...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