Bernie

Now, if you read this drivel I call a blog, you might remember that I did a review on Michael Winterbottom's film Trishna and I cited Winterbottom as one of the most interesting and diverse directors around at the moment. Well, either I've found the American equivalent or this dude surpasses him in diversity. I have only seen two of Richard Linklater's films (well, three now), School of Rock and A Scanner Darkly. I think you can see just from those two that Linklater is a very eclectic director. But I'm not here to talk about Linklater's career, I was merely using the fact that he was the director of Bernie, which is the film I am reviewing (you might have noticed the title), as a pathway to write the introduction. But I'm fairly sure that's gone tits up, so I'll get on with the synopsis instead.

Bernhardt "Bernie" Tiede (Jack Black) the assistant mortician for Leggit Funeral Homes, is a very friendly and amicable member of Carthage society. Always eager to help those less fortunate, Bernie is very popular among the old widows of the town, and it is at her husbands funeral where he meets Majorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) the richest and grumpiest widow out of all of them. At first just checking to make sure she is alright, Bernie calls on her numerous times and eventually the two become inseperable. They travel around the world together and, gradually, Majorie becomes more and more dependent on Bernie, and begins to drag him away from his work and other social commitments. This dependency takes it toll on the overly extroverted Bernie. Then, suddenly, Marjorie is gone and Bernie is back to his old social self. The townsfolk of Carthage don't worry about Marjorie until 9 months later, when she is discovered dead in her freezer, and Bernie is arrested, much to the surprise of the town.

I didn't know this was based on a true story, Linklater was inspired by an article he read called "Midnight in the Garden of East Texas". It's almost too unbelievable to be a true story. I know the synopsis I just wrote makes it seem like this could really happen, but it's both the characters and general reaction from the town that makes this a little more unrealistic. Linklater scatters actual interviews from actual residents of the actual Carthage. (Though a lot of the dialogue was taken from the actual article.) This gives the film a mockumentary type feel, as the townspeople are just so over the top. And especially when you throw Matthew McConaughey as District Attorney Danny Buck. But the weirdest thing about this film is it's not really about Bernie at all, it's about the town reaction to his crime (Oh, right, spoilers. Sorry).

No one in Carthage, except for Danny Buck, believes that Bernie killed Mrs. Nugent, even though he confessed to it when he was arrested. And it's only after seeing the film that you start to think about all the issues that it raised. Is Bernie a bad person because he killed someone, or is he a good person because he helped so many people with the money he 'stole' from Mrs. Nugent? Or is the town in the wrong for siding with a criminal because they are simply judging him from previous experiences? We see the events through the eyes of the town, and in the end the town becomes the biggest character of the film. And it is through them that we come to sympathise with Bernie.

Or at least we would. This is an odd film in which you don't really feel any emotional connection to the two main characters. Bernie is built as such a good person by the town, that in all honesty you can't believe it and so he becomes this idea of a person rather than a real person. I didn't care a bit about what happened to Mrs. Nugent, and it wasn't because she was a mean spirited character. It was because the townspeople didn't mention her once after she had been killed. The real life Danny Buck commented during the events "It's almost as if an old woman wasn't shot in the back 4 times." That prettty much sums up the towns opnion.

I have to say that I am a big fan of both Jack Black and Shirley MacLaine, and this is defnitely the best thing that Jack Black has done (except for maybe School of Rock). I hate the fact that after High Fidelity he just kept getting type-cast as this rocker/slacker who was slightly more manic than everyone around him. This finally gives him a chance to show how good he is, and I would love to see him in a musical one of these days. MacLaine is excellent, as always, though she feels a little underused, but that's mainly because her character was so small. Matthew McConaughey was also really good, and I have to say it's the funniest thing I've seen him in in a long time. But the best part of the film was definitely the townspeople. You see them, and see their mannerisms and you start laughing already. Then they speak. That Texan drawl, the southern slang that they use. And the things they say! "That Majorie Nugent had her nose so high in the air, she could drown in a rainfall." Brilliant!

This was a hard film to talk about, but I would definitely recommend it. If you liked "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" (and I did) then this is almost like a parody of it, even down to moving the trial to a different part of the state in order for it to be fair. It poses some good issues that come once the film is finished, and while you're watching it is mildly funny, a little dark at times, but still funny. It is the only time where different sections of the cinema laughed at different parts of the film. Jack Black is brilliant in this, and he's worth the admission price alone. So, yeah, there's nothing more I can say. Go see it! Until next time readers, where I will attempt to tackle an artsy French film. Wish me luck!

Brimstone and Treacle: 2 Adaptations

 
So, let's talk about teleplays for a minute. The term teleplay was first used in the 1950s to describe 60-90 minute plays that were specially written for the TV as one offs. There used to be programs dedicated to producing these plays, and they generally had limited sets and actors. They were pretty much stage plays on the TV. And from the 60s to the 80s there was one man who was considered to be the very best out of the bunch. Dennis Potter was one of the best writers for the BBC, writing complete series along with numerous teleplays. His most famous series include The Singing Detective and Pennies from Heaven (both of with were turned into rather unsuccessful films). Unfortunately, Potter was a sufferer of psoriatic arthropathy, a rare skin and joint disease which left him bed ridden, depressed and irritable for most of his life. So, this meant that a lot of his teleplays were very dark and often dealt with the lowest forms of the human existence. Which is where Brimstone and Treacle comes in.

Pattie Bates, daughter of Tom and Amy/Norma Bates, was involved in a severe hit and run accident and for 2 years has been reduced to a blubbering baby, strapped down to a sofa and unable to feed or wash herself. This task falls to her poor parents, especially for Mrs. Bates, who is quickly reaching her breaking point as she cannot leave the house. Into this mess steps a charming stranger, Martin Taylor, who claims to be an old friend of Pattie and was unaware of the state she is in due to be out of the country. After fainting from hearing the news, he makes his way to the Bates' household with the pretence of returning Tom's wallet, and he appears to be the answer to everyones prayers. Yet is he really, for behind his nice facade is a sinister presence that threatens this already rocky household.

There are 2 versions of this (if you hadn't already guessed from the title): the 1976 teleplay with Michael Kitchen as Martin, Denholm Elliot as Tom and Patricia Lawrence as Amy, and the 1982 film with Elliot returning as Tom, Joan Plowright as Norma (the name was changed between versions) and Sting as Martin. Yes, that Sting. And you'd be surprised at how different both of them are. But before we go into the fun stuff, we need to go into the sordid little history of this story, because it's what everyone talks about and what everyone remembers. If you don't want spoilers, stop reading now. This play was banned in 1976 for including a scene where Martin rapes an unknowing, mentally disabled Pattie. Unfortunately, this is what makes the play famous. It was eventually shown 11 years later, but by then any and all political or social commentary of the time was lost on audiences who did see it.

Dennis Potter himself has said that he wrote Brimstone and Treacle "in difficult personal circumstances. Years of acute psoriatic arthropathy... had mediated my view of the world and the people in it. I recall writing... that the only meaningful sacrament left to human beings was for them to gather in the streets in order to be sick together." You can see traces of this view in the teleplay and a little less so in the film. In order to look fully at the differences and similarities between the two versions, I'm going to have to go into massive spoiler territory (and I will also have to talk about the rape quite a bit as well), so if you don't want anything spoilt, don't read the rest until you have seen whichever version interests you. I will say this though, they are too similar for one to be any better than the other, and it really comes down to more personal taste. For me, I can't choose between the two, they both have elements that I like and hate. I think that in terms of overall quality the teleplay is better by a centimetre, yet there are some things from the film that I really like. And I will go into what they are and all that in a minute. So, now that that's out of the way, let the spoilers commence!

Let's look at our anti-hero, Martin. We don't really know much about him and when we first meet him, we can assume that he's either a con artist or just a general scum bag from the way he tries to weasel his way into people's lives. As the story continues, it becomes clear that he is some sort of supernatural being and it is hinted that he is the Devil. In the teleplay, you are almost outright told that he is the Devil, as his powers are very prominent within the story. Also, Kitchen's performance is really unsubtle about it, with little asides and hints to the audience. In the film, it's more ambiguous, and in all honesty, Sting probably wasn't the best actor for the part. He comes off as rather confused as to what the character is meant to be like and therefore appears incompetent. He was brooding and rather menacing at times, but at others he just came off as childish and naive. So, I wouldn't say he was the Devil, rather one of his demon minions. Kitchen, however, really feels like the Devil and is generally more theatrical than Sting. And where Sting comes off as childish, Kitchen just comes off as patronizing.

The only other character I want to talk in depth about is Pattie, portrayed in the teleplay by Michelle Newell and Suzanna Hamilton in the film. Now, I'm not sure what kind of direction Newell was given, but in the teleplay I was torn between being offended and laughing my head off by her performance. She was being too over the top, making stupid faces and generally taking everything too far. Hamilton was more realistic, and it's one of the things I prefer about the film. Though both performances were a bit iffy, Newell's would've been more acceptable on stage. But in close up, on a screen, it was just awful. Denholm Elliot was excellent in both, though I think he had a little more to work with in the teleplay. I don't understand why Mrs Bates' first name was changed from Amy to Norma, but the acting was good in both. I preferred her in the film, but that's just because it's Joan Plowright, and she's awesome.

Okay, let's talk about context. Surely there wouldn't be that many changes from teleplay to film. Well, amazingly there were. There are some scenes  that are shuffled around and one of the big reveals that is left to the end in the play is shown half way through the film. Sting also gets a lot of extra scenes, some even without his shirt on, and there are some parts that are elongated to create a longer running time, and there is one important scene from the play that is gone altogether. The scene I'm talking about is near the end of the teleplay, where Martin points out Tom's bigotry regarding his support of the National Front (a far right, nationalist party that was most popular in the 70s, and had a 'whites only' bias), and shows him what the logical conclusion of his racism and continued support would be. It's a very strong scene, and for me the best part of the play, but because it was banned all social context for this scene is gone, and so all those people who saw it in 1987 lost all the power that would have been there if it had been released in 1976. The other big difference is the prayer scene in the middle is longer in the film and it drags. It's done so much better in the teleplay, with the lighting and wind effects. In fact, a lot of the effects are done better in the play. I think that the film squanders the opportunity it has (what with being a film and all) and while it looks better and has more sets than the play, it just plays it safe, which is a shame.

And now we get on to the message Potter was trying to convey, which is pretty much the same in both. This is a tricky onw, and some people may not see it this way. But this is what I took out of it, and there are no definitive answers and I make no real attempt to answer them. Pattie only becomes responsive after Martin rapes her, becomes fully concious again after he attempts to rape her a second time. Now, this could just be one of those weird psychological things where after a person has gone through traumatic incident, they need another traumatic incident in order to snap them out of their slump. But if Martin is the Devil, and Mrs. Bates has been praying for a miracle to bring Pattie back... well, let's just say it raises some questions. Like, is Martin, the physical embodiment of the Devil (or a demon, still iffy about that), the miracle that Mrs. Bates has been praying for? Did Martin know that by raping Pattie, he would be bringing her back to conciousness? And, biggest question of all, what happens next? Nothing good, that's for sure. For you see, we discover that Pattie was hit by a car while she was running away from her father after discovering his infidelity (in the film with a co-worker, in the play with one of Pattie's friends). So, this then leaves us with the question was it a good thing Martin came into the Bates' life? You can answer both yes and no, but nothing is clean cut.

In the end, this was designed to raise questions rather than give answers. I still find it amazing that two very similar adaptations could have so many differences in them. I must say again, that there were some things that I didn't get around to talking about, but as this is one of my wordiest reviews I figured that I should stop. After writing this, and thinking about it intensely, the teleplay is by far the superior version, and if I haven't spoilt it enough for you, then that is the one you should watch if you are so inclined. I will say that the infamous rape scene won't seem very shocking today. It is slightly more scandalous in the film because it has nudity, but you don't see anything horrorfying. So yeah, that's my 5 cents. Next time we will be back to CAE movies, starting with Bernie. Until next time readers.

MIFF: ParaNorman

Due to unforseen circumstances, this will be the last film from the MIFF this year that I will be talking about. I was hoping to see The Suicide Shop as well, but that sold out for some reason. And not this amazing film. They must've had a smaller cinema. Oh well, Melbourne is a weird place, with very tiny cinemas it seems. This film is rather weird too. For starters, this is incredibly dark for a kids film, which makes it a risk. But they managed to pull it off. Hey, they did more than pull it off! This is pretty incredible (and I will go into why soon), but the best way I can describe it is a coming of age story, with zombies. That's it in a nutshell. Out of a nutshell, and this film is so much more.

Norman is an 11 year-old social outcast who can talk to ghosts. When his town is threatened by an ancient curse that raises the dead, it causes panic amongst it's residents. It's up to Norman and his associates (his sister Courtney, his friend and fellow outcast Neil, Neil's brother Mitch and school bully Alvin) to try and stop the attack before the town is destroyed. But that's just the main plot. The voice cast includes Kodi Smit-McPhee as Norman, Tucker Albrizzi as Neil, Casey Affleck as Mitch, Anna Kendrick as Courtney and Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Alvin, with John Goodman also making an appearance as the town crazy, Mr Penderghast.

I wanted to see this movie from the minute I saw the trailer on youtube. In all honesty, it's one of the best trailers I've ever seen. It gives a perfect depiction of the mood of the movie, using clips that don't give anything away and yet also shows how awesome the film as a whole would be to watch. And it's got the perfect song. (Don't believe me? Watch it here!) So, I watched the trailer about a month ago and have been hyping myself up for this ever since. Was it worth it? Well, in my opninion, this is one of the best (if not the best) kids movies since Monsters Inc.

I'm serious, this manages to be goofy and serious in the right parts, and the message it gives it very relevant and strong. The film is incredibly risky, dealing in all those things that safer studios like Disney and Dreamworks won't even touch. Themes like death and moving on, bullying and the brutal prejudice that comes with fear of the unknown. While many Disney films do deal with death and the outsider trying to fit in, but they never go into death and grief in any great detail, it's mainly used for pathos and shock. And they never examine where this prejudice comes from, or else they just fall into annoying cliches. Laika, the production company for ParaNorman, instead shows a tragicically honest portrayal of those parts of childhood we'd rather forget.

 
This doesn't seem like an anti-bullying film, which is good. Obvious message movies piss me off, I prefer my morals wrapped in pastry. But unlike other movies that simply say bullying is bad and leave it at that, ParaNorman goes deeper and looks into why people will discriminate against those who are different, and also what effects it has on those who are bullied. This makes our main villains, the zombies, more complex than your average douche-bag, and also makes our hero, Norman, so much more realistic. There's also a neat little thing about how prejudice and fear has been around for centuriesand that we are merely repeating the mistakes of out ancestors and that the mistakes of the past will have repercussions in the future. If you watch the movie, you will know exactly what I mean.

But the thing I like most about this film is that it doesn't shove it's message down your throat, it merely presents the story and leads you in the direction they want you to take, but there is no nod to the audience saying "Do this, it's the right thing to do. If you don't, then you're a bad person". Through the characters and their actions do they get the message across. And these characters are pretty amazing. I briefly mentioned Norman earlier, but he really is an excellent protagonist, plagued by a gift he doesn't want and living with a family who find it hard to accept him and connect with him. He gets bullied at school and his only friends (before Neil) are the ghosts that he talks to, including his deceased grandmother. And yet, he is the only one who can save the town because of his gift (ironic, right?), and even though he isn't treated with any sort of respect, he takes on this responsibilty because no one else can, no matter how scared he is. And in the end, his fear drives him to finish his task. The other character I want to highlight quickly is Neil, who is so optimistic despite everything and how he's treated and is the first person to actually try and get to know Norman, yet not out of pity. More out of curiousity, I think, and kindness and empathy. And he stands by him no matter what.

I didn't mean for this to turn into such an essay, but you should know by now that the longer I make a review the more I like the film. So, now let us get on to the animation. So, this is produced by Laika, the same studio that also made the incredible Coraline adaptation. So, you already know that the animation is going to be amazing at the very least. And this is astounding! The character designs are grotesque caricatures of actual people. They look fantastic! They look how real people should look, just not as pretty. And the animation itself is beautifully flawless. This took 4 years to make, and you can really see all the time and love that went into making it. All I have are words of praise and thanks for the animators, so in the unlikely event of any of them reading this, well done chaps!

I really only have one complaint with the film and it's more of a nitpick/personals preference type thing so I'm not even bothering to mention it. This film is amazing, I don't know how many times I've said it, but I will keep saying it. It knows exactly the right moments when to be dark, and when to have a joke, and it treats it's audience (kids) with the respect that they deserve. The dialogue is very naturaland witty, and while it has a few pop culture references, it's not a Dreamworks movie. I'm not going to lie, there are a few gross bits and really little kids may find this scary. But for a slightly older audience this will definitely entertain. The music is also good, but it was when there wasn't any score that the atmosphere really intensified. I've got nothing more to say really, except it's so refreshing to see a smart kids film for one. You should see it. I've used up my entire collection of praising adjectives to describe this movie, and it's one of the rare films that the majority of people will like. Laika took a risk with this, and I'm glad they did. Maybe now a better calibre of kids movies will finally grace our screens. Until next time, readers, tis the season of the witch!

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

I can see why people wouldn't like this film. It does go a little CG-I crazy, and some of the action set pieces are a bit far-fetched. And Jimmi Simpson's accent is more than a little bit iffy. But the acting is very solid and it ties in a lot of the things from Lincoln's actual life very well and-... Wait, what was that? This film is too serious? Are you kidding me?! So, Abraham Lincoln destroying vampires with an axe that also transforms into a shotgun is too serious? ... You guys have an odd sense of serious.

Based on the book by Seth Grahame-Smith (who also wrote Pride and Prejudice and Zombies), this basically tells the history of Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker), but with vampires. When he's a youngster, Abe sees his mother killed by a vindictive vampire Jack Barts (Marton Csokas), and grows up harbouring a wish to avenge his mothers death. After almost being killed by Barts, he gains a mentor in Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper), another vampire (but a good one, not an evil one) who trains him to be a vampire hunter. Fighting these monsters inspires Lincoln to pursue a political career. Eventually, he puts his slaying days behind him in order to protect his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), but is forced back into his old ways as the civil war approaches and the southern forces use vampires to help them, lead by Adam (Rufus Sewell).

I'm sure if you know more about Lincoln's life you will get more out of the way the historical events are portrayed in the story. But even if you don't (and I certainly didn't) you still get a fairly enjoyable and easy to follow story out of this. But really, this is too serious? I think that's one of the weirdest complaints for a movie I've heard. People seemed to think that this was meant to be a tongue in cheek tribute to the man. But the premise is so tongue in cheek already that if it was any sillier then it wouldn't have worked. Instead, they took a slightly silly idea and made it epic! And when a film is filled with silly sounding scenes, like Abe's training montage (a freaking training montage!), and they give them a serious edge, it adds a little gravitas to the occasion, and makes it awesome!

The acting is superb in this, even the slightly odd choices of Jimmi Simpson as Joshua Speed and Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Mary Todd Washington (mainly because I've only seen them in teen movies). Everyone is really bloody good, but of course the star is Benjamin Walker as Lincoln, who behind the serious facade you can tell is having a lot of fun. He manages to be an action star whilst looking like he belongs in a period drama, which is the perfect mix! Rufus Sewell as Adam is also good, and wonderfully hammy in some parts, but not so much that he loses his menace. Although the person who steals the film with his performance is Dominic Cooper as Henry. He gives a rather honest performance of a man who has lost everything yet continues to fight against those who must be stopped, and in the end becomes a presence surrounding Lincoln's life.

 
The problems I have with the film are basically the CG-I and the way the vampire lore is handled. Because of budget restraints, most of the action scenes were done with an excessive use of CG-I, and so sneaky techniques with smoke and dust are used to hide this fact. But in all honesty, the fights are choreographed so well that I can forgive the hazy, smoked filled mess it becomes, because depsite all that, we can still see what's happening instead of the usual shaky cam nonsense. The vampire lore is a little harder to forgive, but I do give them props for the changes they made. And it does do the sensible thing of showing us how the vampires are portrayed instead of outright telling.


But it doesn't explain everything. Like why vampires can walk around in the day without spontaneously combusting. I think it's hinted that sunlight is mildly inconvenient due to the fact that they wear veils and sunglasses whilst out and about, but it would've been nice to hear the actual explanation for it. So, instead of sunlight killing them, it's silver, which is used in the story very well, and becomes a really good plot point. The other thing that they changed to the normal lore is that vampires can't kill other vampires, which here is basically used as the reason Henry gets Abe to be his pupil. There isn't really an explanation given for this, the only thing that comes close is a line Henry gives where he says 'Only the living can kill the dead', but that seems a little cliche ridden to me.

Apart from those unexplained phenomenom, I'd say this is a good film. Maybe not a great film, but definitely not deserving of the crap it's been getting. I reckon if people went to see this with a different mindset and not expect a cheeky riff on history, then they may enjoy it more. Not that it's historically accurate at all (Lincoln had three children, not one!), but that has never before stood in the way of a clever story. The best way I can describe this is a historical action movie, and if you remember that all action movies aren't piles of fun then sit back and enjoy an excellent escapist movie with good acting and vampires. What more could you want! Until next time, readers, where I promise it will be zombies!

MIFF: Le Tableau

Oh my goodness! This film is gorgeous! It's graceful! It's glamorous, and many other adjectives beginning with 'g'! It is God! If you are a fan of animation, you have to see this film. If you like fantastical films of whimsy, then you have to see this film. If you like French films, then you have to see this film. In case you hadn't guessed it already, I kinda like this film. No, scrap that. I love this film! I wish it was getting more than just two showings at the MIFF, but hopefully Nova or Palace will distribute it after, though I am very doubtful. This is one that I will definitely be buying on DVD!

So, what is this gorgeous film about? Well, in a painting depicting a palace surrounded by a dense forest stands a rigid social hierarchy between the Alldunns (the finished people), the Halfies (those who are half finished), and the Sketchies (rough pencil sketches). This prejudice comes to a head when the Grand Candlestick (leader of the Alldunns) makes it known that the painter will not be coming back to finish the painting. So, three mismatched characters set off to find the painter and ask him to come back and finish off everyone's designs. Leading them is Lola (Jessica Monceau) a vivacious and thoughtful Halfie, Plume (Thierry Jahn, named Quill in the sub) a Sketchie who is angry at the Alldunns for what they did to his friends, Gom, and Ramo (Adrien Larmande) an Alldunn who is love with Halfie, Claire (Chloé Berthier). Together they escape their painting and go hunting for the painter, encountering his other paintings along the way.

It's quite a simple premise, but I'm surprised that no one else has made something like this before. The only thing that comes close are the talking pictures in Harry Potter and Night at the Museum 2. But this seems to be the first time a film has been devoted to exploring what happens to paintings once they are finished. (I could be completely wrong of course, and if I am please tell me so. And also what films do explore this amazingly simple premise). But I struggle to call this a kids film, it's really too philosophicalfor kids to understand some of the ideas that are represented in the film. Not that they won't enjoy it, or get something out of it. The colours are bright, the music (which I will get to later) is loud and the characters are very memorable, though there are some dark moments. And there is a nude painting, which immature kids will laugh at (I speak from experience, I was unfortunate to see this with three groups of high school kids, HIGH SCHOOL for chrissakes, and they thought a topless woman was hilarious). But her body is very stylised, and, like a piece of art, you can't really object to it.

Anyway, let me get on to what makes this film so amazing, the animation. The film was animated in digital 3D, but it feels like it was rotoscoped. Every characters actions are incredibly fluid., it's so amazing! And the backgrounds are really pretty! It took over 2 years in production, and was made only on a budget of $4 million. There are also little differences between the paintings so that you can tell them apart but still see that they are still by the same painter. And the parts during the real world use real sets with animation over the top of them, all of it just adding to the awesomeness that is this film! The voice acting is also excellent and I do have to give extra credit to Thierry Jahn as Plume for doing an excellent job as an angry and guilty Sketchie, and also to Jessica Monceau as Lola, because she has so much life in her voice.

There are some dark elements in this, particularly when Gom is discovered in the Alldunns palace and they beat him to ... death? It's quite a disturbing part, exaggerated greatly by the music. Oh god, this score is brilliant! There are a lot of scenes without talking and the score is so constant in those parts it's like watching an old ballet. In fact, the score reminded me most of the ballets of Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky, especially the Nutcracker and Firebird suites. It was so bombasticand prominent, that the few moments without music were truly magical, like when Lola jumps out of her painting. Best part of the film.

So, because of my laziness, you might be reading this after the second screening of this masterpiece. But if you ever get a chance, see it! A philosophical French animated movie about art may seem pretentious, but because this was made for a younger audience, there is a certain innocence about it that makes the questions it raises a little child-like and he answers easy to find (if you look hard enough). And no, I'm not going to go into what the film means. For a 70 minute film, this is really deep, and one that you really have to find out for yourself. I know what it means to me, but it's hard to put into words. And for you, it may be completely different. Until next time, in which we will explore a stop motion zombie film. Hooray!

MIFF: A Monster in Paris

So, yesterday was my first foray into the Melbourne International Film Festival (which will be known as the MIFF from henceforth). I saw two very different and very enjoyable films, but I will only be talking about one. Guess which one it is. The other film I saw was Harold and Maude at ACMI, as part of a special retrospective of 70s new wave comedy. This will be saved for a special occasion as it just so happens to be my favourite movie of all time! Which leaves us with the French animated movie-musical, A Monster in Paris.

The film is about the exploits of friends Raoul (voiced by Adam Goldberg) and Emile (Jay Harrington), who accidentally create a seven foot tall singing flea (later named Francoeur, and voiced by Sean Lennon). The flea causes panic among the citizens of Paris, and yet befriends cabaret singer Lucille (Vanessa Paradis). Lucille gets Francoeur a spot in her cabaret and the two become a smash hit. The only problem is that Lucille is also being wooed by the pompous commissioner of the police, Maynott (Danny Huston) who has taken it upon himself to the destroy the 'monster' in order to further his career. There are a few side plots as well, one involving Emile's love interest Maude (Madeline Zima), and they all sort of come together at the end of the movie. Sort of.

I first heard about this movie through Film Brain's Projector review of it (which you should watch and can be seen here) and I got captivated by the music, and consequently listened to the main single from the film "La Seine" non-stop for a week. I never really thought that it would ever make it to Australia except on direct to DVD, but it made it to the big screen!Was it worth it? Yes, and no. I will say now that the good things outweigh the bad, and seeing those musical numbers on the bigscreen was definitely worth it. But this is merely an okay film, rather than a good film. And there were a couple of things that didn't work. For me, anyway.

The first is the American dub. Or more specifically, Adam Goldberg as Raoul, since everyone else is actually pretty good. But Goldberg is just annoying, and he lacks the rogue-ish charm that makes Raoul a likeable character. Instead, he just comes off as loud and obnoxious. He does get more bearable as the film goes on, and Raoul gets some of the funniest lines. But Goldberg's vocal abilities just aren't enough to carry the character and he ends up making the character really unlikeable in parts. Another thing is the line delivery. The French speak very quickly, so a lot of the mouth movements for characters are really fast. This means that a lot of the characters (Raoul especially) speak ten times faster that they need to. Which makes the film seem to quicker, making it feel rushed. The first ten minutes go by in such a blur, it's exhausting.

The other thing that really annoys me is the tagged on ending. Well, it feels like a tagged on ending. Basically (spoilers!), Raoul and Lucille end up together. This should not be! My facebook dp for a while was a picture of Lucille and Francoeur with "If these two don't end up together, there will be fangirl riots" written underneath. They didn't end up together, and I am rioting! It's not just my fangirlish nature talking here. The film would've been a lot better if they ended at the end of the final song "Just a Little Kiss", because they resolve everything and yet there's still some ambiguity as to what happens next. Plus the song leads perfectly into the remixed version used over the end credits.

Speaking of the end credits, let's talk about what was actually good in this film. And I'm not saying the end credits were good because the movie was over, the end credits were good because they had a lot of the concept art for the characters in the background. The character design in this film is really original. There are caracatures and big noses and chins and crazy hair! It's glorious! And the costume design for the characters is really good too. Vanessa Paradis is excellent as Lucille, though her French accent is a bit of a dramatic contrast from the American cast.

 But let me get to the best part of the movie, and that is Francoeur. I love everything about this characters, his design, the little chirruppy noises he makes to communicate, Sean Lennon as his singing voice. I know some of you may be thinking it's a little odd for me to want a seven foot tall singing flea to get with the female protagonist, but the way he's animated is so human. You forget half the time that he is an insect, and the way he interacts with Lucille implies a 'special' relationship. I also know that fans of the French dub will be saying the Matthieu Chedid is the only voice for Francoeur. I love both of them! They are similar enough to both fit perfectly witht he character, yet different enough to stand out on their own. Chedid's is darker, with more of an edge to it, while Lennon's is higher and sweeter. In all honesty, I can't choose between them which one I prefer the best.


The other thing that made this film were the amazing musical numbers. Clips of them can be found on youtube, and if you feel the urge check out the clip for "Le Seine" either English or French. From the Django Reinhardt guitar opening and underscoring, to the blending of voices between Vanessa Paradis and either Chedid or Lennon, it really is almost perfect. And the animation for that scene is the best in the film. Sweeping from the cabaret stage above the Seine and up to the Eiffel Tour, only to come back down again for bows. The unfortunate thing is that there aren't enough songs! There needs to be more! If the movie had more Lucille and Francoeur dancing and singing together then I might've fangasmed. As it is, I merely smiled along with the music.

Sorry for being all fangirly on this one, but those two characters would have to be my OTP. (sigh) Anyway, I think this is on later in the MIFF, so if you feel like spending $18 to go see it, be my guest. Otherwise, I'd wait for the DVD. Though, the cinema they put us in at Melbourne Central was pretty impressive. And the screen was bloody huge!! But anyway, this is nice for kids, and escapist fun for adults. Not the best animated movie, but the songs really saved it. Until next time folks! next MIFF film should Le Tableau, unless something unforseen happens...