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!