Oh, Woe is Me (Hélas pour moi) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1993)

This felt like a different Godard film - I think the first one I’ve watched that explores the issue of faith and God in such detail. The (minor) plot is about how the spirit of God may have entered the body of Simon (Depardieu) to experience a more carnal love and desire for his wife Rachel. Meanwhile, we see a book publisher arrive to try and investigate whether this happened.

The film features some great lines, clearly hinting at the artificiality of the situation in that they are not people but actors: “We’re not some characters in a novel”, and when Simon and Rachel are talking about break-up, Simon says “we didn’t act out that scene very well… No one bought it. Ask them.“ “we need to redo the scene”. As per usual, Godard comments on the nature of cinema itself: “Cinema language is imperfect” and quotes literary references: “Do not go gently into that good night” (said twice).

It also features some more amusing lines such as, “Did u know the Communist Manifesto was published in the same year as Alice in Wonderland?” and the intertitle: “Thus, gradually the past returns to the present through the imaginary stage of a visual experience which always draws attention”, before we hear a voice-over say “Wild Orgy”, which turns out is the name of a video that we then see, as we discover the voice is coming from a woman in a video rental shop. I can never just get used to the fact of how clever Godard is, and this film just makes me want to see a comedy film by Godard, if he ever has made one. There were some really weird sounds, such as when we hear an American voice-over saying “quit talking and start talking”, which turns out is a pinball machine which the character walks past. There’s also this weird bird noise, as well as what sounds like a French Stephen Hawking type robotic voice-over, which actually made me laugh (as well as consider whether there was a problem with my computer’s sound). Like he does in a lot of his films, the sounds often started before we saw the scene, or sometimes overlapped into the next

Onto the visuals, well the whole film was divided into sections called “books”, they weren’t very clear-cut parts and with the often multiple voice-overs at once (meaning heaps of quick subtitles to read), I didn’t have a lot of time to take in what was being said. I think maybe a dubbed version would be better. Also, I don’t know if it’s a homage to his Swiss background, but on the boat that went past neat the start, it read “italie” yet there was a little Swiss flag attached to its rear. I really liked the long shots, such as Angelique and her boyfriend (?) when the publisher (?) is spying on them from behind a tree − we see them walk past and then the shot lingers there until the spying man finally comes into the foreground. Also, some brilliant shots of Anne, where it starts of as blurry but then slowly she comes into focus as she comes closer. Those were wonderful to watch. Not to mention the amazing use of lighting, sometimes that’s all I was focused on: lights reflecting off book pages, people, etc. A big bonus of this Godard collection (made up of Passion, Prenom:Carmen, Detective and Oh, Woe is Me) is the bonus half-hour feature: “Jean-Luc Godard: a riddle wrapped in an enigma” which I discuss below.

An interesting film, not his best but some of the technical camerawork made up for any confusion in narrative (which it ends up I did comprehend, as I wasn’t sure if I was meant to think there was god in Depardieu?). Turns out that is the general consensus, added to the fact that Depardieu’s name is a play on the word God (“dieu”).

3.5/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1) (David Yates, 2010)

Many people have praised the latest Harry Potter film as one of the best in the series and I agree. It is quite different from the earlier films, particularly the first. We see less Hogwarts students (and hardly any Hogwarts itself) and more of the wider magical community. Harry, Ron and Hermoine are out in the real world (well, ‘real’ magical world) and on the quest to defeat the darkest wizard, Lord Voldemort.

Another way this film differs is its darkness and violence − there are fewer light-hearted moments and more dramatic, intense, life and death situations. It definitely seems like the Harry Potter series is growing along with its audience. Those early fans of the books and first films are now older and this film caters to the evolving audience.

So most of this film we see the three friends try and track down the Horcruxes in order to destroy Lord Voldemort (actually it’s mainly Harry and Hermoine, as Ron is a bit more temperamental). This group of young wizards has grown and now they’re taking on huge responsibilities. While they pretty much have the future of the wizarding world relying on them to help defeat the Dark Lord, they are quite alone in this film, both physically, as they stay in quite isolated environments, and emotionally, as now with Dumbledore dead, they don’t really have any powerful adults they can trust and who understand their “mission”.

So all these elements combined into a quite entertainment film. Though I was a fan of the books and thus, would have slightly different expectations than someone unfamiliar with them, I found that I had actually forgotten of the details in the later books. So I roughly knew the story but all the same I was surprised and engaged in the story. Definitely one of the best films in the Harry Potter series − looking forward to the final one.

4.5/5

...And They Lived Happily Ever After (Yvan Attal, 2004)

A great little film. I think the French have perfected the art of making drama/comedy/romance films that have light fluffy moments but are also quite deep and philosophical at times. This film is the perfect example of this. And I guess, also quite common in these types of French films − there is a love scene within the first five minutes of the film! The original French title, Ils se marièrent et eurent beaucoup d'enfants, can be translated as “they married and had many children” − the French equivalent of “they lived happily ever after”, which I guess also highlights the significant role that children and family have in French culture.

This film stars the wonderful Charlotte Gainsbourg, who is just magnetic − there is something about her that draws your attention whenever she is on screen. And of course, I can’t hide the fact that Johnny Depp also has a cameo in this film because if it weren’t for him then I don’t think I would have come across this charming film (which would be a shame).

The film is about the nature of love and marriage as experienced by three different men − one of them sleeps with a different woman every day, another is constantly arguing with his wife who is portrayed as a feminist of sorts, while the third is married but having an affair. I should also mention the third guy, Vincent, (who is married to Charlotte Gainsbourg’s character, Gabrielle), is played by Yvan Attal, who also wrote the script and directed the film − and is married to Charlotte Gainsbourg off-screen! So not surprisingly, they had a great chemistry on-screen, particularly in the food fight scene, which is just hilarious:

I also like the way the fight is intercut with footage of the horse chase in the film they were watching. Also, a running gag throughout the film is Vincent’s attempts to scare both his son and wife (which often happens when Gabrielle is bathing their son, so the son gets scared and splashes his mother, who then becomes angry at him!). There are plenty more clever moments like this in the film, such as when Vincent is with his wife, who asks him “Do you love me?” and he replies something like: “Yes, but I also love my wife”, and then we see he is suddenly with his mistress, who must have asked him the same question. The film is almost multi-protagonist although it focuses more on the relationship between Gabrielle and Vincent.

So now, on to Depp’s cameo, which just had me both cringing and laughing − it was a great addition to the film. The first time we encounter Depp’s character is when Gabrielle is listening to a CD in a store and he comes up and also puts on a set of headphones. To the soundtrack of Radiohead’s “Creep”, we see a few minutes of awkwardness mixed with attraction as the two share glances. And I have to say, the music suits perfectly and Depp’s smile was just, wow. We don’t see Depp again until the end of the film, when Gabrielle, who is a real estate agent, takes him to an apartment inspection. Depp seems to speak French very fluently and their conversation is quite amusing, and the lift ride is so over-the-top and dramatic, that it’s one of my favourite scenes. It becomes this fantastical trip that is actually the last scene of the film, so we never really know what happens between Gabrielle and Depp:



Another great scene (there seem to be a lot in this well-written film!), is when Gabrielle is actually sitting next to her husband’s mistress in a restaurant (unknowingly, of course). Vincent actually calls both of them in the scene, and many times it seems like his wife is about to find out but it seems like only the mistress discovers who she was sitting next to. This scene reminded me of another film but I can’t put my name to it − for some reason, another film I think of is Lantana though I don’t exactly know why.

Also, just as a little side note, I am a little confused in one scene, where there was an older woman and her husband having dinner at a restaurant − I couldn’t figure out the relevance. Maybe I just lost concentration for a bit but yeah, I don’t know the point of that scene, or who it was depicting. Anyway, that is just a minor qualm in an otherwise entertaining and engaging film about romantic ideals and love (not surprising, given the title) and one that I highly recommend.

4.5/5

The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson, 2001)

After hearing how good this film was, I finally had a chance to watch it. The first thing that struck me was the strong cast − Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Gwyneth Paltrow, Luke Wilson, Owen Wilson, Danny Glover and Bill Murray − all introduced in the opening credits. Not surprisingly, this sets some high expectations for the film, which looking back, I think the film managed to fulfil.

It’s a bizarre, original, dark comedy film, which is what I like most about it. The film is about three child geniuses who, after a successful childhood, have several troubles later on in life: from secret lives to love and even suicide attempts. After watching the film, I found out that Owen Wilson wrote the script − I didn’t know he wrote movies but it shows that he’s not only a good actor but good writer as well.

One of the interesting things I noticed about the script was that it was quite complex and full of details and information that the audience needed to take in to understand the motivations behind the characters’ actions. As a result, the film made heavy use of narration and titles (like “Chapter One, etc”), to drive the story forward and explicitly tell the audience what was happening. I was thinking about this while watching the film and I think that in The Royal Tenenbaums, this approach worked, whereas for many other films, it would ruin the experience and perhaps even bore the audience, who are just being told all this information. I think the main difference is that this film assumed an intelligent audience − you had to put clues and minor details together to understand some of the things the characters would say or do.

So overall, this was a good film − I liked it because of its unconventional approach and underlying dark humour.

4/5

Story of a Love Affair (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1950)

I’m quite sure this is the first Antonioni film I’ve seen and I guess it matched my expectations but didn’t inspire me as much as some of the previous Italian neorealist films I have watched. Apparently, it’s Antonioni’s first feature film − he was directing documentaries beforehand. I was a little confused as I had the English dubbing with English subtitles and sometimes at random times the dubbing would stop, leaving just the subtitles, which actually were more concise than the dubbing.

There were some instances of interesting camera techniques, such as a tracking shot following the detective from behind as he walked around the room at the beginning of the film. Also, when Paula and her lover Guido are walking together along the street. I think there is also some symbolism at the beginning of the film when there are stars in the sky shown, then about half way through the movie, they are shown again − a sort of foreboding presence.

In a way although this is a neorealist film, Paula had the air of a star in this film. I guess I’m speaking from watching classic Murnau and Ophüls films, where the main characters are so rich and living in ultimate stylish luxury. Paula was quite beautiful, a typical Hollywood starlet, apart for the fact that it wasn’t a Hollywood film. I found her a very complex character. At the start I may have even felt a little sympathy for her but near the end she became so pathetic, melodramatically blaming Guido for the death of her husband − which he didn’t end up committing, as the husband crashed his car into a ditch (as he was shot by someone else?). She was quite dramatic and confused at times, as if she didn’t know what she really wanted. Actually, I found a lot of the characters, particularly the detectives when they are talking about how little they’ve found about Paula, they tended to use overblown hand gestures combined with really enigmatic and animated language. I guess this made the film stand out from most of the other neorealist films I’ve seen, seeing as though it featured an upper class lady, while most of the others were literally “on the street” films, featuring everyday people. This film made it hard to believe that there were people like this (wealthy) living at the same time as the poor protagonists of Bicycle Thieves. Also, I have to say the saxophone music was a little jarring, it gave the film an eerie feel, which may have been intentional.

Nevertheless, unlike Hollywood films, this one again ended with a sense of uncertainty − Paula’s husband, Enrico, is killed, just like the lovers planned but it seems like things may not be so happy ever after, with Paula dropped off home as Guido drives away into the darkness. So do they actually stay together for the rest of their lives? That is the strongest aspect of realism in the film. Though I have to say it was interesting how Guido’s fiancée was killed − we learn throughout the film that she was killed in an elevator shaft, when Guido and Paula were both present but failed to let her know the elevator wasn’t actually there. That is a unique way of dying − not the most realistic but different. The whole film was like this − ok to watch but I don’t really know how to react.

3/5

Bande à part (Band of Outsiders) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1964)

Well, this was a good film − not great but ok (and it's tough to say this, given Godard is one of my favourite directors).  But the reason I say it because looking back there wasn’t anything especially engaging for me, as I felt that none of the three major protagonists really drew my attention. Odile (Anna Karina) was very up and down − sometimes she was naïve and frustrating other times entertaining, I expected more from Franz (Sami Frey) and Arthur (Claude Brasseur), well I didn’t like his poor, criminal character. Also, the plot made the film a lot more coherent and flowing than the usual fragmented Godard − it wasn’t so avant-garde, which is unusual seeing as though this was his seventh film.

There were however some fine Godard moments. I liked the beginning when the title came up on screen (of course) superimposed over rapid jump cuts of the faces of the three characters. It was sort of echoing what the medium of film does; that is − quickly play images in succession − and it looked good (and also worked to set up the love triangle in the film). Also, there's a very telling moment when Godard’s name appears in the opening credits as “Jean-Luc Cinéma Godard” − that’s probably as obvious as you can get in highlighting Godard’s relationship with cinema − he lives it, he is it.

The plot centres on the two young men who plan to steal money from Odile’s aunt’s house though they end up killing the uncle and Arthur gets killed as well (we find out the aunt was faking her death after being locked up in the closet). Godard sums up the plot himself near the beginning when he says statements like “two young men”, “a romance”, “a house by the river”. Although Odile is initially for the plan, she alternates between hesitance and helping the two guys out so I guess that’s where I would’ve liked to see her as a stronger character − though I suppose that’s pretty rare for a strong female lead and that would severely change the film’s dynamics, as well as the story. The film is commonly classified as a gangster film and we see the characters pretend to shoot each other (until they actually do use their guns later on). At one point, when the characters are discussing when to steal the money, Godard’s voice-over narration says that Arthur wants to wait for nightfall, “in keeping with the tradition of bad B movies”, which is ultimately what this film becomes.

I like the scene in the English class near the beginning of the film, where the teacher writes on the board: “classique = modern” and Karina recites a quote by Eliot (which apparently is paraphrased from one of his essays): “Everything that is new is automatically traditional”. These phrases bring up interesting ideas about the New Wave and how it sought to be different from the classic, traditional past of the cinema. Also in the class, the teacher recites Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, which ever so plainly, foreshadows the plot of the film itself, the two lovers (Arthur and Odile) and the death. The film becomes a sort of tragedy although not a melancholic one, almost a tragicomedy as Karina though upset at first, seems to quickly leave that all behind her − almost as if tragedy is a thin layer of the film. That’s the impression I got anyway, especially in moments that were almost parodying the gangster/crime genre, such as the scene with the ladder, as the two criminal (with their faces covered in Karina’s stockings) struggle to set it up.

There also seemed to be minor themes surrounding lying and deceit − a lot of things were mixed up (such as the glasses in the café and the individuals themselves, who keep changing seats). I like how in that same café, when Karina goes to the bathroom downstairs, we hear music playing from the film Umbrellas of Cherbourg (which was premiering at the time Godard was filming Band of Outsiders) and Franz also whistles songs from the musical too. I have to say, I was just stunned when Karina went into the bathroom and there we see a girl who looks like Chantal Goya (and I’m convinced it’s her even though she’s not in the credits), putting on eyeliner in the mirror, just like in Masculin, Féminin, which was to be filmed a few years later. Very cool. Also I found a few times in the film we see Karina go off-screen but we still see her in a reflection, echoing Vivre Sa Vie, a film she had starred in earlier. Speaking of other Godard films, I swear the kitchen where Arthur takes out his gun is used in another Godard film and I’m pretty sure it’s La Chinoise.

Given the overt presence of music, I like the minute silence in the café, when all sound, even the atmosphere, is muted. Also, I really enjoyed the famous dance scene, where Godard’s voice-over tells us what each character is thinking as they dance the routine, which by the end of the long shot, I think I had the routine memorized myself!



Other references/interesting trivia: they meet at a café called Tout va Bien, the character of Franz is named after writer Fran Kafka (as apparently the actor looked like him), they walk past a clothing store called “Nouvelle Vague”, as well as run through the Louvre, which is a nice setting to utilise I think. These titbits I learnt from the very useful special features’ visual glossary, which describes various references in the film.

Other features include: interviews with a young Godard, an older Karina, as well as Raould Coutard (cinematographer) and the usual trailers (which I don’t know if it’s just me, but they seem to give away the whole film, pretty much a visual summary of the main clips in the film). Oh and there is also a short film by Agnes Varda, Les Fiancés du Pont Mac Donald, which stars Karina and Godard, as a sort of Buster Keaton figure, in a great little classic silent film − complete with cute comedic music. It's a rare glimpse of Godard at a younger age, and as an actor − it's great! Here it is:



3.5/5

Juno (Jason Reitman, 2007)

I was a little late to getting on the Juno bandwagon but I’ve been eager to see this film for a while, after hearing all the hype about it. Unfortunately, it wasn’t terrific but it was fresh, creative and original − which are quite rare qualities in films made nowadays. Beginning from the cartoon-ish opening sequence, this film seemed to cater to a modern and I think, younger audience with some contemporary editing and overall style. However, I did find what I thought was a little over-the-top use of teenage slang in Juno’s phone call to her friend quite grating. Nevertheless, it was a delightful film, which interestingly had John Malkovich as one of its producers.

The film had a number of tensions and contrasts in it, which I guess gave it its colour and uniqueness. For instance, Juno at some points was quite immature and didn’t seem to grasp the significance of her pregnancy, such as when she has some biting remarks to the adopting parents and her “boyfriend” Paulie Bleeker. The encounter with Bleeker in the corridor, when she was jealous that he was going to the prom with another girl, well, that was just scathing and real bitchy. Maybe it was part of the hormones in action during her pregnancy but at that point I really sympathised with Bleeker. Then at other times Juno is quite mature, such as when she organises adoptive parents herself and is quite independent. The character of Vanessa (one of the adoptive parents) also flips between a seemingly cold person and a warm, nurturing figure. Like Juno, I also didn’t seem to get the problem of her hanging out with Mark (the other adoptive parent, who eventually divorces Vanessa). He was chilled out and obviously relatable to Juno, with his musical interests. There is an obvious age-difference but I think it was an unusual part of the plot.

Speaking of the plot − I am pleased that Diablo Cody won an Oscar for the script of Juno, as it is “different”. I admire the fact it took a subject such as teen pregnancy and changed the way it was viewed, though some people have criticised it as glamorising teen pregnancy. Another thing that struck me was the “imperfect” adoptive parents. As Juno remarks, it was supposed to be a perfect family for the baby − Vanessa and Mark end up divorcing − but Vanessa ends up with the child as a single mum. So the film clearly challenges ideas about these topics, which is part of its unique appeal.
 

4/5

Don Juan DeMarco (Jeremy Leven, 1994)

A fantastic little story, completely different to what I expected. I thought I was going to be watching a drama of some sort and then when the film opened with Depp putting on a Don Juan DeMarco outfit, I thought it was going to be set in a traditional village in Mexico. So turns out, this is a comedy set in modern-day New York. Johnny Depp plays a man who believes he is the famous lover Don Juan DeMarco and who undergoes psychiatric treatment with Dr Jack Mickler (played by the legend Marlon Brando who is almost unrecognisable), after attempting to commit suicide. The film is mostly made up of Don Juan telling the doctor about his life in the form of flashbacks.

Don Juan is an intensely romantic character who had spent his life seducing women but has been deeply troubled after being rejected by the girl he thought was “the one” (which happened, not surprisingly, after he admitted he slept with 1502 women!). But as Don Juan tells his story (in Depp’s flawless accent), which seems to get more believable as the film progresses, we see changes in the doctor. Don Juan’s idealistic notions of love and adoration for women inspires the doctor to try and spice up his own relationship with his wife Marilyn (played by Faye Dunaway). Though this plot is vulnerable to flaws, it didn’t seem to matter, as I was entertained and engrossed in the film for what it was − a delightful story.

I like the nice interweaving of Don Juan’s flashbacks, which added to the film and weren’t just boring attempts to fill the plot holes and provide background. Neither were the discussions between the doctor and Don Juan boring, as they moved from light conversation to deeper themes of love. While Don Juan has these romantic notions, his ideas of love seem to differ. In one scene, we see how after he leaves his first love in Mexico and ends up in a harem in the Middle East, he seems unable to overcome the feeling he had for the previous woman. Although, a few minutes later he is happily entertaining the sultaness. He also says to the doctor: “I am not limited by my eyesight”, which I think sums up his attitude to life. Brando also gave an enjoyable performance, which, honestly I don’t think would be too difficult for him in this role. Nevertheless, after telling Don Juan he is Don Octavio de Flores, a relative of someone he knows (in order to convince him to step off the ledge where he wanted to commit suicide), it was interesting to see how he almost began to feed off Don Juan’s stories and ideas and started applying them in his own life. Some entertaining moments include near the start of the film, when Don Juan is with a woman and when she is about to scream with pleasure, it cuts to a Mexican singer performing (a cameo by the famous Mexican singer Selena). I also found it amusing the way the nurses at the psychiatric hospital were so immersed in Don Juan − offering to walk him to the next room or look after him. And then, noticing this they put a tough-looking male nurse in charge of Don Juan (who we later see dancing with him outside). At one point, the doctor wants to have a deeper conversation with his wife and asks her about her hopes and dreams, to which she replies, “I thought you’d never ask!” − a charming yet poignant moment.

I admire the script, which manages to combine both a modern-day environment with the legend of Don Juan, written by Lord Byron. The ending is also really creative, as the retired doctor travels to the remote island, where Don Juan said his true love was, and we see her emerge and embrace him. So while this may suggest he was in fact telling the truth (though he is living in the wrong era to be the real Don Juan), the doctor, who is now narrating, says something like, “And was she waiting there for him?... Why not?” So immediately this turns the tables and the doctor is now in control. So rather than solving the question of whether the young man was indeed delusional, the ending actually focuses on the doctor’s life or perhaps what is his fantasy.
This film, which was actually produced by Francis Ford Coppola, is a great story to just relax and be entertained by. Now I really want to watch The Brave, which was released three years later and also stars Brando with Depp, who are a real mega-actor combination.

4.5/5

Dying Breed (Jody Dwyer, 2008)

I haven’t seen many Australian horror films, so this was going to be an interesting experience. I happened to change the channel and this film was about to show and the main reason I was drawn to it was that it involves the Tasmanian Tiger (an animal which is said to be extinct but nevertheless intrigues me). The film is about a zoology student, who along with three others, goes to Tasmania on a search for the Tasmanian Tiger. However, instead they come across cannibal descendants of Alexander “The Pieman” Pierce.

The film wasn’t terrifying but there was enough suspense and curiousity to sustain me through ‘till the end. The end was probably the best part of the film. Unusually, none of the four main characters survive (well, we hear the screams of the last two survivors being tortured and seeing as their captors are cannibals, the survivors are likely to become a nice meal for them).

The film had the eerie yet beautiful Tasmanian forest which provided the stereotypical isolated and dark setting of this horror film. It was a good attempt at what is a mysterious film genre − Australian horror, although I probably won’t be watching it again (unless I’m pointing out the gruesome props used in the film to someone else).

3/5

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)

In the spirit of Friday the 13th, I settled down to watch this film. I am a big fan of the book, which I read about a month ago, so not surprisingly, I had high expectations for a film that refers to the original book’s author in its title (and the fact it was made by Coppola only increased those expectations). I was curious to see how it would compare with the visuals I created in my mind while reading the novel and how it would unravel in a two-hour film.

I don’t know if it was because I really wanted it to be faithful to a novel I consider one of my favourites − which is kind of an impossible feat − but I was slightly disappointed in this film. The main problem for me was that the complex plot line was condensed into the film in such a way that made it seemed like it was constantly moving to the next event. As a result, you never really understand the characters or get to know them. The book was full of suspense but this film didn’t have that same level. For instance, it’s not long after Jonathon Harker goes to Count Dracula’s castle that he starts to suspect his strange behaviour.

Unfortunately, the Dracula portrayed by Gary Oldman was also not how I imagined the character from reading his description in the book. To me, in the novel Dracula initially seemed like a gracious, intelligent, perhaps misunderstood and isolated character. There are descriptions of his curiosity about the world and the discussions he had with Harker. He was a good host to Harker in the beginning, whereas in the film we immediately see this old, frightening unhuman creation in front of our eyes, who seems to make almost no effort to be hospitable. Both the physical appearance and behaviour were just surprising for me, although, it does fit in with the stereotypical image of Dracula and vampires. I guess in my mind, Dracula was more relatable and as a result, Harker doesn’t immediately suspect him as some evil being (unlike in the film). In the book, I almost felt sympathy for Dracula in the beginning and was more realistic I suppose. Instead of the wild, hairy beast and bat-like creature we see in the film, I think the book gave him this slightly supernatural element (and that’s why Harker just deems him a little strange when he first sees him). He seemed decent enough in the book (at least at the beginning) but in the film we don’t even get a chance to understand him − this man with big grey hair, long nails and freaky white skin leaves you with almost no choice but to despise him as your typical villain.

Also, there’s no way I can’t mention the other actors in the film. Winona did quite a good job, particularly near the end, and Gary Oldman showed his mastery as Dracula, although I was slightly lost when we first see him talking to Mina on the street (as a Prince) and then meets up with her various times later on − I don’t remember that in the book or maybe it wasn’t that explicit. I found that personally, the book wasn’t that much about love and seduction. so maybe I missed some undertones in the novel but there was no doubt of this raw lust in the film.

But I have mixed feelings about Keanu Reeves as Harker. Whenever I see him I always think The Matrix and it was just hard to relate to his character because he seemed a little cold and it was just a little odd to see him in such a role. Anthony Hopkins brought his own representation of Van Helsing to the screen, however, though the character was one of my favourites in the book, I didn’t particularly like him in the film. The moment when the men are about to set off to kill Dracula, Van Helsing says something about Lucy being the demon’s lover and is so upbeat about it just really put me off.

However, on a more positive note, I admire the film’s artistic vision and the cinematography was pleasing to watch. I like Coppola’s unique interpretation of the atmosphere and tone of the film, with some surreal scenes, such as Harker being seduced by the female vampires in Dracula’s castle. Each time a victim is bitten, it is definitely not your stereotypical bite on the neck but a sensual and otherworldly experience that just mesmerises you − clearly this is not meant to be a grounded interpretation. Other interesting features, were Dracula’s shadows on the wall, which had a life of their own, as well as the clever cuts and fades in the film, such as the match cut between the severed head and the roast on a table.

The film had a positive reception when it was released and I think it was largely because as a film it is sufficiently engaging and has some admirable camerawork. However, that saying about books being better than films seems to hold true for this movie and I think many fans of the book would agree. Maybe the title should have been “Coppola’s Dracula” instead?

3/5

Birdy (Alan Parker, 1984)

Not a lot of action but a film that focuses more on the mind and mental states of people. It is based on the novel by William Wharton. The story is about two friends, Birdy and Al (played by Nicolas Cage), who become friends at school and then serve in Vietnam. We see how Birdy has a disturbing fascination with birds, which his Vietnam experience seems to increase, so much so that when he returns from the war, he is sent to a mental hospital (where he stops speaking completely). Al visits him and tries to get him to talk and rekindle their boyhood friendship, which we see throughout the film via many flashbacks. It was hard to sympathise with Birdy, the obsession with birds seems distances me and makes it hard to understand his character. Thus, we are left to fall back on Cage’s strong performance and desperation as he attempts to “save” Birdy and prove that he is still the same young boy he once was.

3.5/5

Jour de Fête (Jacques Tati, 1958)

I have fond memories of watching my first Tati film, Play Time, so I was definitely looking forward to seeing what this skilled comic director would deliver this time around in Jour de Fête.

The film centres on a local French postman, Francois (played of course by Tati), who delivers the mail to a small town on his bicycle each day. When a travelling fair visits the town, they show a film about the American postal service, which is just ridiculously advanced. For instance, mailmen jump out of helicopters and planes and ride on motorbikes through rings of fire to deliver their mail. There’s even a segment about the “sexiest mailman” competition and we see topless postman parading on a stage. It is quite amusing and seemed to me like a sarcastic parody of the American “larger than life” Hollywood attitude, where everything is full of action and the mailmen are heroes who have special training on order to be able to deliver the mail to the citizens of America. It also seems to suggest an over-reliance on technology within society − a theme which is continued in many of Tati’s other films, such as Play Time.

Anyway, so Francois sees part of the screening of this film about American mailmen and not surprisingly the townspeople and even he himself, feel that his bicycle method is feeble compared to their American counterparts. So the rest of the film sees Francois attempting to be more efficient and modern when delivering the mail, such as learning how to jump on and off the bike without having to stop the bike.

A story like this sets up the film for a lot of slapstick humour and that’s what we get largely because of Tati’s lanky character, who reminds me of an earlier version of Mr Bean. The start of the film is ok but the arrival of the postman takes it to a new level of entertainment − he injects the humour into the film. A slightly naïve, harmless, clumsy guy, the postman makes some funny expressions. One of my favourite scenes is when the postman “leads” the teams of people getting ready for the fair. His little “ooooooh” at the end just made me laugh out loud − similarly to when I was watching Play Time. Another clever moment was near the beginning of the film, when a guy and girl (who had been giving each other looks) stand in front of one another in silence but from inside the cinema we hear the voices from the film saying things like, “I love you”, etc, and having these off-screen dialogue match what supposedly the couple in front of us are thinking. A minor detail that I also liked was the bees that you can always hear buzzing whenever the postman or someone else rides along a particular road. I was amused that there was this continuity − the postman swats away the bees then later another character passes the same road and does the same thing, adding some physical humour to the story. I really admired the inventiveness of the postman, who at one point, grabs some stationary and letters from the office then when he is on his bike, which is jammed into the back of a truck and stuck there so it moves with the truck. He then sits on the bike and takes out his stationary, using the back of the truck as a desk where he stamps letters in an effort to be more efficient with the mail delivery. Interestingly, at the beginning of the film, we see a grandma walking through the town − she appears throughout and acts as a sort of narrator, providing commentary on what is happening in the background. Strangely. though she is kind of omnipresent, she appears invisible to the other characters, or at least no one replies to her comments, and it isn’t until later in the film when the postman himself travels with her. I also liked the last scene where a boy is walking toward the camera and the truck which is transporting one of the rides from the fair, and as the truck speeds up we see him gradually get left further behind. I think that was a nice finish, marking the ending of this fair and of the fun of the film.

While I did enjoy the film, I felt it started to lag a little in the middle when the postman is drunk at night − coupled with the lack of lighting, I was not as engaged in that scene. Speaking of, it’s worth mentioning how this film was quite technologically advanced for its time. It was filmed with two different cameras − a black-and-white one and a new, more experiential colour camera. The film ended up being developed in black-and-white with some hand-coloured additions by Tati and 1995, the new technology allowed colour restoration.

3.5/5

Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974)

Quite an engaging and mysterious film. It’s about Jack Nicholson who plays a private investigator Gittes, hired to help couples find out if their spouse is cheating. In this one case, involving a Mr Mulwray (chief engineer for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power), Gittes becomes entangled and consumed in what we see is an increasingly complex story. I was quite shocked when we find out Mr Mulwray is dead (eventually we find out he was drowned) and immediately became suspicious of his wife. I was again shocked, though in a more physical way, when we hear the bullet shots when Gittes is in the orange groves − they literally made me jump!

I can understand why this film has been praised for its scriptwriting and won so many awards because it absorbs this audience in a psychological, thrilling tale, and unlike many other Hollywood films, the audience doesn’t always have the upper hand or an all-knowing status − we want to find out information just as much as the characters do. This film really made me think about what the audience is positioned to feel toward and about the characters. At first, it may seem like we should be almost frowning upon the private investigator’s practice, an idea emphasised with that sly joker face of Nicholson’s. Nevertheless, as the story progresses, our sympathies start to lie with him and he becomes the only one we can trust − he pretty much becomes a victim. Strange connection but reminds me of a quote from Pirates of the Caribbean, where Jack Sparrow says something like “a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest”. but we never know if Gittes is really in control or if he’s just a pawn in someone else’s larger plan.

The film really let Polanski’s darkness shine through (excuse the pun) with the sister/daughter situation. Speaking of, Polanski has a cameo has a character who slices Gittes’ nose − so not dark at all! The suspense also builds up really well near the end. Interesting use of Chinatown as some sort of strange, mysterious place − I think having such a mystifying setting really adds another layer to this film.

4/5

Sleepy Hollow (Tim Burton, 1999)

I remember the first time I watched this film I was not really a fan of horror films yet. I hadn’t seen many mostly because I didn’t want to be scared, I wanted a film that would entertain. (Whereas, nowadays I'm really open to everything!) But this film definitely made an impression on me − it was thrilling yet the way the elements of the film were put together really intrigued me. For instance, you have the appropriately haunted-looking Sleepy Hollow hamlet, which is the site of the murdering headless horseman. The place is just filled with fog and everything looks cold, dark and dreary. Have to also commend director Tim Burton, who just excels working with this atmosphere and environment in his films, such as Sweeney Todd, which this film really reminds me of.

Combined with the nature of the landscape, which is a common feature of horror films, Sleepy Hollow also has a lack of warmth in its characters. We have the bumbling, faint-hearted, scientifically-minded Inspector Ichabod Crane, the film’s protagonist (played by the talented Johnny Depp), who is really the only person we can relate to or even trust. Although, unlike a typical “hero” figure, he has a number of obvious flaws which in effect make him more real I suppose. There is also Katrina Van Tassel (Christina Ricci) who becomes his love interest but she is a mysterious and magical character. She keeps the audience guessing as to her intentions − sometimes she seems to be involved in the evil activities that haunt the town and in other instances she is a pure, innocent girl. Then we have her father and various other prominent people in the town, whose behaviour leads the audience to suspect one of them as being involved with the headless horseman’s killings. Satisfyingly, we find out that Katrina’s stepmother is in control of the horseman and behind the decapitations. She sneaks past our suspicious throughout the film, which manages to draw our suspense well. The film is based on a novel by Washington Irving so not surprisingly, there was enough material and mystery in the plot to keep me engaged in what turns out to be a nice gory story essentially about revenge.

4.5/5

Robert De Niro filming in Melbourne

Robert De Niro has arrived in Melbourne and is staying in town for 10 days to shoot his role in the film The Killer Elite.

Here's an article and photos from the set as reported on The Age.

Co-stars Jason Statham and Clive Owen were in Melbourne a few months ago to film their parts.

Shrek Forever After (Mike Mitchell, 2010)

As I Shrek fan I was looking forward to seeing what they would come up with in the fourth film, and not surprisingly, I wasn’t expecting to be blown away, given the many exhausted film franchises still being pushed into the box office. But I’m glad to say the latest Shrek was actually entertaining − there was still many jokes to be had and a pretty decent storyline.

Basically this film revolves around daddy Shrek (who is having some sort of mid-life crisis) who makes a deal with the evil Rumpelstiltskin that gives him a day as a ‘normal’ ogre but ultimately leaves him having to win Fiona’s affections again, as the deal messes with Shrek’s past. Kind of long-winded to explain but reflects the character of Rumpelstiltskin himself, who is all about details, minor clauses and manipulating people into signing contracts that ultimately backfire (beware of the fine print!).

The film sees the return of all our favourite characters and we see how their lives would have turned out if Rumpelstiltskin was in charge of the land Far Far Away. The always cute Puss is without boots, having retired and become a very plump little cat. He’s with Fiona, who makes the most of her tom-boy character as the leader of the underground ogre revolution (yes, for once we see other ogres in the film). Meanwhile, Donkey is unmarried and has no recollection of his companionship with Shrek but his generous, albeit slightly naïve personality has him once again develop friendship with the ogre. Plus, you have the delicious Gingerbread Man, Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio and many other fairytale creatures back for some more entertainment. Meanwhile, this film introduces the characters of Rumpelstiltskin, the Pied Piper (or should I say, Bounty Hunter!) and many evil witches who provide some amusing moments in the film. Interestingly, this film is one which relies on previously established fairytales and puts them in a new light, with the addition of Shrek and his close friends (Fiona and Donkey). So rather than inventing new characters, I think the script writers had the more challenging task of taking well-known story characters and giving them depth and making them fit into the Shrek films − and I think it’s worked. Overall, it was worth watching the final chapter of the film series which I think has now become a fairytale of its own.

4.5/5

Eloge de L’Amour (In Praise of Love) (Jean-Luc Godard, 2001)

I guess I need to be more in the mood when watching this film because it’s real deep. There is no complex storyline yet the film is very dense. It’s about an author, Edgar, who is writing a project which deals with the four stages of love: union, passion, separation and reconciliation. The second part of the film (about an hour into it) is a flashback a few years earlier, exploring when and where he met the woman he is going to cast in his project, before (as well as an elderly couple, whose experience in the Holocaust is going to be the subject of a Spielberg film). 

 

I like how the first part of the film is in black and white, while the second in this bright, vibrant saturated colour, as well as plenty of long shots. Some of the scenes with a reddish ocean are so beautiful. The film continually repeats the titles “De quelque chose” and “De L’Amour”, as well as this classical, intermittent piano music (which although I really liked at the start, by the end of the film it was starting to bore me). Interestingly, I think the film both mourns and celebrates love (as “elegy” and “eulogy” as very similar) but also makes wider comments about society, particularly about the State, America (and how they use other people’s stories) and history (and peoples’ lack of knowledge about it). 

 

Some of the thought-provoking quotes include: (Edgar talking about his project) “We need the three ages, you see. Or else the project’s dead. It becomes a story with Julia Roberts. Hollywood. Not History. (Yes with a capital letter!)”, “Isn’t it strange how history has been replaced by technology?”, “Americans have no real past. They have no memory of their own. Their machines do, but they have none personally. So they buy the past of others. Especially those who resisted. Or they sell talking images. But an image never talks.” Although I think this is the newest Godard film I’ve seen, it’s actually very experimental and gives the impression of being one of his earlier works.

2.5/5

Tim Burton in Melbourne!

Tonight I had the fantastic opportunity to attend my favourite director, Tim Burton's Castaway session at ACMI ahead of the opening of his exhibition on Thursday.

He revealed the top five films he would take on a desert island, which were an interesting mix of horror, monsters and... well, they weren't exactly Oscar-winning films!

But I'm not surprised with his choices, as you can see how his eclectic selection has had an impact on his own personal style and appreciation of films.

Can't wait to see the exhibition!

Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999)

Well, what a strange film. (So of course, I’m going to like it!) But just really bizarre. An amusing John Cusack with long hair plays puppeteer Craig Schwartz, who discovers a portal to John Malkovich’s mind and then along with workmate Maxine (who he falls in love with), exploits it by charging people to enter it. His wife, Lotte (played by Cameron Diaz), enters the portal and falls in love with Maxine, who in turn falls for John Malkovich. An intertwining love triangle ensues as well as just some plain weird plot twists and definitely an unpredictable storyline. Craig eventually discovers how to control Malkovich’s mind and turns him into a successful puppeteer. Meanwhile, Lotte discovers that Craig’s boss has been living through this portal all his life.

The film ends with Craig leaving the portal under pressure from his boss, (who had kidnapped Maxine). A pregnant Maxine ends up giving birth to a child (which was conceived while Lotte was John Malkovich) and we finish by seeing Lotte, Maxine and their daughter, with the voice of Craig inside her. Clearly, the film has plenty of material for philosophical discussion but what had me thinking while watching was how it would’ve been pitched to studios. First, you have this really imaginative idea − is it a comedy or drama, well, to me it’s a dark comedy drama but there is no real category that suits it perfectly. Then there is the strange sensation of seeing an actor star as himself, as well as a fictional person with someone inside him. Not surprisingly, Being John Malkovich has endured as a cult film and I definitely recommend it − a real original piece of work.

4/5

À Bout de Souffle (Breathless) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)

Being one of Godard’s first films, and one of the most highly touted, it was no surprise that I was expecting this movie to blow my mind. Unfortunately, it didn’t have that effect on me. I still enjoyed it but well, I suppose it just didn’t display that trademark Godardian style that became so established as his career progressed. But when I think about it, this was one of his first films so I suppose he still didn’t have such a reputation and this film was more paving the way for the French New Wave of filmmaking rather than for Godard’s unique style. (Also, the film was black and white, so no chance of seeing those beautiful vibrant Godard colours, for one). Actually, I found that this film, maybe because it was so early in his career but it seemed an almost typical Hollywood narrative, with perhaps influences of Italian neorealism (especially in the camerawork). 

 

It is about Michael Poiccard (played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, apparently based on the film persona of Humphrey Boggart − who features in a poster in the film), who after stealing a car and then shoots a policeman. Pretty much the rest of the film centres on how he avoids the police and how he wants to go to Rome with his American journalist (yay!) girlfriend Patricia (who reveals she is pregnant with his baby), who helps him hide, although betrays him at the end. The film ends with Michel staying and getting shot by the police, walking a little bit to the end of the street and finally dying, not before saying something along the lines of “That’s really disgusting” (apparently the direct translation is disputed). Patricia doesn’t hear and asks the policeman what he said, to which the policeman replies “He said you are really disgusting”. Thus, it is kind of mysterious as we don’t know whether Michel is referring to Patricia or society in general. On the note of Patricia, I have to say that her American accent really impeded her French pronunciation − now I can understand why French people would feel a bit weird about foreigners trying to speak their language.

 

I found the camerawork probably the highlight of the film, as for some reason I couldn’t warm to Belmondo’s character (or Patricia’s really), maybe because he was always trying to seduce her and she was kind of I don’t know, not particularly an active character. Anyway, there were a lot of long takes, from interesting angles too, such as the back of Patricia when she is in the car with Michel, as well as long takes when the camera is looking at her. In addition, there were some nice aerial, or crane shots (I’m not sure), taken from above, showing the beautiful Paris. So in this way, I really liked looking at the French environment in such a fun, interesting, appealing decade (60s).

I found this interesting list of references to Breathless in other Godard films. Godard's own Pierrot le fou (also starring Belmondo) repeats phrases including “We are all dead men on leave” and “Allons-y, Alonso”. A Woman Is a Woman, also co-starring Belmondo, includes a reference to Breathless, when Belmondo's character says he needs to get home because Breathless is being shown on TV.

3.5/5

La Strada (Federico Fellini, 1954)

Well, the first Fellini film I’ve seen and I can already feel a connection with his work. I wasn’t sure if this was classified as a neorealist film (apparently not on the DVD cover − “Fellini left behind the familiar signposts of neorealism for a poetic fable of love and cruelty”). But I think it does have elements of neorealism, which I’ll explore later on. Though as soon as the credits begin, you get a sense that this is different, more modern − as if after the break of neorealism into a new type of cinema (like Gilles Deleuze’s idea of the time-image?). It is almost like Hollywood feeling but without the colour − there is music and stylish titles (though still non-synchronous sound). Nevertheless, as the film progressed, I felt elements of Italian neorealism poke their head out, as if a director such as Fellini can completely change his style and ignore previous neorealism elements. 

 

The whole film includes a lot of fades, to highlight the fact that time has passed. From the beginning, we see some long shots but largely there are cuts and actually melodrama when brutal strongman Zampano comes to buy Gelsomina. He employs her and although the conditions are better than the poverty she lived in (she has more to eat, for one), she faces horrible treatment from the cruel Zampano. She tries to run away once but he finds her and she ultimately obeys him and returns to the their motorbike-home. However, a strange connection takes place and she begins to grow fond of him, to the point where she sort of jokingly asks if he would ever consider marrying her. They join a circus, where we encounter one of Zampano’s old rivals, Fool a tightrope artist (we actually see him earlier when he is performing in the town). Fool is, what can I say, a bright spark of happiness that immediately endears the audience (and Gelsomina) to him though there is plenty of tension between him and Zampano, not helped by the fact that the Fool teases him every moment he gets. But the Fool gives Gelsomina hope and inspiration and even has an almost serious meaningful philosophical discussion with her (almost because it just seems so strange coming from this joking individual) and there is always that underlying humour present. He is so direct, sometimes it’s hard to tell whether he is joking or not, such as when he tells Gelsomina she has a purpose in life: “You have a purpose too, with that artichoke head of yours”. He doesn’t smile but from his manner we see he means the best for her and as he is a naïve yet optimistic person, it is sad to see him suddenly go (Zampano later kills him “accidentally” after encountering and then punching him). 

 

This moment also marks an important change in Gelsomina, who from then is clearly scarred by seeing the murder, it is as if some hope and life is taken away from her and Zampano kills her spirit. I think he realises this too and gradually we see his guilt begin to emerge in patterns of anger then sudden remorse and even almost a more tender side (as tender as the rough, violent man can get). The death of the Fool makes him seem to get so close to opening up his feelings, before self-realisation kicks in and then ultimately anger at Gelsomina for causing this change. He almost becomes afraid of her in a way as this cycle of guilt and anger continues. “The fool is hurt”, each time Gelsomina utters these words it’s like an alarm to instigate his guilt, as he then asks if she wants to be taken home, to which she replies, “If I don’t go with you, who will?” (Something the Fool told her). Zampano is a complex character − at the start it just seems like he fits the “bad guy” label for this film yet we see his layers throughout the film and deep down we see that he did in fact like Gelsomina. When she asks him if he likes her even a little bit, he replies along the lines of “stop this nonsense, potato head”, immediately severing any sensitivity or emotional ties he could develop. In particular, the scene when he puts the blanket over Gelsomina sleeping outside (a moment of “awww”) before we see he is in fact leaving. But he leaves some money and the trumpet and it is as if he has come to the realisation that he is in fact destroying her spirit. 

 

She is such a childlike and innocent, naïve character. So fragile that, as Martin Scorsese says in the commentary that comes with the film, we don’t really know how much of the “adults” she understands. Then we see, what turns out to be later on, Zampano discovering from a townsperson (who he hears singing Gelsomina’s song) that she has died from a fever and goes gets drunk before we see him go to the beach and collapse on the sand and cry in the final shot of the film. He looks up at the stars (which were mentioned earlier) and the audience understands that he has well and truly come to the understanding that he needed her spirit in his life. As Scorsese also said, his “violence stamped out love” and any possibility he had of expressing emotions. It is like the tragic death of a clown, when happiness itself dies too. 

 

This brings me to Gelsomina herself, played by Federico Fellini’s wife, Giulietta Mansina − such an intriguing character. Her face just draws me immediately. Her expressions are so theatrical and expressive (she gives the impression of inexperience and naivety), she reminds me of Charlie Chaplin. Her big eyes and funny smile make her the perfect physical embodiment of innocent, natural, humour. In the commentary (one of many special features with the DVD), Scorsese points out that the film has a St Franciscan element of neorealism with its compassion for every living being, good or bad. As in the end, the audience does really feel for Zampano. I naddition, he says that the fact Zampano literally “bought” Gelsomina (for 10,000 lire) is also a feature of the harsh, reality of the post-war time − another feature of neorealism. He also points out an interesting idea that the road, which is almost synonymous with the life of travelling artists, is a metaphor of life, with its ups (the Fool) and downs (Zampano). The poor Fool is exactly that − a poor fool whose death is inevitable yet still so tragic. Scorsese relates his character to Robin Williams and says he wanted to include a character like the Fool in his films, such as in some of the films featuring Robert de Niro. A sweet film that seemed to have a mix of so many things, seemingly so simple yet really complex characters − there is more to Gelsomina’s smile than we first think.

4/5

Vicky Christina Barcelona (Woody Allen, 2008)

A very entertaining film that was so free and open yet engaging. I’m just baffled by how the film was able to be so charming and appealing without a real strong storyline − there weren’t really any major events that took place. It revolved around two girls, Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Christina (Scarlett Johansson), who become entwined in feelings for a womanising free-spirited painter Juan Antonio (played by a fantastic Javier Bardem). Things get a little complicated and “strange” when his ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz) returns and we see that Juan Antonio never really broke up with her − a complicated, tense yet passionate relationship ensues. I was going to write that this film is a lot about feelings but that’s not really accurate because when I look back and think about it, a lot of those emotions weren’t really shown. For a film about relationships, there wasn’t a lot of scenes about those actual relationships but more about the thoughts and effects of them. What the film did focus on and why I think it worked so well, was the strength of the characters. As I mentioned before, this film starred a terrific Javier Bardem (who I hadn’t seen since his amazing performance in Before Night Falls), is charming but at the same time is so mysterious and hard to work out really. And Penélope Cruz was just excellent − a feisty, energetic, amusing and stunning personality − she definitely stole the scenes. But it’s hard to write about this film. For almost two hours you are just there, with the characters experiencing what is sort of a fantasy life with no responsibilities or consequences, full of opportunities and beautiful Spanish surroundings.

4.5/5

Peggy Sue Got Married (Francis Ford Coppola, 1986)

Surprisingly, I liked this film. A little predictable (until the ending, that is) but still, itwas entertaining enough. I think it was the first film I’ve seen by Francis Ford Coppola and I liked it although I’m sure it’s in stark contrast with films of his such as The Godfather. At the start we see that Peggy Sue has an unsatisfying marriage to her highschool sweetheart, Charlie Bodell (a cool and suave Nicolas Cage), who she married after she fell pregnant at eighteen. She attends a highschool reunion, where she faints and is somehow taken back in time to relive her highschool years. Although an interesting twist, you’d expect her to change her ways to get a happily ever after, Peggy Sue makes much of the same choices although learns more about her husband in the process. At the end, she wakes up in hospital with a worried Charlie by her side and they pretty much rekindle their romance and you get the sense that perhaps they will steer away from divorce. So it’s quite a light, fluffy piece and featuring a great scene where Cage and Jim Carrey’s character and a few other guys, sing in a bar (as Charlie wants to be a singer) − very amusing stuff. 

Nicolas Cage sings in a few movies and he’s not too bad. But as for the film, it became more engaging near the end but overall was quite standard − a little surprising that it was nominated for three Oscars (including Best Actress).

3.5/5

Shoeshine (Sciuscià) (Vittorio De Sica, 1946)

Oh my gosh! That was literally my reaction at the end of this shocking film. It started normally enough − for a neorealist film. Although it wasn’t as “rough” and “authentic” as Roma, Citta Aperta for instance. There were signs of obvious editing and there didn’t seem to be as many long shots. Yes, some shots of the “banal” or more boring, but for the most part, it was like a draft of a Hollywood film almost. I know De Sica’s films are known for the more significant part children play in them and this one was no exception. The main two characters, Giuseppe and Pasquale, are so mature and responsible it just amazed me. They took care of all this business and finances, and I got the impression they were doing better than their parents (who actually borrowed from them). Now I don’t know much about the situation at the time in terms of currency, but I found it a little well, maybe hard to believe that they could afford a horse, and if they could that you would actually spend money on the animal rather than food, for instance. Nevertheless, they were convincing characters and proved to be an effective way of portraying injustice through their innocence and naivety. I noticed that the jail director sort of related to the dictator of a Fascist regime, like Mussolini, particularly when he inspects the food in the kitchen, saying it’s “passable”. He was tough and cold, in contrast to his assistant who ultimately had too much empathy and left the jail, aware of his unsuitability for the environment there. I was impressed with how well they could keep their promise not to rat out their employer. I think this is an example of Gilles Deleuze’s time-image, where the characters are pretty much passive and helpless, as they are locked in jail after being accused of selling stolen goods and their escape is ultimately unfruitful. The fact that it was Giuseppe’s brother that got them the job makes it all the more harder for them to confess.

However, we see Pasquale’s strong man-like exterior crumble when he witnesses what he thinks is Giuseppe being beaten (which is in fact a clever trick involving beating a bag of potatoes and getting a young boy to scream, as if in pain). He then confesses “or grasses” but we see how this event turns his good friend (and pretty much brother) Giuseppe when he finds out from his mother that his brother is being investigated. It seems like the act of beating becomes a catalyst for truth, as later on we see the same thing echoed when Pasquale is beaten (for real this time), after Giuseppe tells the prison director he has a nail file in his cell (which he planted there). And thus, Giuseppe yells out for them to stop beating Pasquale, effectively revealing his guilt and deep-seated love for Pasquale. The little girl Nannarella also has an interesting presence in the film, she hardly speaks but is there with the boys at the start, when they’re taken away, and even in court − she’s like an angel figure I suppose. 

The film is not all doom and gloom, as seeing the protagonists are young boys, there are moments of light-heartedness and proof that children can come up with the most amusing things to say. Near the end of the film, before the boys escape, we see them watch a film (which like Pasquale points out, the jail gives them food, shelter and entertainment − “what more could you want?”) and the film becomes almost self-reflexive as we watch them watching a film, and for one of the poor boys (with a lung condition), a rare experience of the joys of cinema. This is before the projector catches fire and causes a mass trampling which ends up with this very boy dead (which honestly, I was kind of expecting). Speaking of death, well the ending is just incredible − so far from the happy, ever after resolutions of Hollywood classical narratives. Pasquale leads the jail director to find the escaped boys (with the intention of running away) and when he finds Giuseppe, he starts slapping his face as an expression of the anger and I suppose regret he feels. Nevertheless, as he hits Giuseppe, he fails to notice the edge of the bridge and results in pushing him over, to have Giuseppe land on the rocks below, motionless and dead. Pasquale just breaks down and of course the guards and jail director come running, we see the horse walk away (a symbol of their dream no longer within reach) and the words “Fine”. So the movie ends on this tragic, painful note and I suppose Pasquale returns to the jail or may even be charged with manslaughter. It’s a terrible way to end a story but so memorable and definitely an example of just how different the movement of Italian neorealism was.

I also like the special features which include interviews with the child stars (now much older men), documentary “Through Children’s Eyes” and segment on neorealism.

3/5

Nick of Time (John Badham, 1995)

Oh man that was fantastic! My heart is still beating from the suspense! Quite a thrilling story and it was suddenly all over. I did not expect it to be this good, proving that you shouldn’t judge a book (or movie) by its cover. Johnny definitely has a knack for choosing great roles with interesting and engaging protagonists, and this is one of those rare occasions where he kind of plays an action hero (though without a lot of the explosive action so typical of Hollywood films). 

It revolves around Gene Watson (the fabulous Johnny Depp) who arrives in Los Angeles with his six-year-old daughter and is approached by a pair of criminals posing as police officers. They kidnap his daughter and plan to kill her if Watson doesn’t follow their orders, which is to go to a nearby hotel and kill the Californian governor in 90 minutes. Although at the start I saw a few plot holes or possibilities that made it less believable and harder to get into the story, by the end of the film I was on the edge of my seat, hoping that Johnny would save the day! To make things scarier, you have the evil Christopher Walken as the main crook, who is always watching Watson to make sure he doesn’t alert the authorities or speak to anyone (which is the first possible flaw avoided). He is always popping up when Watson is trying to communicate his situation to people he encounters. You get the feeling that he won’t be able to commit the assassination but then as the clock ticks (the movie is pretty much in real time), it starts to look like he doesn’t have any option. 

Finding a way out becomes more complex as we discover that almost everyone around the governor is in on the plot, including security and even her husband. Watson tries to get her assistant to help and because of Walken’s ability to appear out of nowhere and his connections with everyone (even security), this attempt is soon stopped and she ends up dead. Saviour comes in an unlikely form of a shoeshine man, who at first seems lost and not very helpful but in a second encounter things start to click. Luckily, a happy ending ensues with Watson killing Walken’s character (which was another potential story fault that I kept thinking would have been what I would’ve tried to do) and the shoeshine man kills his criminal assistant and father and daughter are reunited (although we do see one of the criminal/security men get away in a limousine). In a way, quite a sweet movie about an innocent father who has a loving relationship with his daughter and though he is essentially good and moral, extreme situations place him in basic protective mode, ready to do anything to save his daughter. A great film, I think I’ll be watching it again, although probably not for a while as this is the type of movie that is best on its first suspenseful and surprising viewing.

4.5/5

Soigne Ta Droite! (Keep your right up!) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1987)

Well, I was ready for “a mind-boggling comedy” and well, it sure was! Well, not so much a laugh-out-loud comedy for the most part. Sure, overall it was a refreshing light-hearted film and there were some moments where I was just left with my mouth open. I think most of the credit for my positive impression of the film is due to Jean-Luc Godard who appeared in the film himself, as a director named Prince (referred to in the voice-over as “the Idiot”) who needs to have a film ready for distribution in 24 hours. The film is made up of plenty of sketches, in places such as the plane and on a golf course, as well as meanwhile showing a rock band recording an album. (The rock band is actually Rita Mitsouko − I knew it was familiar, and I found myself singing along to her song “C'est comme ça”, which featured prominently in the film.) 

Apparently, the title "Soigne Ta Droite!" is a phrase used in boxing by the trainer, as well as a play on the name of Jacques Tati’s first short film Soigne ton gauche (Keep your left up). I was actually reminded of Tati in this film, seeing as though a lot of the comedy is physical and Godard was just like a Mr Bean slapstick figure, clumsy and weird and just amusing. I love this scene, where he describes how the Wimbledon  tennis championship has changed:

It is both an experimental as well as a touch of mainstream comedy type of film, as Godard still questions life and death with his philosophical musings. A frequent intertitle that appears is: “On place sur la terre”, which is “somewhere on earth”, adding to the complexity of the film as the characters try to find their place in the world. I’m sure on closer inspection, there is much more material to draw out but I’m content with just watching the absurdity of the film, and the magnificent Godard try his hand at acting as well, to really feel the need to take in more.

3.5/5

The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (Il giardino dei Finzi-Contini) (Vittoria De Sica, 1971)

I am slightly disappointed after such a wonderful experience with de Sica’s previous films. I wasn’t expecting this to be great but still, could’ve been better. I think that because the film was made in 1971 it was lacking some of the neorealist elements that I admired in de Sica’s previous films. For one, there were many kind of corny close-ups when people were talking, with the camera also suddenly quickly zooming in to faces, making us very conscience that we were watching a narrative − I don’t know how much realism is in this. 

Also, there was an overt political context as seen in the conversations − the whole movie was practically about fascism and it wasn’t positive either. Maybe because of the time it was made, with this hindsight, the director was able to almost provide a commentary, whereas films made in the 1940s for instance, were more ambiguous in political nature. Something that reappeared was the element of dark humour, such as when the father of Giorgio lists what Jews are forbidden to do (which violate so many of their rights), before adding something like: “but other than that, we’re lucky”. It almost makes you laugh were it not for the fact it was true. Another instance was when the old, forgetful grandma asks what Giorgio is doing at her home, to which the other lady replies, “Studying”, with the grandma momentarily looking away before asking the same question once again. 

Also, perhaps in the de Sica style, the film ended on a note of uncertainty/sadness, with the Finzi-Continis family taken away with other Jews. Speaking of that family, I also really grew to dislike Micol − just the way she behaved towards the guy who loved her − like playing hard to get but really nice too. She seemed confused about what to do and as a result acted very cruel and unreasonably I thought. I found this film hard to follow, with the different families and all the handsome Italians − who belonged to which family was only made clear as the movie progressed. It just didn’t have as much spark as his earlier films, unfortunately.

2.5/5

Martin Scorsese to make George Harrison doco

Martin Scorsese has announced at Cannes that he and Olivia Harrison have been collaborating on a documentary about Beatles guitarist George Harrison.

It will be called "Living in the Material World: George Harrison" and looks to be ready for a 2011 release.

With the input of George's wife, Olivia, you can expect to have some deeply personal and illuminating (not to mention never-before-seen) material, and with Martin Scorsese, well, you know you're going to have a quality final product.

There's been so much focus on John Lennon and Paul McCartney, I think it's about time we get an insight into the other Beatles members (maybe one day soon we'll get something on Ringo!).

So as a Beatles fan, I'm looking forward to this one!

Honeymoon in Vegas (Andrew Bergman, 1992)

Surprisingly, better than I expected. From the film synopsis I knew it was going to be a light-hearted romance type of film. It had a simple premise: Jack (Nicolas Cage)’s mother dies and leaves him with a fear of getting married after she warns him against it. We gather that he works as some sort of private investigator, spying on partners who are suspected of cheating. Anyway, he has a girlfriend Betsy (Sarah Jessica Parker) who wants to get married. Finally, Jack decides to get married to her and they go to Las Vegas in order to marry. However, Jack plays a game of poker and ends up $65,000 in debt to a wealthy, influential shady character, who demands a weekend with his fiancée to clear the debt (clearly, it was a fixed game). After lots of arguing, Jack and Betsy agree and she goes with the man. He whisks her off to Hawaii and we see he is trying to win her heart, saying that he used to have a wife that she reminds him of. After lots of running around on Jack’s part, and Betsy actually getting close to marrying the man, they are reunited when Jack skydives out of a plane in Vegas and she happens to be running away from the man after reconsidering marriage to him, and of course, they meet and get married straight away. 

Interesting thing I noted, there were plenty of Elvis impersonators and Elvis cover songs on the movie soundtrack (such as “Viva Las Vegas”, which reminded me of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and then of course, the fact that Cage introduced Depp to acting). The fact that Cage dresses as Elvis when he skydives with the group of Elvis impersonators seems like the role was cut out for him − or maybe as an enticement to the role, as I know Cage is a huge fan of the singer. So that does bring up a curious note. But regardless, I think Cage did a great job − he really is a fine actor and very emotional so I don’t know how people can view him as plain and “fake”. Even in a pretty average movie like this, he played his role well.

3.5/5

Pirates of the Caribbean 4 to be made in 3D

BBC report that Disney have decided to film Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (the fourth film in the series), in 3D.

Not really surprising, given the recent surge in popularity of 3D technology. For many people the third film was pushing it but I guess we won't know until when the film is released (June 2011) if 3D can help to increase the interest in the fourth film.

Nevertheless, I'm a loyal fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean films so I would happily watch it even if it wasn't in 3D.

Le Mépris (Contempt) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963)

Brigitte Bardot − interesting character yet I feel like she didn’t live up to hype of the film. Yes, sure I can understand her part in the success of the film as Godard’s most commercially successful film (and ironically, her least commercially successful film) as a ‘plaything’ for men. But it just seemed like she wasn’t as, I dunno how to describe it, “in your face”, perhaps? She didn’t really have a dominating presence on screen. 

It’s funny because every time I see a Godard film, it’s like I’m becoming more and more used to his style and techniques, almost so much that I don’t notice them. For instance, his use of long takes and tracking shots (particularly in the house scene when Paul and Camille (Bardot) are walking around in towels arguing, filmed in almost real-time), the framing (how all the furniture in the house is set up so “nicely” for the mise-en-scene), as well as the references to books. I also really liked the use of colour (Brigitte’s yellow hair, red robe, blue ocean, etc). (I love ’60s colours.) At one point when Bardot is talking to, I think it was, Paul, the camera uses this slow tracking shot across, as the camera moves left to right. This shot, with its slow almost what some would call a ‘boring-ish’ quality, reminds me of the supermarket shot in Tout Va Bien!. That’s the classic Godard I know and love. 

Interesting how Jacques Aumont, in his article “The Fall of the Gods”, suggests that although Le Mépris and Federico Fellini’s 8½ are both films about films, in 8½ the “anxiety of creation seems in the end to shake off all material constraints”. Of course, these are two different films at heart, but they do have overarching similarities: the camerawork, use of voiceover narration, as well as the references to the nature of cinema itself within the film (as Aumont states, Godard is “the recognized master of the quotational genre”). Actually, when I was watching 8½, I was immediately reminded of Godard in the way they are both films about films − instantly I thought, “this is like Godard!” − it just struck me like that. And also, actually a closer look will also reveal many similarities. In Le Mépris, when Paul came out of the bathroom wrapped in a towel it reminded me of Guido’s toga sequence in 8½ too. (And I found out the fabulous Marcello Mastroianni was also considered for the part of Paul in Le Mépris but was rejected by Godard). So I think there are definitely more similarities (or are they just pure coincidences?) than Aumont claims.

4/5

Bicycle Thieves (Ladri Di Biciclette) (Vittorio de Sica, 1948)

I’m beginning to see an interested trend now. I’ve seen a few Italian neorealist films and with The Children are Watching Us most fresh in my mind, these “realistic” type of films seem to be, well, quite negative. I mean, maybe it’s just Vittorio de Sica but The Children are Watching Us ended with the death of one of the endearing characters and Bicycle Thieves almost ends with jail for the father who tries to steal a bike. More significantly, it occurs in front of his son, who is then bawling while the men who catch him in the act threaten to put him in jail. Maybe it’s just the fact that these films are so far from the happy, fairytale Hollywood endings we’re used to that it seems like it’s too much in the pessimist direction when it may be more realistic. 

Also, I’ve noticed children seem to play a big role in his films. Perhaps compared to Hollywood film, children are just given more attention, which in effect seems to magnify their importance in comparison. It’s interesting also to note the father-son relationship, while we hardly get a glimpse of the mother interacting with her son Bruno. Is this more realistic? Maybe it was more realistic for that time, in Italy. Anyway, it was a good film, cleverly made. 

I particularly like how given the title, you expect there to be some bicycle theft involved (which is actually the whole plot) but the way de Sica puts the audience in suspense is incredible. For instance, when the father is first waiting outside the apartment where his wife has gone to “see a woman”, he is curious to know who she is seeing (turns out to be a psychic of some sorts). So when he momentarily leaves his bicycle, the audience is latterly left squirming as we’re expecting the bicycle to get stole. On top of this, de Sica stretches out the scene as long as possible − we see the couple walking back down the stairs, and the whole time the camera is almost avoiding showing the place where the bicycle was. It is as if he is building up suspense so we see the shocked reaction of the husband when he sees his bicycle is no longer there. However, we’re instead shocked with a pleasant surprise when his bicycle is still standing there, untouched and as an audience we almost feel as if we’ve been tricked. Worth watching.