And accepting. Another quick mention goes to Emma Thompson who executes her role (details of which will have to be searched for in the series!) wonderfully and powerfully.
If you are not a stone, you will be deeply moved by this series. I defy you not to cry at least a couple of moments of it. It is a long, hard look at a realistically portrayed part of life that well, let’s face it… Us straight folk don’t look at as long or as hard as we sometimes should…

A UNIQUE STORY OF : "HEAVENLY CREATURES"

Did I ever mention I rather liked true crime? I know, not a very appetizing introduction for a person. Nevertheless I feel by this time you all know me well enough for me to be able to risk telling you this. It’s not that I am a particular fan of gore and blood and such like – if anything I’m a complete lightweight as far as that sort of thing goes. But I guess part of the “fascination” is the fact that I do find killing and murder so abhorrent, films or books of true crime, if they’re well executed of course, tend to give interesting insights into the minds of the killers, which I find particularly fascinating. I am also greatly interested in human psychology, I guess this is another reason I cannot resist a peak into “the mind of the killer”. Heavenly creatures, despite its name, is particularly well executed and thus particularly sad example of the genre. One of those films that gets its claws into your gut and twists and twists, right till the very end. Even if you do know the ending – not a tough thing to do, this being a true crime story…
So the true story that inspires Heavenly Creatures took place in New Zeeland in the early 1950’s. Pauline Parker is a shy, quiet girl, not too many friends in school, grades not overly brilliant… She comes from an underprivileged family, nothing in her life is especially brilliant or original until Juliet Hulme arrives in town. Juliet is the daughter of a celebrated English scholar, outgoing and vociferous, in short many things Pauline was not. But the unlikely pair strikes up a strong friendship very, very quickly. Their friendship only intensifies with time, growing to include an imaginary world called The Fourth World where their favorite stars and singers are worshipped as saints and magical adventures are plentiful. In time, it becomes obvious to everyone, the girl’s parents included, that they are a lot more than just friends. At age 15 the girls are undoubtedly in love. The only problem is, you mustn’t forget, this was the year 1954. Homosexuality was still considered some kind of mental disorder. The parents – well-meaning but misguided - decide it is best to separate the girls indefinitely. For Pauline and Juliet, both of whose grip on reality has significantly loosened, not to mention blinded by passion and fear of separation, there seems to be one way out of this… Murder.
Ok, so at least I managed not to tell you who got murdered. But I mean, I did know who got murdered and even so watched the film with baited breath. One fact worth mentioning maybe, is that the director of this film is Peter Jackson – yes, you know, the one who directed The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and King Kong. I personally thought he would turn out to have more of a talent for epics and not the more sentimental stories, it turns out I was very, very wrong. And the actresses, well, Juliet Hulme is none other than a young Kate Winslet! And Pauline is played by Melanie Lynsky, who we have later seen in secondary parts in films such as Up In the Air and The Informant! And TV series like Two and a half men. So all in all it’s quite a little cluster of talent. When you couple this with such a heart-rending story the film can’t not be a success really. Personally, it hit me like a freight train. Of course when you have such a striking story at the heart of it you know you’re on to a winner. Heavenly creatures is intensely sad and thought provoking without being “cheap” or a tear-jerker. Good quality stuff. Enjoy.

IN A WORLD OF "GODS AND MONSTERS"

My my, we seem to be hot and heavy on the true stories this week. But fear not, this is not another harrowing crime. Although the story is harrowing, not to mention a true story, no murder is involved. Like Heavenly Creatures it is also the true story of a strong and unlikely friendship and also one of the most striking and beautiful films I have seen in a long time. But well, starring such a great talent as Sir Ian McKellan in the leading role, I seriously doubt the film could have “flopped” if it wanted to… God I thing that guy is BRILLIANT. But moving on…
Gods and monsters chronicles the last days of the 30’s film director James Whale. Known as the director of Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein back in the day, Whale (Sir Ian McKellan) has pretty much retired. He has just had a rather severe stroke, his health is failing, and it seems he has nothing else left except to wait out his days, albeit in some comfort, in his residence in Hollywood. He is looked after by his housekeeper the faithful Hannah (played by the legendary Lynn Redgrave) and life seems to be turning increasingly into a monotonous string of days, one of which looks much like the other until the new gardener Clayton Boone (Brendan Frazer) comes into his life. Now Clayton, an ex-marine and mildly homophobic is a little dubious about the job and Whale’s interest in him at first (to those who don’t know, Whale was gay). But as time goes on their friendship develops into something very real. Whale sketches Boone and they exchange stories of their lives… The friendship will end up somewhere neither of them expected it would…
Oscar ®award for Best script, nominations for Best acting… I have become a little jaded over time I have to admit. So films that wind me so completely I have to actually stop in the middle, have a smoke and pour myself a third glass of wine have become rare. I ended up having four glasses of wine in total and two cigarette breaks. McKellan is absolutely stunning as Jimmy Whale who, despite his very strong façade is devastated by the loss of ability brought on by his stroke, intensely nostalgic remembering, among other things, the horrors of the trenches in the First World War and his days at the top of his career as a filmmaker. Boone is at a loss as to how he must help and support his new friend without getting mixed up in “funny business” . And the deeper we get into the story, the more we learn about what is going on behind Whale’s mask, the more torn up we are inside. This is a beautiful, touching story of friendship surviving odds, age gaps and even our own prejudices. It’s good to know that some of the “good things” in life are stronger than all that… No?