Careless Love

Second Aussie film in one term! Because there is nothing else out at the moment... Anyway. Careless Love is the new film by veteran Australian director John Duigan, and it's about Asian sex workers in Sydney. And I'm just going to go out and say it right now, I really like this film! I can see why people might be put off by the premise. A lot of people seem to become quite prudish and preachy when you mention the words "sex workers". You tend to think of sex trafficking and slavery, or else you think of the Pretty Woman type of romanticized shit. And not that this isn't slightly romanticised in parts, but it is a more accurate and honest showing of the world's oldest profession.

Linh (Nammi Le) is a university student who works part time as an escort for an Asian escort agency to help her parents pay off their house while her dad is unemployed. The film basically recounts her different interactions and relationships with clients, one American client in particular, Luke (Peter O'Brien) who she becomes close to, with her driver and co-worker (David Field and Ivy Mak) and her fellow students. She eventually begins seeing another student named Jack (Andrew Hazzard), and her two worlds slowly threaten to collide, while she tries to keep them apart.

So, let's talk about what's bad about the film. The acting isn't anything to write home about. Nammi Le can be quite wooden at time, but it fits her character, who is quite introverted, so that's okay I guess. The unfortunate is that this is (yet again) a minimal script, and she doesn't have the right amount of acting ability to pull off the contemplative expressions that we are able to interpret. But she's still good. No, the loose cannon in this film is Andrew Hazzard as Jack. He's just not that good. You don't really get the love story between him and Linh, he doesn't have the charisma that the characters requires, and he's kind of a douche at parts. But that's largely to do with the character not being fully rounded. What he really needed was a couple of extra scenes so that we could really understand the character better. And maybe a better actor, as well. Another thing that has drawn criticism is Peter O'Brien's iffy American accent, but in all honesty, I didn't really notice it. That might be because I didn't know he was Australian, but it's not too horrendous.

I suppose one other big criticism that I have with the film is that it could be seen as a male fantasy of what prostitution is. Linh has only one 'bad' encounter with a client, and even then she regains control when things get a little sticky (any puns you see are unintended). But then again, this is what is awesome about the film and the character of Linh. She is also one of the strongest female characters I have seen in a drama film for a long time. There are plenty of strong female action characters, but they aren't that many for the drama films that aren't monarchs. Or cancer patients. So, it's really refreshing to find a character like Linh, who is in control of every situation. Though this could be seen as another aspect of the male fantasy again, the fact that the filmmakers don't exploit her, or her profession in any way is also nice to see. There are only two sex scenes on screen, and Linh is only naked once. So, feminists, don't get your knickers in a twist or judge this film solely based on it's premise. I think what one has to remember is that Linh chose this profession, and during the course of the film, we see her make other choices to benefit her and essentially, to keep her safe. The film also focuses on the economic side of prostitution, and gives us an even less glamourous view of it. So, the film also doesn't say that it would be a good job for someone to have, and that in the end, it all comes down to the money.

Other things of note are the excellent side characters, that are more interesting than the protagonists in a lot of ways. First, you have Luke, the enigmatic American. The scenes with him and Linh are some of the best in the film, and it left me wishing that the whole film was just made up of those two talking together. But if that happened, then we wouldn't have the two most awesome characters from the film! Dion, the driver (David Field, who you may recall from the "Hungry/Thirsty" ads) and Mint, a co-worker (Ivy Mak). These two provide the comedy, the heart felt moments and the best lines from the film. Go see the film for those two alone, it's most definitely worth it.

Anyway, the only other thing I can say against the film is that it is quite long, and there are some scenes that drag on a bit. But in retaliation to that, it is well shot, and I'm sure those that live in Sydney would love to see their sity looking this gorgeous onscreen. If you want to see one homegrown film this, why not this one? You'll notice I didn't give much away in terms of plot or themes, and that's because you should really discover this film for yourself. Don't be put off by the subject matter, it's a helluva lot better than Wish You Were Here, a lot less obvious and it stays in your head for ages afterwards. In the end, this is a simple story, yet beautifully put together. No, it's not perfect, but then what is nowadays. And, that's really all I have to say. Take care internet. Until next time!

Questions Raised During "Nine to Five"

So, the Careless Love review which I promised at the end of the last blog will be coming, but I feel really shit this week, and so I don't think that I can be bothered to finish it. It may come out over the weekend, hopefully. And this is basically what went through my mind while watching the 1980 movie Nine to Five, or 9 to 5 depending on how much you can be bothered to type. So, this film is kinda funny and it's kinda stupid and it's kinda good. It's not bad, and actually kinda fun. Kinda. But there were some things that just sort of don't make sense to me. Or that I was confused by. I may look pretty stupid by the end of this. It's also in no real order, except the order in which they come into my head as I write this.


1. Couldn't the whole plot be over if Dolly Parton's character filed a sexual harassment suit against Dabney Coleman's character?

No, hear me out. I did a bit of reserach, and sexual harassment has been around since 1973-ish, but it wasn't really known about until the 90s. Even so, the bastard was firing people (mainly women, I don't think any of the male characters actually fired on screen) for no reason, or idiotic reasons. Anyone in his office could've made claim to some sort of harassment, but no! We had to watch a silly series of events whereby he gets locked in his own house by 3 of his employers! Anyway, back to the point, if everyone was so upset by him that he wasn't handing in good enough results, or just average results, then surely they could've gone to the big boss and complained. The proof is that when he was gone, there was a better workplace environment and better results. Anyway, I think this is my brain wishing for a slightly more serious comedy, instead of the frivolous romanticized, almost male fantasy-esque dream of gender equality.



2. (During Lily Tomlin's fantasy) That seems to be some top class animation going to waste. I wonder who animated it?

Ok, so for those who haven't seen the film, the three leading ladies get baked one night and tell each other the different ways in which they woud get rid of their boss (even the most legal way would be the best). Lily Tomlin's fantasy goes extra Disney as she imagines herself to be a loyal princess type thing complete with forest animals. Animated forest animals, that are very cutesy. But I can't find out who did the animation! And it's gorgeous! Of course, I could watch the film again, or fast-forward to the credits to find out, but if the internet doesn't know, then I'm guessing the film doesn't want us to know...

3. No one goes into his office for 6 weeks... ?

I know we aren't meant to take this film seriously, but honestly! The boss was hated so much that no one wanted to see him in his office for 6 weeks! Surely someone could've told the big boss that he was hated that much. Gah!

4. (With regards to Elizabeth Wilson's character) Can this woman get a life!

This isn't really a question. I just hate these sorts of characters that purely serve a stupid as purpose with no real character development apart from their bitchiness and stupidity. Stupid characters really piss me off, in case you haven't noticed.

5. Why couldn't we see the epilogues?

Seriously! The epilogues look a lot more interesting than half of the stuff we saw in the film! How did Dolly Parton's character become a country singer? (Oh, was that a joke. I didn't see it there behind the groaning) How does Dabney Coleman get lost and possibly eaten in the Amazonian jungle? Who is this Xerox representative that Jane Fonda goes off with? *Sigh* I guess that's what fanfics are for, but who would want to fanfic this.

6. What was their name?

You may have noticed that I haven't mentioned a single characters name. I can't remember any of them, only the actors. I don't know what that says about the power of the script or how endearing each character was, you can make up your own minds about that. But forgetting a characters name and only remembering they were in the film because of the person playing them... that can't be good!

and finally

7. That was Jane Fonda!?

I've only seen Jane Fonda in Barbarella. She doesn't look anything like Barbarella in this film. I didn't recognise her with clothes on.





So, this was stupid, but I had fun. Nine to Five isn't bad, I just expected something a little more realistic and less annoyingly stupid. (I think 'stupid' is the most used adjective in this review. Sorry for that.) So, I should hopefully have Careless Love out soon, I've almost finished the draft. Until then, keep your powder dry!

Trishna

Michael Winterbottom is a ver strange man. He puts out a film almost every year, and if you look at a list of films that he's directed, you'll see he pretty much does whatever the hell he wants, with films like Genova and A Mighty Heart next to 24 Hour Party People and 9 Songs. So, where does Trishna come into all this? Well, it is Winterbottom's third adaptation of a Thomas Hardy novel, the other two being Jude (based on "Jude the Obscure") and The Claim (based on "The Mayor of Casterbridge"). Trishna  is based on Hardy's nest known work, "Tess of the D'Ubervilles", and it's set in India, the one country that is probably the complete opposite of the howling moors where "Tess" was set. But I'm not going to talk about this film in terms of adaptation, (mainly because I haven't actually read the book. The thing about moors I mentioned a sentence ago could be completely wrong.) but it's always better to view films as their own thing and not to compare it to whatever it may have been based on. Something which I usually find impossible to do.


If you've read the book, then I'm guessing you know the main plot. And if you've heard anything about the film, then you probably already the major change between book and film. Two of teh characters are merged into one, which highlights Hardy's message in the book that the two characters were merely two different sides of one man. That is the only time I will talk about it in this review. As I said, I'm looking at the film as a film, rather than an adaptation. Anyway, in a nutshell, the story revolves around the quiet Indian girl Trishna (Freida Pinto) after she meets the English raised Jay (Riz Ahmed), who gets her a job at one of his fathers hotels after Trishna's father crashes his van. Trishna and Jay grow closer together, and eventually have sex (whether consensual or not is not explicitly told) which scares Trishna and causes her to run away. When she discovers she is pregnant, her family gets her an abortion and sends her off to her uncles factory, but Jay finds her and takes her Mumbai. I won't say what happens next, but for the rest of the movie we follow Trishna and Jay's twisted romance that ends very suddenly and tragically.

First off, the cinematography is beautiful. Set in one of the more rural areas of India, this is different from other movies set in India as a lot of the big tourist places that you would normally find in a film like this. Even in Mumbai, we are mainly shown the apartment where Jay and Trichna live, or the slums that are literally right next to the skyscraper they live in. The most beautiful places are the hotels that Jay's family owns. Not that there aren't any big temples or beautiful beaches. The first couple of scenes, in which we are introduced to Jay and his friends, has them go to a temple. But it's almost as if Winterbottom was getting all that cliched sight-seeing out of the way so that he could better focus on the story. But it still looks amazing, and shows a different side of India that some people may never have seen. The music is also very good. It's very atmospheric and minimal, but I found myself listening to it more than I was to the story.

And that's sort of the problem with the film. There are parts where my attention just wasn't fully with it. The dialogue is minimal, and is more about what's not said between the two mains as opposed to what is said. But there isn't enough chemistry between them to pull it off completely successfully. Not that there is a lack of chemistry, you can clearly see that Trishna and Jay are into each other, but... OK, if I talk about the acting then I can better explain the main problem. The dialogue is completely improvised throughout the film and Freida Pinto does an excellent job at being passive and subservient. She has enough expression in her face to make it known what is going on in her mind. But Riz Ahmed is a little wooden. All his lines feel stilted, and he doesn't come across as charming or attractive in any way possible. Especially after his very sudden change from sensitive and caring to cruel and sadistic. This turn comes out of no where, with no real reason for it. We don't get any development until he becomes a bastard. And yet through all that Trishna stays with him.

And this brings me nicely to Trishna's character. God, did this character make me mad! I was almost yelling at the screen for her to leave Jay. She is the embodiment of what an Indian woman should be, quiet, submissive and eager to please the man she's with. I'm not sure if Winterbottom wanted to make a comment on Indian traditions and gender roles, but he does. The men in this film are the bosses, they rule over their families, and while they don't treat the women they live with badly (except for Jay), they certainly don't treat them equally. Trishna finally does stand up for herself (in a manner of speaking) it's too late for anything to be done. Even when Jay leaves her for a while, she waits patiently for him to return or for some other man to take care of her. Do you see why she makes me mad? Never the less, she does evoke sympathy, and is truly a tragic heroine who actually does make all the decisions in her life and follows through with them, however idiotic they seem.

There's a lot of cage-like imagery and symbolism in this film. There is actually a massive bird menagerie and guess who has to look after the birds? Yep, Trishna. A lot of the scenes have Trishna looking out of windows with bars across them, and her character does seem like a little bird at times. So, there is an emphasis on freedom and escape. Apart from that, there aren't really any big thematic symbols in this film. Not that you can't study it and the characters and come up with plausible backstories for each of them. Like Shame, we can't pinpoint exactly what happened to some of the characters, especially Jay. Jay seems to be caught between two cultures, and he is being forced into his fathers business against his will, so that may be where some if his motivation comes from. But his character is very shady, and just isn't that well acted. But the film does have a good balance between telling you things about the character, and showing you hints about their lives before the events in the film.

So, final thoughts? There is enough here to like. This is one of the only films this year I've seen where I've had to complain about the acting rather than the story, ot the way it's shot or put together. You can difinitely see it's a Michael Winterbottom film, he has a disinctive style where he chops and cuts rapidly during scenes that stay on one shot. Freida Pinto is spectacular in this and the scenery in amazing. If you're a fan of "Tess of the D'Ubervilles", you may enjoy. I know some people who have read the book and did enjoy going to see this, and it stands very well on it's own as well. I think Michaels Winterbottom is one of the most interesting directors around at the moment, so check out some of his other films. Maybe not 9 Songs (which is infamous for being the first mainstream film to have a man physically cum on camera, and it isn't porn) but 24 Hour Party People and Tristram Shandy: a Cock and Bull Story are definitely worth the watch.



Next week, a film about sex workers. Oh joy.

Bitten and Fanboys

Okay, so the next CAE movie, The Woman in the Fifth, is going to take a little longer than I thought to get written as I think the only way to do a proper review is to read the book it's based on and compare to the two. The film is just a little too cryptic to be seen by itself. So instead of talking about that this week, I'm going to ramble on about two films I saw recently, and if you couldn't tell what they werefrom the title, then you need some serious help.

Bitten stars Jason Mewes as a paramedic named Jack. Yep, that's right. Jason Mewes plays a paramedic. And yes, that is the only reason I bought this movie. Jack works the graveyard shift with his friend Roger (Richard Fitzpatrick), and after coming home one night at 4 am, he finds a girl, Danika (Erica Cox), covered in blood lying in the garbage near his home. At first thinking she's a drug user, he still takes her in and patches her up. He soon realises, however, that she's not the user he thought she was. No, instead she's a vampire. And a hungry one at that.

I'm just going to say this now, this has to be one of the best vampire films in years. And that's saying something, considering how many times the bloody creatures are overused. And I think it's because the story of the film is set in a much smaller scale than your Underworld's or your Twilight's. The film focuses on the relationship between the 2 main characters, and the struggles they face. The central conflict is Jack trying to cope with being in love with a vampire who's always hungry and who could possily bite his head off at any minute and who is drinking dry the entire neighbourhood. There's no large scale war with werewolves, there's no forbidden romance, there's no melodramtic, over the top, stupid teenagers who think they know everything whn they're 16.... Sorry, got on a Twilight rant. This is also a really good romantic movie, with the viewer allowed to watch the attraction between Danika and Jack grow. Yeah, there sorta is the whole love at first site thing, but it works. I'm actually surprised I haven't come across a vampire movie like this before. (That's your cue to tell me that there are other ones out there, and that I live under a rock for not knowing about them before.)

 The comedy is this movie is very dark, and sometimes very crude. Just to give you an example, one of my favourite scenes is when Jack has to clean the drained body of his ex, while the background music is a nursery rhyme. There are also moments when the fourth wall is broken, usually with Jack giving the camera significant looks. There was bound to be a lot of swearing in this, they cast Jason bloody Mewes! But if that sort of thing doesn't bother you, then you'll be fine. Roger is probably the crudest in the film, with a lot of anal jokes coming from his mouth, but he does have some of the funniest lines. And the scenes between him and Jack are some of the best, because it shows they both do care for each other even if they do go at each other from time to time. The casting of Jason Mewes was an excellent idea. If, like me, you only know him from the View Askewniverse films of Kevin Smith, then this is going to surprise you. He can act! Ok, he's no Brando, but he's believable and funny as a lovesick fool. For me though, Richard Fitzpatrick steals the film, being a foul mouthed, angry old divorcee with a weak bladder.

As much as I talk this film up, there are flaws. Some plot points are brought up, then jut left by the side of the road in a plastic bag, Erica Cox takes her top off every five minutes, there's a random three way sex scene for no reason, and the lighting is too dark sometimes. But if you like vampire/gore/genre films, then I definitely recomend this.

Now for something completely different, Fanboys. Fanboys is set in 1998, 6 months before The Phantom Menace is due to be released. Four friends take a road trip to George Lucas' Skywalker Ranch to try and see a copy of the rough cut of the film before it comes out in cinemas. Hilarity and high jinks ensue. Yes, it's a road movie. Yes, it's a (sorta) copycat of the Appatow comedies that are currently invading our screens. Yes, it's a bit of a mess. But here'e the thing. I really like this film. And let me tell you why. It's believable.

Yeah, you heard me. I found the film believable. It might be because I can connect to the characters, they're Star Wars fans! Star Wars was the major sci-fi film series I grew up with and I remember having conversations about the franchise that the ones the characters have in the film. I never can be as well-versed in the lore as these guys are, but I have been in arguments about who was better, Han Solo or Luke Skywalker. So yeah, I've been there. I get these guys. And these characters are also a lot of fun. The four main protagonists are Bottler (Sam Huntington) who has moved away from the others and focuses too much on his job, Windows (Jay Baruchel) who has an online girlfriend, Hutch (Dan Fogler) the loud, crude joker of the group, and Linus (Chris Marquette) possibly the biggest fanboy and who also has cancer. No, not joking. He actually does have cancer, but instead of being treated like this is the end of the world by him and his friends, they continue to carry much as they did before. In fact, Bottler finding out that Linus has cancer is the turning point of the movie and helps to set the plot in motion.

Post-production on this film was apparently a nightmare, and it shows in parts. The cancer subplot was taken out in favour of cruder, more Appatow scenarios, but thankfully director Kyle Newman made sure that it was kept. But traces of the other film can still be seen. In all honesty, the film wouldn't work without the cancer subplot. It adds depth to what would otherwise be a bad knock-off of Superbad. You can definitely tell that there were many re-edits, some scenes go nowhere, plot points are thrown away (again!). Kirsten Bell is underused as fangirl Zoe, though I do have to say she is one of the more positive portrayals of a fangirl that I've seen. There are still some hilarious scenes, and awesome cameos to be found here (the one where the guys get high with Danny Trejo is pretty cool, but then again, it's Danny Trejo.) There are so many cameos in it that it reminds me of  John Landis movie, which is always good. Fanboys has a less polished feel to it than Bitten does, but while it is a mess, it's a fun mess! And I do recommend it for die hard Star Wars fans. If nothing else, it captures the excitement and the expectantcy that people felt before The Phantom Menace came out.

I didn't mean to waffle on as long as I have. The Woman in the Fifth will be along as soon as I finish the book. Oh wait, I have to order the book... Anway, the next CAE movie is Trishna (which just so happens to be an adaptation of Tess of the D'Ubervilles) so until next time, Live Long and Prosper!

Wish You Were Here

So, you know those films that are enjoyable while you're watching them, yet on reflection just don't hold up. Well, Wish You Were Here is one of those films. Unfortunately. The "unfortunately" comes from the fact that this had an interesting concept for a film, but instead the it doesn't seem to know whether it's a thriller, or a family drama, or a character study, and comes out as a monstrous hybrid of all three, that doesn't live up to any of those genres. The main story is about 4 Aussies go to Cambodia for a holiday, and only three return. The rest of the film is about how the others cope with their missing friend. 

The acting is good, exceptional, especially from the  two leads Dave (joel edgerton) and Alice (Felicity Price, who also co-wrote the screenplay). But what's unfortunate (again with that word) about the characters is that they react like humans would react. We seem to like our characters in films to be written in a way that they could never exist in real life. This is very clear in rom-coms and the like, but this has made it so that when we do see a character on screen that acts and reacts like a normal person would, we find it harder to sympathise with them, because either we know people who are really like that, or because there are elements to them that remind us of ourselves. I'm not saying that within the (for lack of a better word) less realistic movies that there aren't characters we can't connect with, but what I really mean is that the more real a character is, the less easy it is to fully sympathise with them. Empathise yes, but we can't really feel sorry for them. The characters in this are trying to be real. But here's where it fails. They aren't given the proper amount of time for their characters to grow. They react how one would expect them to react, but there isn't any heart to it. It's like a paint by numbers in character study, and ends up feeling more like a soap than a really dramatic movie.

But that doesn't mean that the film is completely bad, there are some things I really like about it. The anti-plot narrative is very effective, even if it;s only being used because it's considered 'artsy'. It could've been really interesting to have scenes from the present interspersed with scenes from the past with the same sort of themes or something, but instead we get a juxtaposing mess, and if it was to be played in chronological order, none of it would mean as much. But the acting is good, some of it. Ok, the sister isn't that good, but the rest is fairly amazing.

But now let me get to the worst part about the film, the ending. This is the most frustrating ending since Grease! That is how annoying it is. It's so stupid that I don't care about spoiling it for you! After a lot of kerfuffle, we find out that Jeremy, the missing dude, was killed by the Cambodian maffia. The film ends with Dave giving in and telling the authorities, and he and his wife, who was going to leave him, move into a new house. I know it doesn't have the same impact when you see it written down as opposed to actually seeing it, but believe me its the worst ending I've seen in a long time. It's just so tacked on and useless. The rest of the film is kinda tense, almost nerve-wracking for some scenes, but the ending.... it just doesn't fit!!

Ok, enough ranting. In case you haven't guessed, this one took a while because it was so mediocre. I wouldn't recommend it, unless you have a couple of hours to spare with nothing else to do. The best word to describe this film is competent. It's very well made, and it is enjoyable while you're watching it, but once you leave the the cinema, you just feel like you've wasted a little part of your life. I don't understand the hype it gets, but apparently some people out there like it. Anyway, I'm going to stop. I've been on this review too long. Goodnight and good luck, people. Until next time.

Footnote

Hello, and welcome again to more CAE movies, the best of the arty, bizarre and underappreciated. To start this term, we are looking at Cannes favourite Israeli film, Footnote, directed by Joseph Cedar. The story is exceptionally simple. A father, Prof. Eliezer Shkolnik (played by Shlomo Bar Aba), who has spent his entire life researching and teaching at the Talmudic Research department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, finally gets told that he will be given the Israel Prize after trying to get it for nearly 20 years. The only problem is that it was really meant for more popular and successful his son, Prof. Uriel Shkolnik (Lior Ashkenazi), who is also a Talmudic professor. What plays out in the film is a power struggle, a battle if you will, plays out between the father and son, and on many other levels, including generational misunderstandings and arguments between different methods of academic research. There is even a subplot about the social hierarchy of the university, shown with Eliezer's rival, Prof. Yehuda Grossman (Micah Lewensohn).

This film reminds me mostly of Shame, in the fact that a lot of what happens isn't fully explained and left up to audience interpretation. The director (thankfully!) is aware of this, and if you look up any interview with him about this film, he can give you his opinions on certain aspects. But this is my take on some of the thematic elements of the film. (I know that's just a roundabout way to get the analysis, but seriously, Joseph Cedar is one smart dude, and it's nice to hear a director explain what he wanted to do with his film rather than just say 'Interpret it yourself!'). The best way to sum up what is going on underneath all the layers of the film is to quote the director quoting Henry Kissinger: "The reason academic politics are so bitter, is that there is so little at stake." This is clear through the fact that there are three characters (Eliezer, Uriel and Grossman) who all study the same thing, "different versions and phrasings of the Jerusalem Talmud" (thank you Wikipedia!) and the competition and bitterness between the three of them is clear throughout the film.

The father and son battle at the centre of the film is, for lack of a better word, sad. This is the only film I've seen where the two main characters never share a word with each other. It's not that they don't face each other or share the screen together, no. They never speak to each other (from what I remember. There may be one conversation that they share.) And as such, we have to view their relationship through how they interact and the conversations they have with other characters. We see that the father hardly ever talks to his family, that he is almost uncomfortable to be around them, particularly his son and his wife. A lot of the time we have to guess what he is thinking from his facial expressions. The son is a lot more extroverted, complaining a lot to his wife and speaking his frustrations instead of bottling them. But even for their obvious differences, they're still similar enough for you to believe that they are father and son. They are both stubborn and proud, though Eliezer has a silent pride that you get from his expressions and the way he holds himself, and it comes from his jealously of his sons success. Uriel's pride (or broken pride, depending on where you are in the film) comes from the anger he feels towards his father and the fact that his father
can never accept that he is the more successful of the two.

But I said that this relationship was sad, and the reason for that is that you never get the feeling that they will never reconcile their differences, especially after this incident. Just to prove this, the film starts and ends on Eliezer's face. In the beginning, he is at an award ceremony for his son, who has just been accepted into the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. but instead of looking please, he looks put out and annoyed to be there, showing his disgust at his son for achieving more greatness than him in his own field. At the end, Eliezer is about to receive the Israel Prize, and after all that has happened, we finally see the fear that he may never mend his relatioship with his son, and we get the feeling that he is having an internal struggle about whether an award for academic achiements that he has waited for all his life is more important to him that his son.

Both main characters are sympathetic in their own way, yet both are also incredibly hard to like, throughout the film you'll find your sympathies constantly switching sides. Both actors are exceptional, but the quiet performance from Shlomo Bar Aba (who is better known as a stage comedian in Israel) as Eliezer outshines the rest of the cast, if only because his is the harder role, and he is able to show every thought on his face. The wife of Eliezer, Yehudit (played so movingly by Alisa Rosen) is probably the most empathetic out of the cast, as she is pulled between two opposing forces and is herself forced to take sides in this mistake. The other woman in the film is Uriel's wife, Dikla Shkolnik (Alma Zack). While she hasn't got much to do, she is the ear in which Uriel pours all of his troubles and frustrations, and therefore becomes an outsider commenting on what is happening between the father and son. And even with the little screen time she is given, her character is still as complex as any of the others that are focused on in this film.

Tradition, and moving away from tradition, is a big theme that is brought to the forefront when the family go to see a production of Fiddler on the Roof, which outlines the differences each generation faces, and how their decisions are opposed by the previous generation, who demands the traditional way. This is not only present between Eliezer and Uriel, but also between Uriel and his son, who Uriel believes is wasting his life, and one scene he actually lashes out at his son because he can't understand why he is hesitating before proceeding with his studies. This triple generational problem shows us that not only within academic circumstances can one expect something like the misunderstandings this family faces to happen. One last little symbolic motif I want to talk about is the concept of a fortress, and how a fortress can be both a sanctuary and a prison, which is clear in the character of Eliezer, as he shields everyone from his thoughts. Even his study looks like a fortress, and we see him cutting off people by putting on head-phones to drown out everything but his own mind.

Anyway, enough of the thematic stuff. Let's movie on to how the movie is presented. There are some devices used in here that remind me of director Jean-Pierre Jeunet, especially in the way that the two main characters are introduced to us. There are also title cards that appear at the beginning of any important moment, to foreshadow what's about to happen. This disarms the viewer into thinking that the film is a comedy, which it really isn't. But the main problem that a lot of people have with the film is the music. It's this farcial, jaunty score that juxtaposes terribly with the serious nature of the film. For some light hearted scenes it sort of works (like the scene in which Uriel loses his clothes and has to walk around the campus with only a towe on, don't ask!), but even then, the music is at best annoying. It draws too much away from the action instead of highlighting what is going on in the film. And because of that, the tone is all over the place, and doesn't really settle until the last third of the film. That's mainly why this is such a hard film to market, because it doesn't seem to know whether to take itself seriously or not, and if you go into it expecting a comedy, you will be very surprised.

It is a shame that the main problem of the film is a technical one, as everything else is more than satisfactory. If you can put up with the sudden tone changes, then this is definitely a film I reccomend you to see. The story and the acting in it are amazing, and for all those symbolism fans, there is a lot here to keep you entertained, and I can safely say that there is no film like it. Hell, it reminded me of Shame and Jean-Pierre Jeunet! That's go to count for something!

(Next review should be Wish You Were Here, unless I get bored and change my mind. And here's the interview with director Joseph Cedar, which explains a lot of the film better than I ever could!
http://www.emanuellevy.com/interview/footnote-interview-with-director-joseph-cedar/ )