Where Do We Go Now?

 

 I suppose I could do a blog about The Dark Knight Rises, but what's the point? Everyone else on the internet has already talked about it often enough, with reason to of course. It is the other most anticipated super-hero movie to come out this year. But another opinion on it isn't even going to get noticed. And besides, if I did talk about The Dark Knight Rises then I wouldn't be able to talk about this little, hidden gem, that got practically no hype surrounding it at all. A film that if not for us weird arthouse-loving freaks would probably go around unnoticed until it was unearthed 20 years later as a masterpiece! Okay, that's a little bit overboard. But it's true that not many people have heard of this, the cinema I saw it in was empty except for me and two other people. So, withouth further ado, I present the representative for Lebanon for the 84th Academy Awards (unfortunately, it didn't make the final short-list), and premiering during the 2011 Cannes Film Festival as part of Un Certain Regard, Nadine Labaki's Where Do We Go Now?

 In a remote Lebanese village surrounded by land mines, Christians and Muslims co-exist rather peacefully as opposed to the other parts of the country where there are fights between the two demographics. That is until the crucifix in the church is accidentally broken and tensions between the men of both parties rise considerably and it's up to the women to try and distract the men from fighting amongst each other, lest they end up killing themselves. This is an ensemble film with four main groups who are in the middle of the conflict; the women, who include cafe owner Amale (Nadine Labaki) and mayor's wife Yvonne (Yvonne Maalouf), the Christian men, who include brothers Nassim and Issam (Kevin Abboud and Sasseen Kawzally respectively), the Muslim, including Rabih (Julian Farhat) a painter and Amal's potential love interest, and the Easter European Erotic Dancers who are hired by the women of the village. 

Yep, in this film about religious conflict in the Middle East, there are Erotic Eastern European dancers that the women hire to distract the men from their fighting. I know that a lot of the films I see are really bizarre, but this quiet little chick flicky film is one of the strangest. The only way I can describe so that you get an idea of what it's like is that it seems like they wanted to make a Bollywood musical but forgot to put half the songs in... Yes, this is meant to be a musical as well. There are songs in it, and they do kinda have stuff to do with the plot, but there are only 4 and they appear out of nowhere and disappear within a wink of an eye. Oh, and those erotic dancers? They are part of the plot. (I'll just go back to them quickly before I forget). The women of the village think that the men will be distracted from their fights with beautiful half naked women wondering about, but it only works for a little while because of the conflict out of the village growing and spreading. 

One of the messages at the heart of this film is an awesome one. It's not the main message, that one is a little more profound. But I still think this one is awesome. "If women ruled the world, things wouldn't be as bad as they are now." It's funny that us females are billed as the over emotional-types, when it is the men who are quick to anger and prejudice. And it's especially shown in this film, though some may think it to be counter-sexist. But I don't think it is. The fact that the women react badly to some of the things that happen, and that they are moments when they break down from the stress of it all shows that they are vulnerable to what is happening around them as well. We see that there have been deaths in the past over religious quarrels, and the women as a community are simply trying to avoid that from happening again. 

 But this isn't a film about the battle of the sexes, not really. Because there isn's really a battle to be found in that neck of the woods. The main conflict is between Muslims and Christians. The film leads us to believe that it is the segregation between religions that leads the tension, and that is the best and pretty much only reason for it. But the problem with how it is presented in the film is that the two groups aren't segregated. We see them getting along fine with each other until the whole mess starts, and the crucifix is broken. There really is no cause for the Christians to just jump right in and say it was the Muslims when there is no proof, and no previous tension to be seen. Other than that, the conflict is well done. It escalates to a hilarious climax and ends on a bittersweet note. What more could you want? Really though, the idea that the women get for the climax comes out of nowhere (with a song to accompany it!) and has to be seen to be believed. 

What Nadine Labaki likes to do is cast non-actors based on their personality and then incoporate those things that she liked into the their characters. So we end up with characters that feel incredibly human, with little ticks and traits that make each of them stand out. And for non-actors, they are superior to a lot of Hollywood 'actors' that you find nowadays. While there are stand-outs, the dialogue in the film is so quick that I can't actually remember any of the names of the characters. There are almost too many characters in this movie, and yet if any of them were to go it would feel less like a community. So, what I'm saying is that I can forgive the film for not clarifying all the characters names, because each character stands out enough that you don't need their names. Though it would be nice. I can't forgive the film, however, for including what seems to be an important plot point but isn't just for a joke that could've been done a dozen different ways. 

So, is this a good movie? I'm leaning towards saying yes rather than no, but it's certainly not perfect (though what film is?). It's fun to watch, though, joyous in parts, quite sad in others and sometimes just downright weird. The conversations and interactions between the women save this film from being just another message movie, and the message that is presented isn's shoved down your throat. It's presented in an emotional, human, and also strangely logical way. And have I mentioned how beautiful it looks! Based on three films I've seen this year, I really want to go to the Middle East now just to see the amazing landscapes. I would also recommend you see this because the director/writer is not only Lebanese, not only a woman, not only different, and not only good, but the things that she has to say are relevant everywhere and concern everyone, not just those who live in Lebanon. So yeah, check it out! Maybe even check out Labaki's ealier work Caramel, or some other Middle Eastern movies. Until next time!

Just a quick note about next time. Currently, I am in a musical called Zombie: A Post Apocalyptic Rock Opera, so I have little to no time to go see any new movies for a little while. If you are interested by this odd musical I have gotten myself into, here is a trailer here!

and if you are even more intrigued and actually want to check it out, here is the address for tickets:
tinyurl.com/zombietickets

(Please note, this is on at Melbourne University, in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Sorry to those who live internationally.)

Also, the Melbourne International Film Festival is coming up and there are some films I definitely want to go and see, so the next couple of reviews will probably be on something from that. Anyway, that's it for now. Bye!

 

Hysteria

 
So, I know I said that I was going to review A Royal Affair, and I know it's been quite a while, but seriously, if you had to choose between a period drama and a period sex romp, which would you choose? Let the innuendo and puns flow (both of which I am not very good at)! Oh, this is probably the most awkward film I have seen with my mum. Especially when it features a film where Jonathan Pryce masturbates a middle-aged woman that just goes on and on.... Not that you see anything. Everything is very nicely hidden beneath skirts and curtains. I've heard the term woman porn be used for those movies that have pretty much everything a woman could want in order to escape from the mundane, and this is certainly that. It's got a period setting, a male lead who's not bad on the eyes, good acting, woman's rights (if you're into that sort of thing), sex comedy (if you're into that sort of thing) and beautifully designed costumes and sets. Yep, woman porn.


Set in the 1880's, Hugh Dancy stars as Dr Mortimer Granville, a doctor who after being fired from many hospitals for his radical ideas starts to work for Dr Robert Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce), London's leading expert in women's hysteria. Hysteria is basically an umbrella term for any housewife who is unhappy or bored with her situation. The way doctors treated hysteria was through masturbation, because they believed that the only way that women could feel pleasure was through penis penetration. After a few weeks/months (sense of time? what sense of time!), Granville's hand starts to cramp up so much so that he starts to fail at getting any women off. While moaning to his friend Lord Edmund St. John-Smyth (Rupert Everett, chewing scenery gloriously), a bored dandy who experiments with electricity, he discovers that the vibrations given off from an invention of his gives off pleasurable tinglings. And thus, the vibrator is discovered!

Oh, this is so silly! This is pretty much a full 90 minutes of sexy silliness with witty Victorian banter featuring a slight bit of woman's rights stuff thrown in. Of course, the orgasm is the metaphor for freedom, but I was kinda distracted during the big courtroom scene cause the lawyer was one of the actors from Anton Chekhov's The Duel, and his teeth had gotten even weirder. The women's rights thing sort of takes a back seat to the sex jokes and awkward situations. But there are some sweet moments between Granville and Maggie Gyllenhaal's Charlotte Dalrymple, a feminist who runs a halfway home and Robert Dalrymple's daughter, where the characters discuss what could happen in the future for women, much to Granville's amusement. But even though we've seen Maggie Gyllenhaal's character in a dozen other movies set around this time period, this version of the early feminist seems to be more realistic probably because those around her react they way they probably would've in that time period.

Anyway, back to the sex. If you like watching befuddled gentlemen, then this is the movie for you! It is most definitely not historically accurate at all, and very romantic. But hey, it's enjoyable! The afore-mentioned Jonathan Pryce masturbation scene and the end credits (where we see pictures of different models of vibrators through history) are probably the places where I laughed the most, because they were the most tongue-in-cheek and fun (and awkward when sitting next to a parent). In all honesty, I would've preferred it if there were more moments like that, but the film chooses to focus on the budding romance between Charlotte and Granville, or on the ridiculousness that hysteria is. But it's still fun! That's pretty much the most I can say about this movie, it's fun. And woman porny.

Acting wise, everyone is good. I've been a bit iffy about Hugh Dancy in the past because he seemed to be a bit of a teen actor, but he is so adorable in this it's hard to hate him. I love Jonathan Pryce and Maggie Gyllenhaal, and they were excellent as usual. Rupert Everett had the best lines, and was hamming up his part charmingly. Anne Sheridan (who I only know from Jonathan Creek) also stole the scenes she was in as prostitute-come-maid, Molly. The only one I had a problem with was Felicity Jones as Dalrymple's other daughter Emily, but that's mainly cause her character was so boring that I didn't even bother to talk about her.

In the end, I would class this as one of those gentle British comedies loosely based on something that happened, like both Kinky Boots and Mrs. Henderson Presents. It's a nice escapist movie, where you may have a few giggles, enjoy the scenery and just relax for a little while. However, if you are a little prudish *coughDavidStratton* you may be a little put off by the many orgasm scenes and montages. I do recommend that you check out Margaret and David's review just to see David acting all awkward, and getting berated by Margaret. So yeah, if you're a fan of British comedy, this should enjoy! Just don't go see it with your mother...

The Woman in the Fifth: Book and Film

And I thought it would be easier to talk about this as an adaptation. Okay, it is slightly easier bit only a smidge. This has to have one the most confusing twists I have ever seen. M. Night Shyamalan has nothing on this story. And the rest of the film is pretty goddamn cryptic as well. It's arty in the purest sense of the word, as much as the book is pulpy in the dirtiest sense of the word. Every shot means something, every line has a double meaning. And after nearly a month since I first saw it, it still makes little sense. The book makes more sense, in parts. Mainly characters back stories.

The film stars Ethan Hawke as Tom Ricks, an American writer who travels to Paris to try and save his relationship with his French wife and young daughter. After every bad thing that could happen happens to Tom (his wife calls the cops on him, and he loses his luggage) he finds himself in the Turkish district of Paris, with only 10 euros to his name. He manages to find a disgusting and tiny room, and a job as a nightwatch-man for some shady figures (where he spends his time writing a letter to his daughter), and he lives a miserable existence for many weeks. Until he meets a mysterious woman named Margit (Kristen Scott Thomas) and they begin an affair. The film follows all the major plot points in the novel. There are a few differences, most of which I will go into later, but there are a few little ones that were changed so that things would fit better into the movie story line, like the age of Tom's daughter changes from 15 to 8, his wife isn't French and he was a teacher in America rather than a writer. There are also several characters compressed into one and they become Sezer (Samir Guesmi), Tom's landlord and boss.

If you want to go to Paris, don't read this book, and most definitely do not see this film. This shows the real, unglamourous Paris, the back streets of Paris. The setting is grey and dirty, which amplifies Tom's mood for most of the movie. Of course, it's sunny ... once, but only after something good happens to him. The rest of the time, the colour scheme is monochromatic blue. This is also enhances the unromantic nature of the movie. Even though the plot has two people who have an affair, it's more of a character study about Tom's complete breakdown after he loses everything he once had. We never find out what exactly caused his wife to leave him. In fact, we hardly find out anything. We don't know what is going on in the building where he does spends the majority of his nights. We only vaguely know what's going on with Margit, and this ambiguous nature is what makes the film more endearing. It stays in your head for so long after, that you come up with a lot of different scenarios as to what could've actually happened. It is also extremely refreshing to here an American actually speak French while in Paris. And I have to give big props to Ethan Hawke for managing to speak French for the majority of the film. Kristen Scott Thomas is also brilliantly elegant, but then again she always is.

So, I guess now we'd better get on to the adaptation, and I have to say that this actually very good. The director Pawel Pawlikowski knew that many things had to be changed in the transfer between book and screen, and the things that were changed were done so to enhance the characters. But there are a few things that were changed that didn't make sense, the main one being that in the book the main character is called Harry, not Tom. The only reson I can think of is that you don't pronounce H's in French but it's still an odd thing to change. There is one other thing that I want to talk in depth about, and that is that the book explains everything. And I mean everything! Harry's job, what happened to his marriage, what's up with Margit. All these elements that made the film intriguing  (albeit more frustrating) in their vagueness are all neatly presented to us in a nice package. And it makes the book a lot less thought provoking (apart from that pesky twist).

 So, if you were pulling my arm and forcing me to choose between the two, I'd actually say that the film is better than the book. And it comes down to the fact that the only thing that saves the book is the ending. I'm not saying that the rest of the book is bad, no it's fairly well written. But it's written like a pulp novel, and at times can be extremely monotonous. While it could be argued that the film is also rather monotonous, it has a darker, edgier atmosphere which comes fromnever knowing what's going on. Also, it is more of a character study so the long dragging scenes in Tom's office are all used to show just how far he has fallen. There are some similarities between the two, of course. The grey tone of the book is translated excellently and they both just sort of end without providing a solid ending.


All in all, it's one of the best adaptations I've seen. I mean it turned a pulpy romance novel into a serious art film. I'd recommend seeing the film before readong the book because the book really spoils all the mystery that film had. Though the film can be frustrating at times, so maybe if you prefer your stories more fleshed out, then you might be better with the book. It really comes down to personal preference. Well, this was an epic review, and a long time coming. Next up, possibly A Royal Affair. So, until next time readers.

Big Nothing and Catch and Release

I did this a little while ago, with my double review of Bitten and Fanboys. And since no arty films have crossed my eyes recently, so let's look at a couple of other DVD's I have seen reently. These are two more underrrated gems that I found lying around on the shelves on Video Ezy and The Reject Shop, British (yet set in America, but we'll get to that later) dark comedy Big Nothing and American rom-com Catch and Release. Both I found exceptionally funny, flawed of course and both unfortunately underrated.

So, we shall start with the one that is infinitely harder to talk about, Big Nothing. And why is this so hard to talk about? Because it's bat-shit insane! Oh god, is this one crazy movie. I'd tell you why but it would otherwise spoil some of the funniest surprises you see on screen. I can tell you the basic plot though! Charlie (David Schwimmer), after losing his job on the first day, is persuaded by his friend Gus (Simon Pegg) to join him on a little blackmailing scheme. Josie (Alice Eve), Gus's on-again-off-again lover, also joins them after over-hearing their plan. Of course, things go a little pear-shaped when the person they were planning on blackmailing turns up dead.

And from that rather cliched premise, the shit hits the fan and keeps spinning. Seriously, I can't even tell you half the things I liked about this because it would give away too much. And the best way to see this sort of crazy zaniness is by not knowing anything about it other than what I just told you. I can tell you that there are some twists that you will see a mile away and some that will pop up from the ground your standing on without any warning. The acting is excellent, but then the cast is superb, with Schwimmer providing the straight man whose reactions are perfect and exactly how a normal person would react. Simon Pegg is always good, I've never seen a bad film with him in. Though, it is a little odd to hear him speak with an American. Same for Alice Eve, and she and Pegg have some of the funniest moments.

So, the main problem I have with this film is a weird one. It's produced by Isle of Man Films, it's shot in the Isle of Man and parts of Wales, three of its lead actors are British (Natasha McElhone is the third) and the director and co-writer is French (Jean-Baptiste Andrea). Why the hell is this set in America? The only plausible explanation I can come up with is that David Schwimmer can't do an English and they couldn't come up with a reason as to why an American would live in the UK. Either that or the other writer was American... Oh, wait. He was. Really, this baffles me. It works when it's set in America, but the humour is kinda more British than American. And while it was a success in the UK, I doubt that American audiences would appreciate the massive tone shifts that occur.

But if you can stand to hear Simon Pegg with an American accent, then I definitely recommend this one. It's annoyingly underrated, but totally worth it if you ever find it. I'm putting it up there with Bitten as one of the best DVD's I've discovered this year. It is violent, and quite a bit sweary, but no more so than Shaun of the Dead or other Simon Pegg films. Besides there's something hilarious about hearing David Schwimmer swear his tits off!

Anyway, let's move on to something completely different. Catch and Release stars Jennifer Garner as Gray, a woman whose fiance died during his bachelor party. Moving out of the house she and her fiance Grady (oh god, these names) were sharing and moving into his old house with his old roommates Dennis (Sam Jaeger) and Sam (Kevin Smith). And they are soon joined by Grady's womanising best friend, Fritz (Timothy Olyphant). Complications occur when Gray discovers that Grady sent $3000 every month to an unknown party, and after pestering Fritz for answers, she finds out that Grady had a son by another woman (Juliette Lewis).

So, yeah, that's pretty much the entire plot. This is a very gentle and predictable film, that is more about the characters reacting to the grief of losing a friend, than the romantic fluff that comes between Gray and Fritz. In fact, the romance is more like one in a series of subplots. Every character has a subplot that explores the way they deal with the loss of Grady. And they all interweave better than New Years Eve or Valentine's Day ever could. The fact that this is a realistic series of events that just somehow manages to become a movie plot. And it's funny!

So, I haven't really mentioned this before, but I am a massive Kevin Smith fan. I saw the fourth Die Hard film simply because he was in it, I have all of his View Askewniverse films on DVD, and pretty much the only reason I wanted to see this film was because of him. He is definitely the best part. Not that the other actors aren't good. But Smith brings a cynical snarkiness and really turns it from a rom-com with a strange premise into more of an ensemble piece about mourning and grief. Garner and Olyphant are also good, and what I really like about this film is the way the romance is allowed to grow.

But hey, this isn't perfect. One of the things I have against it is the obvious and annoying third act misundestanding between the two leads. Another is that it starts off fairly dark (the funeral takes place on the day that was meant to be Gray and Grady's wedding) but by the end, it's just another romantic comedy. And it rambles around the middle, without any clear direction. But I still like it. Compared with other rom-coms, this is a pleasant surprise. Though not everyone will like it, it;s a shit load better than a lot of the other Hollywood trash we see nowadays. 

So, there's my two cents on these films. I'd recommend Big Nothing  more than Catch and Release, because less people seem to know about it, and it is fucking hilarious! But if I've sparked some interest, then I've done my job. Until next time, readers.