Friday, July 11, 2003
8 Women
Directed by Francois Ozon
I was half expecting a comedy but instead of getting an explosive hilarious blown out mouth muscle exercise, 8 Women lets me down. Sure enough there are the gags – the exchanges of insult between the women; and there are the musical items which reminds the audience that they are watching a staged movie. Of course, we are all eager to find out who’s the murderer – which is only the reason that keeps us going, that is, if you are still interested and not put off by what I have just said.
A rich man, Marcel, is murdered in his house during Christmas and we have 8 suspects. Gaby (Catherine Deneuve) the wife whom they no longer sleep together anymore; his mother-in-law, Mamy (Danielle Darrieux) who stays in his house and refuses to lend him her bonds when he finds out he is going broke, his bespectacled sister-in-law, Augustine (Isabelle Huppert) who has a crush on him; his two daughters, Catherine (Ludivine Sagnier) who wears a green outfit and Suzon (Virginie Ledoyen) the elder one who just came back; Louise (Emmanuelle Beart) the perky fair housemaid and Chanel (Firmine Richard) the black big cook , and his sister Pierrette (Fanny Ardant) who went to his house after she received a suspicious phone call.
As the movie progresses, the plot thickens with more confusing threads to the murder. We know more about each character and what their relationship is to Marcel but somehow, we are unsure because some of their revelations turn out to be lies and we are caught in the dilemma and frustration of trying to figure everything out, which is extremely messy.
The gags fail at times and certain exchanges are unnecessarily. When Augustine pretended to faint and was given to be given a shot, Gaby and Louise started quarreling over whether the latter should do it. When Augustine was given her shot, Ozon deliberately reveals her bare bum and as the needle plunges in, Augustine breaks out into a orgasmic smile which is crass humour. Catherine and Suzon were exchanging an amiable conversation one moment about boys and before you know it, they got into a heated argument when the younger sister thinks the older one has no right to be preachy. Augustine refuses to acknowledge that she was in the same book club as Pierrette but when she fainted and murmured a sentence, the latter said that it was a quote from one of the books that both of them had read.
It’s not entirely the most genius ending and 8 Women is just that. A movie which tries to capture attention with its artificial bright colours - all camp but no substance.
Directed by Francois Ozon
I was half expecting a comedy but instead of getting an explosive hilarious blown out mouth muscle exercise, 8 Women lets me down. Sure enough there are the gags – the exchanges of insult between the women; and there are the musical items which reminds the audience that they are watching a staged movie. Of course, we are all eager to find out who’s the murderer – which is only the reason that keeps us going, that is, if you are still interested and not put off by what I have just said.
A rich man, Marcel, is murdered in his house during Christmas and we have 8 suspects. Gaby (Catherine Deneuve) the wife whom they no longer sleep together anymore; his mother-in-law, Mamy (Danielle Darrieux) who stays in his house and refuses to lend him her bonds when he finds out he is going broke, his bespectacled sister-in-law, Augustine (Isabelle Huppert) who has a crush on him; his two daughters, Catherine (Ludivine Sagnier) who wears a green outfit and Suzon (Virginie Ledoyen) the elder one who just came back; Louise (Emmanuelle Beart) the perky fair housemaid and Chanel (Firmine Richard) the black big cook , and his sister Pierrette (Fanny Ardant) who went to his house after she received a suspicious phone call.
As the movie progresses, the plot thickens with more confusing threads to the murder. We know more about each character and what their relationship is to Marcel but somehow, we are unsure because some of their revelations turn out to be lies and we are caught in the dilemma and frustration of trying to figure everything out, which is extremely messy.
The gags fail at times and certain exchanges are unnecessarily. When Augustine pretended to faint and was given to be given a shot, Gaby and Louise started quarreling over whether the latter should do it. When Augustine was given her shot, Ozon deliberately reveals her bare bum and as the needle plunges in, Augustine breaks out into a orgasmic smile which is crass humour. Catherine and Suzon were exchanging an amiable conversation one moment about boys and before you know it, they got into a heated argument when the younger sister thinks the older one has no right to be preachy. Augustine refuses to acknowledge that she was in the same book club as Pierrette but when she fainted and murmured a sentence, the latter said that it was a quote from one of the books that both of them had read.
It’s not entirely the most genius ending and 8 Women is just that. A movie which tries to capture attention with its artificial bright colours - all camp but no substance.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Herman Hesse
Written by The Glass Bead Game
The Glass Bead Game is Herman Hesse’s last novel, written in 1946. It is a philosophical piece of work that remains curiously contemporary perhaps because its references are classical.
Though this book is set in the 23rd century, it does not , like other books on the future, predicts civilization’s technological advancement. Instead, Hesse’s fiction is based on a new and imaginary world divided into two. The common world (which is the type we are familiar with) thrives on material progress.
His story is divided into three parts. The first half is a biography of the legendary Joseph Knecht who mastered the Glass Bead Game, and became a Magister Ludi (Master of the Game). The game which uses different disciplines such as mathematics, music, logic, and philosophy, is practised by the elite; who lived in Castalia. Theirs is a system that depends on the kindness of the common world for material needs but exists independently from them and functions as the intellectual with members devoting their entire lives to writing obscure academic papers.
Knecht biography is a trifle dry for non academics initially and is more illuminating in instances when we Knecht makes interesting conversations. The collection of poems and three imaginary lives written by Knecht during his student days are more readable.
Faces
Directed by John Cassavetes
Faces is the marriage of American middle-class couple Richard (John Mahoney) and Maria Forst (Lynn Carlin) broken apart after they seek external comfort. Richard befriends a high-class prostitute, Jeannie (Gena Rowlands) whom he tries to treat her differently and with respect than her other clients. Forst, on the other hand hangs out at a gogo bar with her girlfriends after her quarrel with Richard. She befriends aging hippie, Chet (Seymour Cassel) and brings him home.
Touted as the first post war American independent movie to enter mainstream, Faces has the cinema verite touch with shaky and unconventional shots that calls to mind the Bob Dylan documentary, Don’t Look Back, directed by P.A. Pennebaker. The erratic sound is soft and loud, and uneven in quality when transferred to DVD which makes listening to their conversations difficult.
The characters, in their social settings, laughs or try to appear happy though their amusement are mostly facades for the empty lives and miserable lives they lead.
In the accompanying linear notes to the DVD by John Cassavetes expert, Ray Carney, the film professor says that the characters in Faces are portraits of people whom John has met and tried to distilled in his life. Carney adds that they are “non-static” because audiences cannot “define” them. They might act irritable in one moment but becomes pitiable, the next.
Though it was made in 1968, Faces curiously remains contemporary in style and its portrayal of married life. The possible reason for this is suggested by Carney (and which I have mentioned) – that because they are not subjected to definition, Cassavetes bring to these characters a fresh outlook.
Written by The Glass Bead Game
The Glass Bead Game is Herman Hesse’s last novel, written in 1946. It is a philosophical piece of work that remains curiously contemporary perhaps because its references are classical.
Though this book is set in the 23rd century, it does not , like other books on the future, predicts civilization’s technological advancement. Instead, Hesse’s fiction is based on a new and imaginary world divided into two. The common world (which is the type we are familiar with) thrives on material progress.
His story is divided into three parts. The first half is a biography of the legendary Joseph Knecht who mastered the Glass Bead Game, and became a Magister Ludi (Master of the Game). The game which uses different disciplines such as mathematics, music, logic, and philosophy, is practised by the elite; who lived in Castalia. Theirs is a system that depends on the kindness of the common world for material needs but exists independently from them and functions as the intellectual with members devoting their entire lives to writing obscure academic papers.
Knecht biography is a trifle dry for non academics initially and is more illuminating in instances when we Knecht makes interesting conversations. The collection of poems and three imaginary lives written by Knecht during his student days are more readable.
Faces
Directed by John Cassavetes
Faces is the marriage of American middle-class couple Richard (John Mahoney) and Maria Forst (Lynn Carlin) broken apart after they seek external comfort. Richard befriends a high-class prostitute, Jeannie (Gena Rowlands) whom he tries to treat her differently and with respect than her other clients. Forst, on the other hand hangs out at a gogo bar with her girlfriends after her quarrel with Richard. She befriends aging hippie, Chet (Seymour Cassel) and brings him home.
Touted as the first post war American independent movie to enter mainstream, Faces has the cinema verite touch with shaky and unconventional shots that calls to mind the Bob Dylan documentary, Don’t Look Back, directed by P.A. Pennebaker. The erratic sound is soft and loud, and uneven in quality when transferred to DVD which makes listening to their conversations difficult.
The characters, in their social settings, laughs or try to appear happy though their amusement are mostly facades for the empty lives and miserable lives they lead.
In the accompanying linear notes to the DVD by John Cassavetes expert, Ray Carney, the film professor says that the characters in Faces are portraits of people whom John has met and tried to distilled in his life. Carney adds that they are “non-static” because audiences cannot “define” them. They might act irritable in one moment but becomes pitiable, the next.
Though it was made in 1968, Faces curiously remains contemporary in style and its portrayal of married life. The possible reason for this is suggested by Carney (and which I have mentioned) – that because they are not subjected to definition, Cassavetes bring to these characters a fresh outlook.
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Reinvigorating Classics: Beauty and The Beast/ Day Of Wrath
Directed by Jean Cocteau/ Carl Theodor Dryer
The themes of Beauty and The Beast and Day of Wrath are as different as day and night. Jean Cocteau’s Beauty And The Beast is a poetic fantasy embedded with fine-looking impressions and subtle nuances whereas Day of Wrath is a central pursuit for truth shrouded in religious overtones. The former is a children’s fairytale that adults can appreciate while the latter is a film about religion that transcends dogma.
Both movies were made in hardship and difficulties. Day of Wrath was made during the German Occupation and it was read as a political statement. Beauty and the Beast was Cocteau’s second film after The Blood of a Poet; and Roger Ebert in a review implied Cocteau needed help. Cocteau recruited Rene Clement (director of Purple Noon and Diabolique) as his technical adviser; cameraman Henri Alekan to handle screenwork and designer, Christian Berard for the theatrical designs. It was also made after the war. I quote from Francis Steegmuller who wrote a biography of the director, “Cocteau himself was receiving food packages from Jean-Pierre Aumont in California, and when he fell ill he was treated with American penicillin; everything was in short supply.”
Despite the adversities faced by both directors, the films they made are still refreshingly vivid and relevant today.
The stories are seemingly simple.
In Beauty And The Beast, a bankrupted merchant (Marcel André) chanced upon a palace and steals a rose for her daughter, Belle (Josette Day). He was apprehended by the owner, a hideous looking man-beast played by Jean Marais (who is also Avenant – a male friend of belle’s family/ and who will later be The Prince as well) who demands his life or to send him one of his daughter.
Belle, who is innocent and kind-hearted took her father’s place without his consent and upon arriving, found herself under the adulation of the beast who is intent on asking for her hand. Belle grew fond of the beast but was homesick and persuaded the beast to let her go home and visit her father, whom she missed the most.
Compare that to Day of Wrath, which opened with the choral harmony singing about death and resurrection. A parallel to Dreyer’s silent masterpiece, The Passion of Joan of Arc, it follows the trial and persecution of Herlof's Marthe (Anna Svierkier), who was denounced as a witch. The similarities end there though. In fact, Marthe’s plight only acts as an opener to the more important thread to follow. Marthe is angry with Reverend Absalon Pedersson (Thorkild Roose); her chief prosecutor, because he had saved Anne (Lisbeth Movin), his young wife’s mother when she was in a similar situation. When Absalon’s son, Martin (Preben Lerdorff Rye) returns home, Anne fell in love with his stepson.
Both films are stylistically and thematically different but aims to pervert the intended audience reaction.
Beauty and The Beast is shrouded with technical effects that gives it a mystical, ancient and timeless magical touch – human arms that holds the torch lights up by itself. The fireplace is flanked by two heads that moves and watches every action in the dining table. A hand pours wine for the drinker. Such magic entrances but is strangely unsettling.
When Belle arrived at the palace for the first time, she flutters in slow mo, as if she was ecstatic. As she enters the second floor, she stopped moving her legs and instead floats towards the camera while white window curtains flapping. It is as if we are made to believe that she has entered another better world though we do know that she was a prisoner.
The Beast which Belle subsequently fell in love has so much patience with her yet he snarls and reveals his killing streak when he smells or hears a deer. However much we try to feel his love for Belle, his monstrous look disgusts us. When the Beast is finally saved and adorns the face of Avenant, Belle reveals to us that she is uncomfortable with that pretty face though she initially loved superficial handsomeness in men; and had intended to marry Avenant; which she revealed when she took a walk in the garden with the beast.
When the beast knocked on Belle’s door and declared his love, he was burning in flames. As much as it is an affirmation, it also hinges on the unmentioned – that the Beast was tormented with lust.
When Avenant tried to descend Diana’s House for the gold, he was shot dead; and immediately transformed into the beast. Miraculously, the beast relived and took his body. The implied and disturbing notion is that a life is traded for another; that the beast survived because of someone’s greed and that the beast was not a prince; but merely a beast. It throws in the dubious question of whether Belle love The Beast or Avenant.
The ending is similarly disconcerting with Belle and Beast laying down on the grass before they flew away into the dark night. Though it is a standard happy fairy tale ending, the flight suggests elopement, and away from the magic, which was what the story is all about.
Day of Wrath does not have the claustrophobic close-ups of Passion of Joan of Arc or the beautifully composed portrait like setting of Ordet or its Brechtian elements. The indoor set is simple. When Anne walks across a hall to enter the torture room, the camera do a three dimensional pan to reveal a tainted glass window in a distance amidst white pillars and walls. Marthe escapes through a low hole by walking through her hut from the kitchen directly to the barn. The wide open bright fields are grounds for Anne’s and Martin adulterous love affairs.
When Marte was caught hiding in Absalon’s house, we hear her shrieks. Similarly, her tortures are implied by the cries she made while we a panel of priests and scribes appear behind a table nonchalantly. She appears in the torture as a half-naked woman depicting humiliation. She has a flabby worn out ageing body but constructed against the fully darkly clothed clerics, the contradictions are further cloaked with symbolic irony. It is a beautiful yet ugly picture at the same time. The burning of Marthe was held with a chorus singing while the fire rages on and consumed a living wailing body. The church with its absolute power is “demonised”. Anne took in the execution and sobs uncontrollably behind closed doors while Martin, who couldn’t stomach the spectacle, joins and comforts her.
Characters are caught in circumstances they have no control. Anne appears miserable, never laughs until she meets Martin. Absalon feels guilt for letting down on God. Marthe wants to live but unlike Joan of Arc, her desire to live appears superficial because she has no faith in God.
While Beauty and The Beast revels in childlike simplicity (Cocteau in his opening subtitle, requested his audience to watch it as such) its female protagonist is psychological with a layer of complexity beyond the grasp of most fairytales.
Belle (Josette Day) is a simple girl who asks for a rose unlike her sisters who wanted jewelry when their father goes away on a trip. She gives her sister the jewelry that the beast has given her showing her generosity. Yet, when it comes to feeling for the beast, she speaks with conviction that she will not marry him despite knowing he was a gentle creature. She hides behind a statue to peep at The Beast who enters her room without her permission; revealing her inner distrust. Even though she is living under the captive of the Beast, she taunts and torture him because she knows he is in love with her.
Anne (Lisbeth Movin), with her big innocent looking eyes conveys simplicity like Belle. She allows her mother-in-law to lord over her but hides Marthe when the woman was in pursuit. She initiates her encounters with Martin and spoke to him of love. She hides her affairs and wishes her husband dead when he finds out. Anne remains unmoved when Martin betrays her towards the end of the film, dispelling our notion of the frail lady we made her out to be.
In using woman as the main protagonist; making them more complicated characters than their male counterparts; Cocteau and Dreyer subverts the sympathetic role of the women in the films indirectly and subtly.
Beauty And The Beasts dissects sexual love using the fairy tale as an instrument whereas Day of Wrath tells the same theme through a repressed social background that ends up a tragedy.
Directed by Jean Cocteau/ Carl Theodor Dryer
The themes of Beauty and The Beast and Day of Wrath are as different as day and night. Jean Cocteau’s Beauty And The Beast is a poetic fantasy embedded with fine-looking impressions and subtle nuances whereas Day of Wrath is a central pursuit for truth shrouded in religious overtones. The former is a children’s fairytale that adults can appreciate while the latter is a film about religion that transcends dogma.
Both movies were made in hardship and difficulties. Day of Wrath was made during the German Occupation and it was read as a political statement. Beauty and the Beast was Cocteau’s second film after The Blood of a Poet; and Roger Ebert in a review implied Cocteau needed help. Cocteau recruited Rene Clement (director of Purple Noon and Diabolique) as his technical adviser; cameraman Henri Alekan to handle screenwork and designer, Christian Berard for the theatrical designs. It was also made after the war. I quote from Francis Steegmuller who wrote a biography of the director, “Cocteau himself was receiving food packages from Jean-Pierre Aumont in California, and when he fell ill he was treated with American penicillin; everything was in short supply.”
Despite the adversities faced by both directors, the films they made are still refreshingly vivid and relevant today.
The stories are seemingly simple.
In Beauty And The Beast, a bankrupted merchant (Marcel André) chanced upon a palace and steals a rose for her daughter, Belle (Josette Day). He was apprehended by the owner, a hideous looking man-beast played by Jean Marais (who is also Avenant – a male friend of belle’s family/ and who will later be The Prince as well) who demands his life or to send him one of his daughter.
Belle, who is innocent and kind-hearted took her father’s place without his consent and upon arriving, found herself under the adulation of the beast who is intent on asking for her hand. Belle grew fond of the beast but was homesick and persuaded the beast to let her go home and visit her father, whom she missed the most.
Compare that to Day of Wrath, which opened with the choral harmony singing about death and resurrection. A parallel to Dreyer’s silent masterpiece, The Passion of Joan of Arc, it follows the trial and persecution of Herlof's Marthe (Anna Svierkier), who was denounced as a witch. The similarities end there though. In fact, Marthe’s plight only acts as an opener to the more important thread to follow. Marthe is angry with Reverend Absalon Pedersson (Thorkild Roose); her chief prosecutor, because he had saved Anne (Lisbeth Movin), his young wife’s mother when she was in a similar situation. When Absalon’s son, Martin (Preben Lerdorff Rye) returns home, Anne fell in love with his stepson.
Both films are stylistically and thematically different but aims to pervert the intended audience reaction.
Beauty and The Beast is shrouded with technical effects that gives it a mystical, ancient and timeless magical touch – human arms that holds the torch lights up by itself. The fireplace is flanked by two heads that moves and watches every action in the dining table. A hand pours wine for the drinker. Such magic entrances but is strangely unsettling.
When Belle arrived at the palace for the first time, she flutters in slow mo, as if she was ecstatic. As she enters the second floor, she stopped moving her legs and instead floats towards the camera while white window curtains flapping. It is as if we are made to believe that she has entered another better world though we do know that she was a prisoner.
The Beast which Belle subsequently fell in love has so much patience with her yet he snarls and reveals his killing streak when he smells or hears a deer. However much we try to feel his love for Belle, his monstrous look disgusts us. When the Beast is finally saved and adorns the face of Avenant, Belle reveals to us that she is uncomfortable with that pretty face though she initially loved superficial handsomeness in men; and had intended to marry Avenant; which she revealed when she took a walk in the garden with the beast.
When the beast knocked on Belle’s door and declared his love, he was burning in flames. As much as it is an affirmation, it also hinges on the unmentioned – that the Beast was tormented with lust.
When Avenant tried to descend Diana’s House for the gold, he was shot dead; and immediately transformed into the beast. Miraculously, the beast relived and took his body. The implied and disturbing notion is that a life is traded for another; that the beast survived because of someone’s greed and that the beast was not a prince; but merely a beast. It throws in the dubious question of whether Belle love The Beast or Avenant.
The ending is similarly disconcerting with Belle and Beast laying down on the grass before they flew away into the dark night. Though it is a standard happy fairy tale ending, the flight suggests elopement, and away from the magic, which was what the story is all about.
Day of Wrath does not have the claustrophobic close-ups of Passion of Joan of Arc or the beautifully composed portrait like setting of Ordet or its Brechtian elements. The indoor set is simple. When Anne walks across a hall to enter the torture room, the camera do a three dimensional pan to reveal a tainted glass window in a distance amidst white pillars and walls. Marthe escapes through a low hole by walking through her hut from the kitchen directly to the barn. The wide open bright fields are grounds for Anne’s and Martin adulterous love affairs.
When Marte was caught hiding in Absalon’s house, we hear her shrieks. Similarly, her tortures are implied by the cries she made while we a panel of priests and scribes appear behind a table nonchalantly. She appears in the torture as a half-naked woman depicting humiliation. She has a flabby worn out ageing body but constructed against the fully darkly clothed clerics, the contradictions are further cloaked with symbolic irony. It is a beautiful yet ugly picture at the same time. The burning of Marthe was held with a chorus singing while the fire rages on and consumed a living wailing body. The church with its absolute power is “demonised”. Anne took in the execution and sobs uncontrollably behind closed doors while Martin, who couldn’t stomach the spectacle, joins and comforts her.
Characters are caught in circumstances they have no control. Anne appears miserable, never laughs until she meets Martin. Absalon feels guilt for letting down on God. Marthe wants to live but unlike Joan of Arc, her desire to live appears superficial because she has no faith in God.
While Beauty and The Beast revels in childlike simplicity (Cocteau in his opening subtitle, requested his audience to watch it as such) its female protagonist is psychological with a layer of complexity beyond the grasp of most fairytales.
Belle (Josette Day) is a simple girl who asks for a rose unlike her sisters who wanted jewelry when their father goes away on a trip. She gives her sister the jewelry that the beast has given her showing her generosity. Yet, when it comes to feeling for the beast, she speaks with conviction that she will not marry him despite knowing he was a gentle creature. She hides behind a statue to peep at The Beast who enters her room without her permission; revealing her inner distrust. Even though she is living under the captive of the Beast, she taunts and torture him because she knows he is in love with her.
Anne (Lisbeth Movin), with her big innocent looking eyes conveys simplicity like Belle. She allows her mother-in-law to lord over her but hides Marthe when the woman was in pursuit. She initiates her encounters with Martin and spoke to him of love. She hides her affairs and wishes her husband dead when he finds out. Anne remains unmoved when Martin betrays her towards the end of the film, dispelling our notion of the frail lady we made her out to be.
In using woman as the main protagonist; making them more complicated characters than their male counterparts; Cocteau and Dreyer subverts the sympathetic role of the women in the films indirectly and subtly.
Beauty And The Beasts dissects sexual love using the fairy tale as an instrument whereas Day of Wrath tells the same theme through a repressed social background that ends up a tragedy.
Monday, July 07, 2003
It Runs In The Family
Directed by Fred Schepsis
Its not bad for a Hollywood production to make a movie about inter-generational family conflicts without degenerating into stereotypes and which comes across as rather unHollywood.
Alex Gromberg (Michael Douglas) is a married successful attorney with a nice apartment and a psychologist wife, Rebecca (Bernadette Peters) who wants to do pro bono but doesn't have the time. He volunteers at the soup kitchen and unwittingly seduced a sexy younger woman (Sarita Choudhury) who almost destroyed his marriage with her frivolity.
Meanwhile, Alex's elder son Asher (Cameron Douglas) is a college student who deejays and has no idea of what to do with his life until he meets a serious young lady in school whom he wants to get serious with. His younger brother, Eli (Rory Culkin) is an eccentric quiet kid who prepares an itemized expense spreadsheet for his parents; and his infatuation with a female classmate who wears gothic make-up and spots a nose ring, just smells of trouble.
Mitchell (Kirk Douglas), Alex father cannot help bringing his son down everytime they struck a conversation; and their relationship delves into further turmoil when Alex's mother, Evelyn (Diana Douglas) passed away and both men found they had both lost their one of their most loved ones.
Though It Runs In The Family moves at a frentic past, the movie holds attention and explores rather thoroughly family issues because it stops one subplot to continue another thread that has been developed before coming back to it again. The cutting is haphazard but not disjointed.
It is also "unHollywood" in the way it treats its subject matter realistically unlike many other Hollywood flicks that tries to justify or steal in "happy" bits and pieces to make the movie and its characters likeable. Its funny moments stems more from sarcastic family comments and hapless situations, though not entirely original, will still manage to draw a few laughs.
While it is not exactly an independent production, the film balances with a grim optimism. It has a hanging ending which is also "unHollywood".
We could be nit-picking but it has been some time since Hollywood made a family movie this real and fun.
Directed by Fred Schepsis
Its not bad for a Hollywood production to make a movie about inter-generational family conflicts without degenerating into stereotypes and which comes across as rather unHollywood.
Alex Gromberg (Michael Douglas) is a married successful attorney with a nice apartment and a psychologist wife, Rebecca (Bernadette Peters) who wants to do pro bono but doesn't have the time. He volunteers at the soup kitchen and unwittingly seduced a sexy younger woman (Sarita Choudhury) who almost destroyed his marriage with her frivolity.
Meanwhile, Alex's elder son Asher (Cameron Douglas) is a college student who deejays and has no idea of what to do with his life until he meets a serious young lady in school whom he wants to get serious with. His younger brother, Eli (Rory Culkin) is an eccentric quiet kid who prepares an itemized expense spreadsheet for his parents; and his infatuation with a female classmate who wears gothic make-up and spots a nose ring, just smells of trouble.
Mitchell (Kirk Douglas), Alex father cannot help bringing his son down everytime they struck a conversation; and their relationship delves into further turmoil when Alex's mother, Evelyn (Diana Douglas) passed away and both men found they had both lost their one of their most loved ones.
Though It Runs In The Family moves at a frentic past, the movie holds attention and explores rather thoroughly family issues because it stops one subplot to continue another thread that has been developed before coming back to it again. The cutting is haphazard but not disjointed.
It is also "unHollywood" in the way it treats its subject matter realistically unlike many other Hollywood flicks that tries to justify or steal in "happy" bits and pieces to make the movie and its characters likeable. Its funny moments stems more from sarcastic family comments and hapless situations, though not entirely original, will still manage to draw a few laughs.
While it is not exactly an independent production, the film balances with a grim optimism. It has a hanging ending which is also "unHollywood".
We could be nit-picking but it has been some time since Hollywood made a family movie this real and fun.
28 Days Later
Directed by Danny Boyle
Alex Garland’s end of the world is tall, lonely, cold buildings where the majority of the living are transformed into the dead when they get infected by the “rage” virus; ironically leashed upon by a group of well-meaning animal activists that tries to set free a group of animal primates which were experiments in progress.
Irony upon irony, Jim (Cillian Murphy) is left unharmed in a hospital when he wakes up 28 days later after an accident to find out that he is stranded alone in a huge deserted empty city. As he seeks to find another living soul, we are reminded of recent movie moments of the lonely man. Think The Pianist or Cast Away. 28 Days which steadily captured the ambience is aided by the numbingly moody music by John Murphy; the protagonist’s frustration is pensive until he enters the house of salvation (a church that is), which turns out to be a mass slaughter house, the burial ground for the dead. Is that another dig?
Then, Jim encounters for the first time a priest who is infected with “rage” and he runs away, chased by an emerging gang from the dark confines of the church. He was rescued by a white man and a black woman, Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) who tells him what he has missed out. Now, what is their future if there is only three of them left?
Directed by Danny Boyle who made Trainspotting, 28 Days Later which is a horror science fiction shot on DV, has that amateurish and indie feel which is sheepishly unsettling. Probably because everywhere seems so vacant of people, danger seems to pervade too.
Yet, the movie has also its heartfelt moments that provides respite for audience and gives strength to its characters. The father daughter relationship between Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his teenage daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) and the flirtations between Jim and Selena gives us room to breathe. The innocuous road journey with a side trip also helps the audience get into the character’s thoughts and emotions.
Though there was an eerie similarity of Jim to Leonardo in The Beach towards the end of 28 Days Later; that series of scenes helps to usher in the notion of insanity in killing. Otherwise, the movie is rather clear-cut on what it perceives - that humanity and science is drawn towards evil; and the cruelty of life is that good intentions can play tricks and cause the opposite effect.
Alex Garland's The Tesseract was a splendid layered science fiction which has yet to be made into film; and while 28 Days Later is not as good as that (Garland’s ) second novel; it is still worth watching for all its action and psuchological and B-grade horror. Not a masterpiece but can definitely be considered one of kind in its genre.
Directed by Danny Boyle
Alex Garland’s end of the world is tall, lonely, cold buildings where the majority of the living are transformed into the dead when they get infected by the “rage” virus; ironically leashed upon by a group of well-meaning animal activists that tries to set free a group of animal primates which were experiments in progress.
Irony upon irony, Jim (Cillian Murphy) is left unharmed in a hospital when he wakes up 28 days later after an accident to find out that he is stranded alone in a huge deserted empty city. As he seeks to find another living soul, we are reminded of recent movie moments of the lonely man. Think The Pianist or Cast Away. 28 Days which steadily captured the ambience is aided by the numbingly moody music by John Murphy; the protagonist’s frustration is pensive until he enters the house of salvation (a church that is), which turns out to be a mass slaughter house, the burial ground for the dead. Is that another dig?
Then, Jim encounters for the first time a priest who is infected with “rage” and he runs away, chased by an emerging gang from the dark confines of the church. He was rescued by a white man and a black woman, Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) who tells him what he has missed out. Now, what is their future if there is only three of them left?
Directed by Danny Boyle who made Trainspotting, 28 Days Later which is a horror science fiction shot on DV, has that amateurish and indie feel which is sheepishly unsettling. Probably because everywhere seems so vacant of people, danger seems to pervade too.
Yet, the movie has also its heartfelt moments that provides respite for audience and gives strength to its characters. The father daughter relationship between Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his teenage daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) and the flirtations between Jim and Selena gives us room to breathe. The innocuous road journey with a side trip also helps the audience get into the character’s thoughts and emotions.
Though there was an eerie similarity of Jim to Leonardo in The Beach towards the end of 28 Days Later; that series of scenes helps to usher in the notion of insanity in killing. Otherwise, the movie is rather clear-cut on what it perceives - that humanity and science is drawn towards evil; and the cruelty of life is that good intentions can play tricks and cause the opposite effect.
Alex Garland's The Tesseract was a splendid layered science fiction which has yet to be made into film; and while 28 Days Later is not as good as that (Garland’s ) second novel; it is still worth watching for all its action and psuchological and B-grade horror. Not a masterpiece but can definitely be considered one of kind in its genre.
Victim
Directed by Basil Dearden
I resisted writing about Far From Heaven starring Juliane Moore and Dennis Quaid that won rave reviews for its 50s technicolour Hollywood style shooting and a universal feel good theme - black oppression and sexuality repression that moves people and spells “instant classic” for viewers and reviewers alike. It is the kind of movie that everyone is happy to watch and praise. Then, everyone forgets about it until another similar movie comes along and the whole process is repeated.
Victim is a black and white thriller starring Dirk Bogarde as Melville Farr who decided to apprehend and prosecute a gang of criminals that blackmails gay men because it was still illegal to indulge in homosexual activities in Britain at that point in time.
While it was lauded at the time of screening for its serious look on “homosexuality”, time has unfortunately washed away its “controversial” reaction. The movie hardly talks about “homosexuality” and even when it does, leaves it hanging. For example, the dialogue between the police detective and his subordinate on whether homosexuals should be made criminals is not only lacks depth; and adds nothing for thought.
It fails to “thrill” in the first half hour of the movie as the audience is taken for a ride guessing what was going on. Clues are not built to provide suspense and we know only much of the story only after Farr decides to catch the blackmailers.
As for the love plot; it is difficult to understand our protagonist, Farr, who seems unable to find out for himself who he loves more. At one time, we are sought to believe he loves his wife. On another occasion, he seems to grieve over the death ofJack Barrett (Peter McEnery).
Anyone who has watched Philadelphia starring Tom Hanks who plays a gay man down with AIDS and fighting against his ex employees, would be moved by his predicament towards the end of the movie. Sadly, it’s not the case of Farr though he is making a career suicide and his wife whom he still has feelings for, is leaving him.
Stolen Kisses
Directed by Francois Truffaut
Vincent Canby referred Truffaut’s Stolen Kisses as “one of his best—strong, sweet, wise, and often explosively funny” effort. While reviews go on about how good it is, I’m not sure exactly how to review it because it didn’t leave much of an impression on me.
Stolen Kisses is the third of the 5th in the Antoine Doinel Series, the grown up boy we first met in Truffaut’s 400 Blows, which is played by Jean-Pierre Léaud, a skinny lad who seems not to have an inkling of what to do with his life. he goes AWOL so many times that he is honoroubly discharged and when he receives the news, was so glad that we wonder why he joined the military in the first place. He could not explain it why he did it either when he had dinner at his girlfriend’s place.
He went on looking for jobs as hotel security before becoming a private investigator with a detective agency though he seriously doesn’t seem fit for the job and makes stupid mistakes all the time.
It’s hard to like the movie (in my case). I would put it with Truffaut’s Days For Nights which doesn’t do much for me.
Directed by Basil Dearden
I resisted writing about Far From Heaven starring Juliane Moore and Dennis Quaid that won rave reviews for its 50s technicolour Hollywood style shooting and a universal feel good theme - black oppression and sexuality repression that moves people and spells “instant classic” for viewers and reviewers alike. It is the kind of movie that everyone is happy to watch and praise. Then, everyone forgets about it until another similar movie comes along and the whole process is repeated.
Victim is a black and white thriller starring Dirk Bogarde as Melville Farr who decided to apprehend and prosecute a gang of criminals that blackmails gay men because it was still illegal to indulge in homosexual activities in Britain at that point in time.
While it was lauded at the time of screening for its serious look on “homosexuality”, time has unfortunately washed away its “controversial” reaction. The movie hardly talks about “homosexuality” and even when it does, leaves it hanging. For example, the dialogue between the police detective and his subordinate on whether homosexuals should be made criminals is not only lacks depth; and adds nothing for thought.
It fails to “thrill” in the first half hour of the movie as the audience is taken for a ride guessing what was going on. Clues are not built to provide suspense and we know only much of the story only after Farr decides to catch the blackmailers.
As for the love plot; it is difficult to understand our protagonist, Farr, who seems unable to find out for himself who he loves more. At one time, we are sought to believe he loves his wife. On another occasion, he seems to grieve over the death ofJack Barrett (Peter McEnery).
Anyone who has watched Philadelphia starring Tom Hanks who plays a gay man down with AIDS and fighting against his ex employees, would be moved by his predicament towards the end of the movie. Sadly, it’s not the case of Farr though he is making a career suicide and his wife whom he still has feelings for, is leaving him.
Stolen Kisses
Directed by Francois Truffaut
Vincent Canby referred Truffaut’s Stolen Kisses as “one of his best—strong, sweet, wise, and often explosively funny” effort. While reviews go on about how good it is, I’m not sure exactly how to review it because it didn’t leave much of an impression on me.
Stolen Kisses is the third of the 5th in the Antoine Doinel Series, the grown up boy we first met in Truffaut’s 400 Blows, which is played by Jean-Pierre Léaud, a skinny lad who seems not to have an inkling of what to do with his life. he goes AWOL so many times that he is honoroubly discharged and when he receives the news, was so glad that we wonder why he joined the military in the first place. He could not explain it why he did it either when he had dinner at his girlfriend’s place.
He went on looking for jobs as hotel security before becoming a private investigator with a detective agency though he seriously doesn’t seem fit for the job and makes stupid mistakes all the time.
It’s hard to like the movie (in my case). I would put it with Truffaut’s Days For Nights which doesn’t do much for me.
