Essie Speaks - mostly about movies - but also of books, countries, life. Mostly movies though :) (Updated every weekend - sunday night latest ^-^)P.S. ALL THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ITS WRITER - AND THAT WOULD BE ME!
So, you know I like my films with a bit of bite to them. Getting emotionally swept away and not giving too much thought to its lack of depth or inconsistencies are well and good on some nights, but... Well first of all when Luc Besson does it, it just upsets me.
My Mom always says I should make a bit more of a "thing" of the movies that disappoint me and not just concentrate on the ones I liked. And while I can respect its good qualities Lucy hit so many of my wrong buttons so... Yeah, I thought it was as good a place to start as any...
scroll down and see what you think... And do let me know if you disagree!
When I began
bemoaning my utter disappointment upon watching Lucy, I was met with loud
protests from my male friends. I was amused by their argument : “Did you watch
it on a small screen? Well that would be it then. It’s an action film, you’re
supposed to watch it in cinema!”. I do realize that action as a genre is
supposed to be heavily visual. You know, don’t ask too many questions. Enjoy
the spectacular fight scenes and the big explosions. OK fair enough, the genre
has its fans, and I am just as capable of appreciating a good explosion as the
next man. But when putting Lucy into this context, two questions spring to
mind. Firstly, since when have “pretty action sequences” been a legitimate
saving grace if the rest of a film has gone awry? Secondly, my main point would
be that Lucy is actually trying to be more than that. It’s just… You know…
Failing.
The story
of Lucy is told quickly enough. “Baddies” have discovered a new drug. Oh the
kids are going to love it! It is the synthetic form of a hormone produced naturally
by pregnant women and induces growth. Lucy is the typical “innocent stander by”
roped into a dastardly situation. She, along with a few other randoms, are
chosen by what looks suspiciously like the Yakuza (but we are in Taipei so
possibly not) to be the couriers of this drug to European capitals. The thing
is, Lucy’s trip goes horribly wrong, the packet she is carrying in her abdomen
bursts and the drug starts seeping into her body, which in turn allows her to
unlock the “unused” parts of her brain. This… Well… It has unexpected results…
Now, here’s
my argument as to Lucy trying to be more than just an action movie. I mean,
before I get into it let me underline this, the action sequences are nothing
short of stunning. I am not; as you may know by now, the biggest fan of one
single hero steamrolling every single opponent without so much as breaking a
sweat but… You know. Let’s not get lost in details. It’s a genre, and in its
own way its very well done – it’s just not to my own personal taste. But come on. This is Luc Besson we are talking
about. Since when has he been into making “just” action films?
From pretty
much the get-go we are surrounded by hints that the film is trying to ground
itself very firmly in science. The action in the film interspersed with what
appear to be stock images from a David Attenborough documentary that “cleverly”
parallel the action. You know, we cut from Lucy just before she is attacked in
some way to a group of deer grazing in the Savannah, then she is attacked and
we see a lion attacking the group of deer. That kind of thing. Rather too much of it at that – but ok, you have to be
blind to see what the film is trying to do, we are grounding ourselves in
natural history, disenchantment of the world and all that jazz, humans are
animals, predators in fact, and we should not “separate” ourselves from it by
pretending any “mystic” side. Okey dokey. Then we get a looong explanation of
the whole “humans only a limited percentage of their brain… Let’s imagine what
would happen if we could use it all” theory. The saving grace of the whole “lecture”
(both as a filmic device and in the actual storyline) is that it is delivered
by Morgan Freeman. By that time, of course Lucy is now rampaging around the
globe, able to control electronic devices from a distance (I’m still not
exactly sure how that conversation between her and the doctor from Taipei to
Paris actually worked on a technical level but ok, moving on) and her aim is to
get to the Professor so she can pass on the “information” she has gained to the
next generation just like any other mammal. OK HERE COME THE SPOILERS. Then she
spectacularly kills all the baddies, she reaches 100% brain capacity, this
makes her immune to the concepts of space and time and we finally see that she
is tantamount to becoming God, as she sends a last message to the cop who has
rather ineffectually being “assisting her” (he at least has the good grace to
point out that he is not being much help) “I am everywhere”. Yeah, so she
becomes God. It’s a wonderful atheist / humanist parable of how God is a
construct of our own minds and if humans would only unleash their own
capabilities they would be the only God they would ever need… There is even a
slightly Nietschean rant in the film about how men limit themselves from realizing
their true potential etc , just in case you missed the actual point of the film.
To make a
complete aside for two seconds, in an age where we are seriously debating
uploading our consciousness onto computers this is definitely a matter to be
discussed. I mean the concept isn’t even new, think of Ghost in the Shell,
think of Neon Genesis Evangelion – the Japanese, true to form, saw this coming
20 years ago. My point is that Lucy tries to clunk a very complex ontological
concept onto a very flashy action movie packed with clichés and add it weight
with a mock- David Attenborough documentary. Oh and to get this whole thing
across in 80 minutes. Err… Yeah.
And if you
thought that our final “God” is a woman is some kind of saving grace, think
again. Lucy is pretty much the only speaking female part in the film (her
flatmate hardly counts, she is only on for 2 minutes and has about 20 lines,
almost all, incidentally about her date the previous night so yeah. It barely
passes the Bechdel test because Lucy ends up giving her some advice about her
health – but does it count if the other party doesn’t respond? Weigh in here
someone… ). We barely get to know her anyway, apart from one conversation with her mother and the mention of exams, so she is some form of student... So yeah, she is the only woman literally surrounded by male
gangsters, academics and police officers and she can only “outsmart” them by
becoming less and less human and decidedly less feminine. So her whole
empowerment actually amounts to beautiful blonde beating up a bunch of guys
which, I believe, is considered a fun night out in some circles…
We have had quite a few ones about
computer-human hybrids and how we as humans would cope with consciousness levels amped up infinitely, haven’t we? There
are clues in this film that it is possibly meant as tongue in cheek, ranging
from the very fact that Morgan Freeman’s iconic voice is used to lecture us to
the fact that the secrets of the universe actually end up on a USB stick… I
dunno, maybe I’m taking this a tad too seriously… But… I mean lay aside the
pretty action sequences… You do see what I mean, don’t you? Go on… I know you
do…
The more trivia-minded amongst you will have noted that last week marked the 22nd anniversary of the release of Reservoir Dogs. You may have thought the lack of activity on this blog was a sign of my having forgotten this. You were mistaken.
I have been gushing as happily as ever about how great I think Reservoir Dogs is, and I thought I'd post the links here in case you wanted to check them out!
Ah love... Life would not be worth living without it. In every season, at ever time of life, love is one of the greatest things that brings warmth and cheer to our lives.
And indeed, while love may provide warmth and shelter from the cold - physical and metaphorical - in the autumn... What happens in the autumn of our lives?
Scroll down to find out Michael Hanneke's answer but be warned... It is not for the faint hearted.
Those of
you who know me in real life know, I have quite a number of nonagenarians in my
family. So it may be said of me that I think of old age and the things it will
bring a tiny bit more than the average 30 year old. We tend to put it off, live
as if we will be young forever and old age, if we think of it all, is a
slightly more romantic vision of growing old with our significant other (if we
have been lucky enough to have found them) happily sharing memories of youth
and going through life a bit slowly perhaps, but gracefully, hand in hand. We
very well may be lucky enough to have such a blessed autumn in our lives.
Reality, however, as Amour not so very gently reminds us, is often much, much
less sugar coated than this.
Meet
Georges and Anne. They are retired music teachers in their eighties. They both
enjoy a healthy interest in music and culture and their bond of love is as
strong as the first day they have met. They have one adult daughter who has a
family of her own in the UK who they keep in touch with. All in all they are
preparing to end their years peacefully and together. Their peaceful world
however is shattered when quite out of the blue Anne has a severe stroke. The
condition claims first her body – rendering her an invalid – and then her mind
leaving Georges quite alone. Georges is now left with the mere shadow of what
his wife used to be and has to come to terms with becoming her carer. He also
needs to cope with one of the severest tests their love has received.
Michael
Haneke presents us with a typically unflinching and unforgiving stare at old
age. Anyone who has at some point had to care for elderly relatives will
testify to the realism of the depiction. Veteran actors like Emmanuelle Riva
and Jean Louis Trintignant skillfully show us the horrifyingly sudden way
Anne’s mind unravels and Georges’ trauma, confusion but above all undying love
for his companion of so many years. It is no coincidence that the characters
are music teachers – the contrast between Anne before the stroke – an able and
knowledgeable housewife but also clearly a very capable music teacher who has
raised musicians of world renown in her time – to Anne post the stroke towards
the end of the film, inarticulate, screaming wordlessly like a baby, unable to
tell Georges what is wrong and unable to understand what he or her daughter
says to her. Quite apart from being incredibly difficult to watch, it is a
stark reminder that it may be our very own future; Anne is peacefully having
breakfast when the stroke strikes and has no previous symptoms whatsoever. Or
indeed we might end up as Georges, left with only the shell of our loved one;
trying to accept that for all intents and purposes the person we fell in love
with has died.
And of
course the way Amour is filmed is as big a factor in its message as what the
story actually tells us. The camera is often static and placed at a
“respectable” distance that is often beneficial for us, the viewer to take in
the house as it changes from Anne and Georges’ home to a house that needs to
accommodate an invalid and all of her needs. The sedate and minimal movements
of the camera match Georges very well as he presents a relatively calm and
almost matter of fact exterior to his daughter, the carer and even us the
viewer, while it is the tiniest cracks that show his real emotions boiling up
all the way up to the breath-taking finale which I will not spoil for any of
you.
Another
interesting point is that the film takes place almost exclusively within the
confines of Georges and Anne’s home. This is actually a very effective mirror
of life in old age. In developing countries especially it is true that a lot of
older people enjoy quite active lives, for one reason of another it is very
easy for an octogenarian to become housebound. So we get a real taste of what
old age may be like, but contrariwise we also bear witness to the ever-changing
universe that can exist within four walls. This means of course that details of
the film that take place outside the four walls get missed – we must use our
heads to follow the story, although the effort will not be so great. We even
miss some things that happen within the same house, but hey, that’s a pretty
realistic depiction of real life as well…
Amour is,
in short, a wonderfully sensitive and insightful look at the “happily ever
after” of love. It shows us what happens after the sun we previously happily
walked into with our other half has truly set. It is an incredibly sad film but
not a hopeless one. Love, Amour tells us, doesn’t really die in events like
this, It merely changes form…
Now, we spoke of actual fairies last week. This week we are on to metaphorical fairies. Or fairy tales.
This was most definitely one I was interested to see because it seemed to have so much going for it. I mean it's a true story and a proper "behind the scenes" moment in a quite well known period in history. It should have us riveted, and yet... And yet...
You'll have to scroll down to find out "and yet" what... Comment or tweet me or something with what you made of the movie people - I'm always interested in a chat about movies and I'd love to hear from y'all!
I decided
to see this one (again on a plane) because I was rather bemused by the overall
“mediocre” reviews of it. It was set as an extravaganza after all, opening the
Cannes Film Festival no less, a clearly opulent, highly visual film about a
modern fairy tale; the story of Grace Kelly, who left the glamour of Tinsel
town to be the Princess of Monaco.
However,
the fairy tale, we quickly learn, is not all it seems. Grace misses Hollywood
and her old world, Rainier ( Tim
Roth) is distant and increasingly stressed about Monaco’s increasingly tense
relationship with De Gaule era France and no matter how hard Grace tries, she
can’t seem to get it right, every single thing she says and does seems to be
wrong. When Hitchcock offers her the leading part in his latest film, Marnie,
Grace reaches crisis point. She has the perfect opportunity to return to the
stage – but with a crisis brewing in Monaco and her new family to consider…
Which way will Grace turn?
I mean we
have the advantage of hindsight here, we all know she stayed with Rainier,
never acted again and was her Serene Highness the Princess of Monaco for the
rest of her life. And herein lies the problem with this film. There is no real
crisis, because most, if not all of us know what Grace decided to do. The
interest of the film lies – or would lie – in portraying her psychological
process in getting there. It offers an interesting opportunity to look into the
mind of a woman forced to choose between her career and her family. What we end
up with, between Grace’s wise father figure Father Tucker, the elocution
lessons and the French lessons (complete with the now rather stale parody of
Americans being unable to pronounce foreign languages) something akin to the
Princess Diaries, or, you know, all those tweenage films about regular girls
learning to be princesses. And on the other hand, I mean come on. The dilemma
is between being a famous actress or an actual princess. It’s not exactly an
easy dilemma to sympathize with.
The second
point, which I actually read in another review is that the same is valid for
the Monaco deal. It is, of course, absolutely tragic for any country to lose
its sovereignty but at the end of the day, in real terms, they would simply
become French citizens and lose some tax privileges. It’s bad. But it’s not
exactly being put to the sword either. And just as it was in the case of
Grace’s story, we actually know what happened. Monaco still exists. The end. In
fact the whole “danger” is largely economic, the long discussions (and the
explanations thereof, as given to Grace who plays the role of the Everyman) are
basically a lot of men in tuxedos round a board room table. Again, very hard to
sympathize with.
In both
crises typical Hollywood tricks are used to heighten emotion, extreme close ups
of faces (and eyes and mouths quite a few times), tense music, suitable
sequences of both Nicole Kidman and Tim Roth looking tortured…. But in
the end, the moment you take a step back, there is no real “crisis” there, not
for us. I would have found a much more deeply psychological behind the scenes
angle a lot more interesting.
It’s a
shame really, because there is a really
good opportunity there, something akin to what we discussed concerning CallasForever – an actress, playing an actress, playing a part. Or rather learning to
play a part. I mean we do get hints at that, I rather liked the vignettes of
Grace Kelly rehearsing Marnie in front of her bedroom mirror. I do wonder how
Kidman approached that; did she do it the way she herself would play Marnie or
try and figure out how Grace Kelly would do it? Both maybe? But I mean even
that is marred slightly, there comes a moment when Father Tucker holds Grace’s
hands earnestly and says – as deep down we knew he would : “Grace, learning to
be the Princes is the role of a lifetime”.
I mean
yeah, the film is beautiful, opulent… But for all that, it falls short on the way
the story is told. I know the whole idea is the “backstory” of a typical fairy
tale being exposed, but if the fairy tale is typical, this doesn’t mean the way
we tell it has to be as well… So I’m afraid I have to say yes, I totally see
why so many people just turned around and said it was just… “Meh”… I feel sadly
obliged to join their ranks…
Kayıtlar
