Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Tony Manero

Year released: 2008
Director: Pablo Larrain

This Chilean comedy is so black that you can't even see it--but the review posted below by Xan Brooks of the Guardian hits the nail right on the head. You do feel someone uneasy when watching it, but upon reflection--and provided you stick with it--there is a lot to be gained from this engrossing look at the lengths to which one will go in the name of an unhealthy obsession. And the cinematography--all grey grime, filthy apartments and rusting salvage yards--is depressingly beautiful to behold. And Alfredo Castro, in the (sort of) title role, does a tremendous job in a role that features practically no dialogue. Looking forward to checking out Larrain's "Post Mortem," which was the featured review in the October issue of "Sight and Sound."

How many actual laughs are there in "Tony Manero," a Chilean black comedy about one man's obsession with "Saturday Night Fever?" Probably not that many--unless one counts the scene in which our hero defecates on the pristine white suit of a rival, or the one in which he becomes so enraged by a screening of Grease that he opts to break into the booth and club the projectionist to death. And yet a comedy this is-- and one that perversely becomes more hilarious in hindsight, when the initial horror has had time to subside. Watching Tony Manero is like being accosted by a disturbed loner on a late-night bus. Assuming we survive, we may one day find it funny. Alfredo Castro plays Raul, a 52-year-old nobody who models himself on John Travolta's disco idol, ineptly mouthing movie dialogue and essaying dance moves with a frowning, joyless concentration. Chances are that you could put a jacket on a dog and teach it to walk on its hind legs and it would make a more convincing Manero. But no matter, because Raul's monomania is enough to draw a gaggle of adoring disciples. His harassed lover dotes on him, as does her nubile daughter and the elderly owner of the local ballroom. All of them want Raul, but Raul just wants to dance. Specifically, he wants to dance, as Tony Manero, in a TV talent contest. First prize is a blender, second prize is a poncho. And "no political talk" please, for this is 1978, the darkest days of the Pinochet regime, when loose talk can get you shot.

"Tony Manero," the second film from writer-director Pablo Larrain, makes for a brilliantly clammy and unnerving piece of work. The action unfolds in a shiver of handheld camerawork and grainy, overcast colours. There is sex and larceny and random acts of violence. Some scenes literally lose their focus as the fog of madness blows in from the wings. You might file this as an acid satire of 1970s Chile, a time when imported escapism served to distract the masses from the real business of political oppression.

Alternatively, it can be viewed as a broadside against globalisation as a whole, spotlighting a sub-continent hopelesly hard-wired to US culture and stumbling blindly in search of an identity. This point is driven home in a brief but telling exchange between Raul and his girlfriend. "Manero is an American," she tells him gently. "You're not. You belong here."

Except that Raul, true to form, has no desire to ponder this statement. He's too busy killing people, too intent on rehearsing his routine or fashioning a makeshift glitterball from shards of broken glass. So off he goes, this shambling bulk of articulated body parts and crudely firing synapses, slouching towards the TV studio to be born.

What a terrific performance Castro gives us here: funny, scary and pathetic by turns. When Raul Peralta finally slithers on stage, it's a wonder the audience doesn't run for the exit. Perhaps they recognise one of their own. A round of applause for Dr Frankenstein's movie star; the sharp-suited mascot of a zombie nation. Wind him up and watch him dance.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Otar Iosseliani FilmFest Day 3

Film: Pastoral
Year: 1976

Last, but certainly not least, in Iosseliani fest is "Pastoral." In the commentary that accompanies the two-disc set of the director's work that was the source of this fest, one of his mentors (I believe) says that this movie was Iosseliani's farewell to his Georgian homeland. A few years, the director emigrated to France, where I would guess he still lives. What a treat it would be to talk to this man now--to get his insights into these remarkable works and to hear his thoughts on what has transpired both in the world of cinema and in the world in general since this movie was made. Does anyone know of any recent English-translated interviews he has done in recent years that might be found online somewhere?

If this movie was Iosseliani's farewell, he went out with a blaze of glory. The ending of this movie, in particular, is one of the most poignant, human moments you'll ever see on the screen. When watching it I thought to myself "this is about as good as it gets." The quality of this movie (and the other three I've discussed) is uniformly high and filled with liberal doses of humanity, spirit and warmth.

The movie begins with a group of classical musicians being sent to a rural village for the summer. The reason for this, at least as far as I could tell, wasn't really clear. But, just accept it--they're there. The sophisticated artsy folks from the city (one of whom is played by Iosseliani favorite Marina Kartsivadze) are plopped into the middle of an alien world. And of course, the feeling is mutual--the unpretentious, hard-working country folk don't quite know what to make of their unexpected visitors, but extend them plenty of warmth and courtesy and try to help them feel right at home. The contrasts are striking--the only thing these people have in common is that they are all Georgian. They're way of lives, though, are complete polar opposites. I think it's fascinating to think that even today (I'm thinking of a place like Brazil but I am sure there are many, many others), there could be such disparity between the lives of all the citizens. Here in the United States, there are differences between north and south, city and country, etc. but the gaps aren't that huge and there is frequently a common ground. For the characters in this movie, though, it's really like two different worlds coming together.

The musicians go through their day, warily keeping an eye on their surroundings while rehearsing. The villagers go on about their business too, farming and raising their animals with the wafting music as a constant accompaniment to their chores. In one of the best scenes, the musicians start playing for the first time and everyone in the village, young and old, is captivated by the sounds. Slowly, the two groups begin to find common ground--and Iosseliani shows this brilliantly. It's the little things--helping take in laundry before a storm arrives for example or recording a brother and sister singing traditional songs--that help bring the groups closer together. Helping to bridge the two worlds is Edouki, a teenage girl played by Nana Iosseliani (who I would have to assume is the director's daughter). Edouki is a hard-working girl, devoted to her younger brother and sister. But the arrival of the musicians (and a crush on one of them) fires in her imagination the possibility of a better life. Eventually, the musicians have to leave--goodbyes are said and promises are made. And then the scene I described earlier which I won't reveal, but which is truly magical.

Iosseliani's works are often described as "lyrical" and this might be his most lyrical work. In the literal sense, there is always music in the background and it underscores the emotions and actions of the characters. But also lyrical in the poetic sense of expressing personal feelings--it's never hard to know where these characters stand or what they are feeling. Everything, warts and all, is right there on the surface.

There are so many things that made me smile when watching this movie. Small gestures really say a lot--like when the musicians first arrive, one of them carelessly tosses and empty pop bottle on the ground. Shortly thereafter, we see an old man--his back bent almost perpendicular to the ground under the weight of a heavy load--stop and pick up the bottle before continuing on his way. Another moment comes when a pick-up truck carrying a group of peasants on their way to pick a crop is forced to stop at a railroad crossing. The passengers on the train gaze at them as if they were aliens, and the peasants return their gaze in similar fashion. Two worlds in conflict--and I think this scenes best illustrates where Iosseliani stood. There is also a sly tribute to his earlier film "Lived Once a Song Thrush" and lots of moments of high comedy. I'll come back to Iosseliani's movies again and again and I'm sure I'll always feel slightly uplifted after watching them. They do make you feel better about yourself and the world in general somehow.

Stimulating cinema: Otar Iosseliani FilmFest Day 2

Film: Lived Once a Song Thrush (original title: "Iko shashvi mgalobeli," also known as "There Was Once a Singing Blackbird")
Year: 1972

I really hate guys--and more often than not it is guys--like Gia, the main character in the third film in the Iosseliani festival. In my personal and in my professional life, this kind of personality has always rubbed me wrong for some reason. The glad-hander. The guy with a smile or a flirtatious word for every lady. The guy who breezes through life oblivious to the constraints of time and oblivious to how his irresponsible ways impact others. Probably I'm jealous of guys like Gia to a point--I don't have the gift of gab among strangers and I have always been awkward around women (how I even got married is quite a miracle in itself!) So sure, I do wish I could be a little more like Gia. But ultimately though, people like this have no substance; they might no everybody in town but do they really have any deep friendships? Do they ever really fall in love? Or do they love themselves to much to ever give themselves up to another?

Gia (Gia Agladze) is the center of attention in this movie, both literally and figuratively. He moves to the march of his own clock--deadlines are flexible, meetings and appointments are often forgotten or ignored outright and the feelings of others don't matter. It's not that Gia is a bad person--early on, his mother urges him to attend an aunt's birthday party and he does manage to make the scene, clearly delighting the older woman--it's just that he's clueless to how his frivolity gets in the way of the serious side of life. It's not all play and Gia hasn't figured that out yet and it's doubtful he ever will as there are too many admirers (male and female both) who will let him keep on with his flighty ways.

As the film opens, Gia is running late once again. A harried stage manager is looking all over the place for him. There is a concert going on and Gia is nowhere to be found. Just in the nick of time though he arrives to play his part (he plays the kettle drums in a symphony orchestra). And so, smiles all around. That Gia--he almost blew it that time! This flying-by-the-of-you-pants style annoys the conductor and the orchestra head and even though both express indignation, they never punish him. As one character says "all we ask is that you be on time" and Gia can't even do that.

The following morning--the film unfolds in a 36-hour time period, give or take--a kind, vacationing couple arrives at Gia's home. They are friends of a friend and Gia has been asked to put them up for a bit, maybe show them around and be nice. Gia promises to show them the sights of Tblisi, then promptly ducks out for the rest of the day--leaving the couple in the hands of his befuddled mother. And he's off, chatting up almost every female he sees (I lost count of all the girls he flirted with), charming most and annoying a few. One of the annoyed ones is played by Marina Kartsivadze, who had a larger role in "Falling Leaves." And that's pretty much it--no lessons are learned and you get the feeling that nothing is ever going to change. At the end of the day, Gia lies in his bed, staring at the monotonous wallpaper. You get the sense that he wants to be different, but just can't. The movie ends on the following morning with a bit of a jolt and a lot of disarray.

This me sound like a negative review, and I surely don't want to give that impression. I liked this movie a lot, just not the main character's ways. There is a good message here and there are a lot of thought-provoking elements. And the director's work is excellent once again (I'm really delighted to have made your acquaintance Mr. Iosseliani.) He keeps his touch light and makes the city of Tblisi positively thrum with energy. Gia flits about from situation to situation like a busy bee and the camerawork and editing help enhance the chaos.

Stimulating cinema: Otar Iosseliani FilmFest Day 1

Film: April
Year released: 1962

and

Film: Falling Leaves
Year released: 1968

For my first FilmFest, I'm digging into some works by the great Georgian director Otar Iosseliani. And I'm really glad too, because Iosseliani's movies are opening up a whole new world for me. I have to say that before starting this blog and getting heavily involved in movie-watching, I'd never heard of him and I'd wager to say that even if you are student of film history, he might be way down on your radar. That's one of the neat things about this project--I'm always learning and there are wonderful new discoveries around every corner. The joy of finding someone new (to me) and immersing myself in their art and their vision is incredibly gratifying and rewarding.

Iosseliani was born in Tblisi, Georgia in the former Soviet Union on Feb. 2, 1934. The rest of his biography follows, courtesy of allmovies.com

He studied at the State Conservatory and graduated in 1952 with a diploma in composition, conducting and piano. In 1953 he went to Moscow to study at the faculty of mathematics, but in two years he quit and entered the State Film Institute (VGIK) where his teachers were Alexander Dovzhenk and Mikhail Chiaureli. While still a student, he began working at the Gruziafilm studios in Tbilisi, first as an assistant director and then as an editor of documentaries. In 1958 he directed his first short film "Akvarel." In 1961 he graduated from VGIK with a diploma in film direction. When his medium-length film "Aprili" (1962) was denied theatrical distribution, Iosseliani abandoned filmmaking and in 1963-1965 worked first as a sailor on a fishing boat and then at the Rustavi metallurgical factory. "Aprili" was finally released only in 1972. In 1966 he directed his first feature film "Giorgobistve" that was presented at the Critics' Week at the 1968 Cannes Film Festival and won a FIPRESCI award there. When his 1976 film "Pastorli" was shelved for a few years and then granted only a limited distribution, Iosseliani grew sceptical about getting any artistic freedom in his homeland. Following "Pastorali's" success at the 1982 Berlin Film Festival, the director moved to France where in 1984 he made "Les Favoris de la Lune." The film was distinguished with a Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival. Since then Venice became a showcase for all his subsequent films. In 1989 he again received a Special Jury Prize for "Et la Lumiere Fut" and in 1992 the Pasinetti Award for Best Direction for "La Chasse aux Papillons." After the disruption of the Soviet Union he continued to work in France where he made the documentary "Seule Georgie" (1994) which was followed by the sardonic and allegorical "Brigands: Chapitre VII" (1996).

A key thing to remember when watching Iosseliani's films: They ran afoul of the Russian censors and were either banned outright or similarly restricted upon release. That, to me, is really mind-boggling in that there is nothing in these two films that would merit that. Granted, there is some symbolism that could be interpreted one way but of course it could be interpreted in others too. It just confirms (as if we needed any more at this point) the paranoia that was permeating the Soviet leadership at the time. If you are looking hard enough for subversion, you're sure to find it. And I am pretty certain that Iosseliani meant for his works to be taken at face value (although I'd be interested to know if this is not the case. Can anyone help out with a link or an article?)

Take the first movie in our Fest--"April." According to allmovies, the film was banned upon release due to it's "excessive formalism." I think this is party doublespeak for "we don't understand this so there must be something subversive here. Best to ban it." "April" though, is really a charming little film. It has a message that resonates across cultures and eras--don't get too caught up with material things. Remember what's important. Take joy from a lover's kiss, a tree or a sunny day. It's really a universal message but it's made more poignant perhaps by the setting (a depressed, run-down Tblisi).

As many other critics have noted, "April" is similar in style to the works of Jacques Tati (I've seen his "Playground" and will certainly do a future FilmFest on him one day.). There's little dialogue in the movie and what is spoken isn't subtitled (it's hardly necessary though; the characters are fighting with one another and what's being said isn't as important as what's going on between them. Instead, the movie focuses on astounding camerawork--figures moving about at all angles--and constant motion. It's like peering into a beehive; there's always something moving and objects or people that at first appear insignificant frequently become so in the course of a scene or two. It's really amazing, creative work and a style that's fresh and always full of enjoyment.

"April's" plot is simple--a young man (Tanya Chanturia) and a young woman (Gia Chiaqadze) meet and fall in love. Early on, their attempts at a simple kiss are constantly thwarted by passersby. When a brand new apartment complex goes up, the two move in. Alone in their bare space, they finally kiss and when they do it's magic! The lights come on, the water runs and the stove burners light--all from this one kiss. Life is good. But slowly the couple's idyllic existence changes as they are seduced by the creeping disease of materialism. It starts slowly--first a chair then a vase. Soon, their apartment is jammed with all types of furniture and gadgets (two vacuum cleaners!) Their quiet tender moments are replaced with quarrels and eventually they make the only choice they can.

By contrast, the feature-length ("April" runs for about 45 minutes) "Falling Leaves" is more conventional in terms of plotting and structure, but still maintains the characteristic Iosseliani touches. The movie begins with sort of a prologue as we see Georgian villagers harvesting grapes, making them into wine and enjoying the wine along with good food and fellowship. We switch then to the city, where two young men are on the verge of new jobs. Otar (Georgiy Kharabadze) is a by-the-book opportunist who is still living at home and is hilariously brow-beaten by his parents before going off on his job interview. Niko (Ramaz Giorgobiani) is a younger man with a lot of weight on his shoulders. He needs this job because he's now the man of the house and has a mother, grandmother and and four younger sisters to support. It's clear right away that Niko is a good boy, serious, kind-hearted yet very strong, earnest and principled.

The two land jobs at a wine collective. Otar quickly sets about on a course of trying to become a success by becoming Mr. Company Man. Niko, meanwhile, quickly endears himself to his co-workers by being their equal and by working side-by-side with them. Niko's status grows when he reveals his father's name (Alexander Nijoradze). His co-workers are sympathetic--Alexander who has apparently just recently passed was "a good man" and Niko is highly respected as his son. Otar and Niko vie for the affections of Marina (Marina Kartsivadze), who feels she is better than Otar but is too flighty for the serious-minded Niko. One of the more poignant parts of the movie comes when Niko realizes Marina isn't the person he thought she was (and takes a punch in the face to add insult to injury).

Niko takes a stand early on--it's time to bottle the wine from vat 49 (a strange number, would there be any connection with Pynchon's "The Crying of Lot 49?"). The wine is clearly subpar, yet for the sake of cost and efficiency, the powers that be want it bottled anyway. Niko refuses to sign off on bottling a bad product and is forced to stand firm. Eventually, with the help of the workers he has developed deep friendships with, Niko resolves his conflict.

Clearly there is symbolism here--the character Otar represents the staid, non-conforming bureaucrats, yes-men and lackeys without an ounce of creativity or passion in their souls. Niko represents the people and the inherent power we all have inside of us to do good for mankind. Along the way, there's comedy, sorrow and more of the Tati-esque moments and shots that Ioselliani excels at. Excellent film.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Biutiful

Year released: 2010
Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Darkly magnificent and hauntingly memorable, this film deservedly earned an Oscar nomination for lead actor Javier Bardem. More so than even the story, what I will remember most from this film is the images--the snowy Pyreneean prologue, the wild chase through the streets as the cops try to apprehend the drug-dealing Senegalese, the tortured, failed beauty of Uxbal's ex-wife Marambra. Such a good film--I wonder why more didn't like it. Review is from the London Observer's Philip French and was published on January 29, 2011.

Barcelona is one of the world's most photogenic cities, as demonstrated in more than three decades of movies, from Antonioni's dazzling "The Passenger" to Woody Allen's touristy "Vicky Christina Barcelona" and Jim Jarmusch's elegant "The Limits of Control." All three play up the glories of its architectural heritage and the works of Antoni Gaudí. In Alejandro González Iñárritu's "Biutiful," which is entirely centred on the turbulent suburbs occupied by desperate immigrants from Africa, Asia and eastern Europe, we're hardly aware of being in that city at all. It is a shock suddenly to see in a distant cityscape the familiar outline of Gaudí's Sagrada Família and later to be faced with an idyllic Mediterranean beach littered with the dead bodies of illegal immigrants.

Biutiful
brings together for the first time the brilliant Mexican director of Amores Perros and the greatest Spanish actor of his generation, Javier Bardem, after both have enjoyed considerable success in the States, Iñárritu having worked with Brad Pitt on Babel and Bardem having won an Oscar in the Coen Brother's "No Country for Old Men" as well as having been Julia Roberts heart-throb in "Eat Pray Love."

If the film has a model, it's Akira Kurosawa's masterly "Ikiru" (aka "Living"), which took a hackneyed subject--the way a middle-aged Japanese civil servant reacts to the news that he has terminal cancer--and transformed it into a profound statement about the human condition. The protagonist of "Biutiful" is Uxbal, a man from southern Spain, who at fortysomething looks in poor physical shape and first reveals his true condition to us when he passes blood. It transpires that he has neglected to have medical check-ups and his painful prostate cancer has been metastasising, leaving him with a couple of months to live.

The movie has a circular motion, beginning and ending with Uxbal handing his mother's ring to his young daughter and recalling a dream-like encounter in a snow-covered forest. This sets the mood for a harsh, unsentimental narrative of redemption and putting one's life in order as a prelude to death. Uxbal does not have the time or the social privileges that allow him to indulge in the doubt and despair of Kurosawa's civil servant or to negotiate those five stages (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance) that Elisabeth Kübler-Ross taught Americans to prepare for in "On Death and Dying."

Uxbal is too poor, hard-pressed and desperate for that, which is not to say that he isn't a man of sensibility and moral intelligence beneath his tough peasant exterior. In league with his brother, Tito, he's up to his neck in petty criminality while exploiting and helping Chinese and African immigrants who make a living on the streets of Barcelona. He's divorced from his wife, the good-looking, chain-smoking, hard-drinking Marambra, and he's raising his two small children Ana and Mateo on a small income. Moreover, his apparent psychic gifts allow him to earn a bit of dubious extra cash.

Without recourse to social counselling, Uxbal must continue his dodging and weaving in his 24-hour-a-day hustling to feed his family, cope with the problematic Marambra and look out for his immigrant clients. In the event, his good intentions don't help and very little turns out well. He goes to jail, people die as a result of his actions and he's forced to sell the family tomb and have his father's embalmed body cremated. One could say his life ends in tragedy. Yet what we see is a decent man striving to do his best in terrible circumstances. Sharing his pain and observing his struggle, we think of Browning's lines: "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,/Or what's a heaven for?" In this light, his end seems a kind of moral triumph.

Iñárritu's previous films have been multilayered narratives. Here, he sticks to a single, admittedly richly vibrant milieu and a central character who appears in virtually every frame. He's brilliantly served by the handsome, imposing Bardem, whose expressive face and large battered nose resembles a deposed Roman emperor who's spent a lifetime in fairground boxing booths. This is a further contribution to an astonishing gallery of characters Bardem's created these past few years, ranging from a troubled intellectual and a police chief to a romantic artist and a sadistic killer. The versatile actor he most reminds me of is Anthony Quinn.

One must also mention the harsh, atmospheric photography by Rodrigo Prieto, who's shot all of Iñárritu's films to date as well as Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain" and "Lust, Caution." Bardem is unlikely to win the best actor Oscar for which he has been nominated, but in the absence of "Of Gods and Men" from the shortlist, it seems likely that "Biutiful" will win the Academy Award for best foreign language film.


Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Stimulating cinema: The Maid

Original title: "La Nana"
Year released: 2009
Director: Sebastian Silva

Well-acted and engrossing little film that examines the gulf between the haves and have-nots in modern day Santiago. Catalina Saavedra is wonderful in the title role and the remainder of the cast is spot-on as well. The review is from Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian and was originally published to coincide with the film's UK release in August of 2010.

Sebastián Silva's film is an unexpected combination: a gripping psychological thriller and also a poignant human drama. It really is edge-of-the-seat stuff, with a startling denouement, and an outstanding central performance from Catalina Saavedra. She plays Raquel, the live-in uniformed maid, working for a well-to-do family in Santiago, Chile, in a handsome house with a pool, attending to the needs of the master and mistress along with their lively teenage children. She must also show respect to the children's very haughty and patrician grandmother, who comes to visit and does not hesitate to give her views on how the household should be run.

Raquel is treated as one of the family--that is, like a tiresome, but affectionately regarded cousin or poor relation--and the film opens with an uneasy and embarrassing birthday celebration that the children's mother Pilar (Claudia Celedón) insists on organising for her. Poor Raquel is now 41, with no man or children of her own, and at an age at which she might be wondering if she has wasted her life in the service of people who don't care about her. Silva cranks up the tension as the atmosphere becomes more oppressive and dysfunctional. Raquel becomes more needy and resentful, more bad-tempered, affecting selective deafness when she does not want to hear an instruction. She has headaches and fainting spells, and when her employers timidly suggest a secondary maid to help her with the chores, Raquel begins a sociopathic guerrilla war against the unfortunate new arrival and against the family itself.

The maid, in her uniform, is traditionally an ambiguous figure: a key player in her own secret theatre of power. She is intimate with authority, but emphatically beneath it, yet also conversely capable, in her very silent submission, of accumulating unspoken grievances with years of service and so increasingly menacing her employer with suggestions of some imminent uprising or unthinkable transgression. Silva's movie draws on the dark, erotic language of Buñuel, Genet and Losey, and it has something of Hollywood thrillers such as "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" and "Fatal Attraction," together with Michael Haneke's icily parodic slant on this genre. But there is another strand to The Maid: a gentler, unalienated strand that invites the audience to recognise the servant's vulnerability, and here "The Maid" reminded me of Fernando Meirelles' "Domésticas" (2001) and Enrique Rivero's "Parque Vía" (2008).

Saavedra's portrayal is scary yet subtle, nuanced, and she appears almost to change physically with shifts in her character's mood. We can see the old woman that she is growing into, together with the shy girlish figure who first entered the family's service. It is a great star performance, reason enough on its own for seeing this.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Mid-August Lunch

Original title: "Pranzo di Ferragosto"
Year released: 2008
Director: Gianni Di Gregorio

A funny, warm, touching film that anyone who ever cared for someone older than themselves can relate to. But of course Phillip French in the London Observer can tell you a lot better than I.

I recently had the pleasure and privilege of presenting a prize for the best first film shown in the 2008 London film festival to Gianni Di Gregorio. It was a pleasure because I greatly admire his gentle, perceptive comedy "Mid-August Lunch," and a privilege because the prize is presented by the Satyajit Ray Foundation in memory of the director I revere beyond all others. The Satyajit Ray Award has been given every year since 1996 to a film "which best captures the artistry expressed in Ray's own vision" and Di Gregorio could not have been a more appropriate recipient.

Almost 60 years ago, early in 1950, the newly married Ray, then working for an advertising agency in Calcutta, made his first visit to Europe to spend some months at the parent company's headquarters in London. "Within three days of arriving in London, I saw De Sica's "Bicycle Thieves," he later wrote. "I knew immediately that if I ever made Pather Panchali--and the idea had been at the back of my mind for some time--I would make it in the same way, using natural locations and unknown actors."

On his return home, he wrote an article on "Some Italian Films I Have Seen" for the Indian Film Society Bulletin, which concluded: "For a popular medium, the best kind of inspiration should derive from life and its roots in it. No amount of technical polish can make up for artificiality of theme and dishonesty of treatment. The Indian film-maker must turn to life, to reality. De Sica and not DeMille should be his ideal."

The 60-year-old Di Gregorio is best known to us as the screenwriter on Gomorrah, Matteo Garrone's expansive, multilayered film about the terrible hold that organised crime has on Naples. His directorial debut, which Garrone has produced, is on a quite different scale. Partly autobiographical, shot entirely on location (mostly in Di Gregorio's old family apartment) with a non-professional cast for a budget of under £430,000, "Mid-August Lunch" seems to meet all of Ray's requirements.

Ray, I think, would have admired the film for its humanity, its concern for family and the elderly and for the way Di Gregorio suffers fools gladly. In addition to writing and directing, Di Gregorio plays the central character, also called Gianni, a bachelor in his late 50s, unemployed because he's the full-time carer for his 90-year-old widowed mother.
They live in a well-furnished, somewhat shabby fourth-floor flat in the charming old Roman district of Trastevere. Inside, it's dark, outside blindingly bright, and the time is the height of summer on the eve of Ferragosto. That's the annual celebration on 15 August of the ascension of the Virgin Mary into Heaven and it empties the city. Older moviegoers will recall Luciano Emmer's Sunday in August, an art house staple of the early 50s in which Marcello Mastroianni made one of his earliest screen appearances as a young cop in a white uniform patrolling the empty streets of a shimmering Rome.

Gianni is cash-strapped, slightly depressed, but cheerful in the company of his cantankerous mother (to whom he's reading "The Three Musketeers"), his raffish chum, Viking, and the storekeeper who gives him wine on tick. In a very amusing confrontation with Alfredo, the accountant who administers the apartment block, Gianni is persuaded to take in Alfredo's mother for Ferragosto in exchange for the postponement of rent arrears and utility bills, being relieved of his contribution to essential repairs and, the cherry on the cake, given a key to the shared lift.

When Alfredo delivers his mother, Marina, he also drops off his even older aunt, Maria, whose kids have gone elsewhere for the holidays. Looking down at Alfredo's convertible parked in the street below, Gianni sees that the accountant's companion for a supposed trip to a health resort is a lissom young blonde, the one little gesture towards Berlusconi's Italy.

As Gianni goes about his three principal activities--smoking, drinking and cooking, often simultaneously--his doctor turns up and, after examining both son and mother, makes an offer that due to the accompanying financial inducement can't be refused. So Gianni agrees to extend his hospitality to the doctor's elderly mother, Grazia, who arrives with a list of dietary requirements and pills that would challenge a trained nurse. At this point, as Gianni deals with the elderly widows, all demanding in different ways, in a cramped flat, the film resembles the cabin sequence in A Night at the Opera, but is played as polite comedy instead of farce.

Initially tensions build up. Gianni's mother wants to be alone. Maria attempts to take over in the kitchen. Grazia takes forbidden macaroni casserole from the fridge at night. Marina, after locking herself in her room, slips out of the house to a nearby trattoria. But Gianni, considerate as ever, smooths things over, settles disputes over the TV, resists a drunken Marina's attempts at seduction. Then the women start to bond, reading palms, discussing their lives and loves. The atmosphere becomes joyful and Gianni takes a back seat.

It's a wonderfully patient, delicately observed film; warm, generous, never for a moment sentimental or patronising, never exploiting dottiness and eccentricity. The performances of the old ladies are pitch-perfect and by the end, Di Gregorio's casting of himself as Gianni seems both essential and inevitable. The final credits are accompanied by what looks like home movie footage of an improvised dance and, thinking about it afterwards, one can't be sure whether this is the host dancing with his mother and their guests or the director celebrating with his cast at a wrap party.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Made in Dagenham

Director: Nigel Cole
Year released: 2010

Even if you don't know anything about the real life events that inspired this film, you can probably figure out how it's going to turn out pretty quickly. And even still it doesn't detract from the film in the last. The cast is uniformly excellent--major characters all the way down to minor ones--and everyone is played pitch perfectly. The costumes and settings are excellent and the story flows along nicely, without any wasted scenes or detours. Good one from director Nigel Cole--and if you don't believe me then I'm sure you'll trust Roger Ebert. His review was originally on Nov. 23, 2010.

Ford is having a great year, and I just bought one of its new Fusions. How would I feel if I discovered the women building it had been paid less than the men, simply because they were ... well, women? If a woman does the same job as a man, should she receive the same pay? Yes, says common sense. No, say corporations who will disregard anything in the search for profits.

Ford, let me hasten to add, has a policy of equal pay for equal work. It was not always that way with Ford, and to be fair, most corporations. “Made in Dagenham” takes place as recently as 1968, when the British Ford plant in Dagenham paid women significantly lower wages than men — with the agreement of their own unions and the Labour government of Harold Wilson.

Why was this so? Did they do less work? No. In fact, they were highly productive. It was so because the unions, the company and the government were run by men, and I dunno, I guess they just weren't used to thinking about women in that way. “Made in Dagenham” is a delightfully entertaining movie based on fact. The women went on strike, annoyed their unions and their husbands and embarrassed Wilson, who was caught with his principles down.

Sally Hawkins, that emerging dynamo of British acting, stars as Rita O'Grady, who sews automobile seat covers in what is literally a sweatshop; she and her co-workers have to strip down to bra and panties because of the unbearable heat. Her union organizer Albert Passingham (Bob Hoskins) is a left-winger whose principles run deeper than his union's. He was raised by a brave mother, instinctively admires women and sees with his own eyes that unequal pay is wrong.

Rita, a quiet woman, almost by accident becomes the shop steward. Albert spots the way her humanity cuts through politics. Using her first as a surrogate, he encourages the idea of a strike. The head of the union (Kenneth Cranham) at Ford “works closely with management,” as they say, and the government is also not eager to alienate a big corporate employer. All Rita O'Grady knows is that she works hard and believes that what's fair is fair.

A brief strike escalates into a much larger one. Her own husband, Eddie (Daniel Mays), is against her. The usual alarms circulate about left-wing influences. But when Rita is seen on the telly (and she is), she makes it all seem so simple (because it is). The strike at Dagenham changed history, in England and America, at Ford and many other manufacturers and elsewhere in the developed world. It's one reason so many jobs are outsourced to places where labor unions and equal pay do not find favor.

The struggle is far from over. Only last week, a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate prevented passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have added teeth to measures for equal pay. You don't see many GOP ads saying it's against equal pay, but it is. So are corporations, and there may be a connection, but it's harder to say now that corporate political contributions can be secret.

But back to Dagenham. Although Albert set the ball rolling, Rita quickly found tons of support, some of it in unlikely places. One backer of the strike was the government's Labor minister, Barbara Castle (Miranda Richardson). A “fiery redhead” (why are all redheads “fiery”?), she defied the pipe-puffing Wilson, who didn't want to alienate Ford.

She explained her reason: “Harold, you are wrong.” Probably the movie's best scene is when Castle receives O'Grady and her co-workers in her office and astonishes them by giving her support. Her decision put the Labour Party on the spot.

Another ally is much more unlikely. She is Lisa Hopkins (Rosamund Pike), who is married to a top executive at Ford. She received a first-class education, could have had a career but now finds herself playing the role of a well-trained and tamed corporate wife. Her husband, Peter (Rupert Graves), assumes that of course she opposes the striking women. Not so fast there, Pete.

Niki Caro's 2005 film “North Country” starred Charlize Theron in a similar story about a woman who won the first American sexual harassment lawsuit. That was in 1984. Some men are slow to figure these things out. The unexpected thing about “Made in Dagenham” is how entertaining it is. That's largely due to director Nigel Cole's choice of Sally Hawkins for his lead. In Mike Leigh's “Happy Go Lucky” (2009) and again here, she shows an effortless lightness of being. If she has a limitation, it may be that she's constitutionally ill-adapted for playing a bad person.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Down to the Bone

Director: Debra Granik
Year released: 2004

This one made me squirm, because as someone who battles every single day with addiction (food), I saw a lot of myself in the character of Irene. The lying, the sneaking, the selfishness, it's all there. And it hurts me to my heart to know that I have treated people I love like Irene does her loved ones. Regardless of the addiction, it's hard as hell to try to undo years and years of destructive behavior. And this film does a superb job of matching a face to that struggle. Here's a good review from Emanuel Levy at emanualLevy.com.

Winner of two awards at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, for director Debra Granik and a Special Jury Prize for actress Vera Farmiga, “Down to the Bone” is a low-budget, digital-video feature about the arduous process of drug rehab as experienced by a working class mother.

Vera Farmiga gives a solid performance as Irene, the lower-class mom who struggles to keep her marriage together and raise two young sons, while keeping her cocaine addiction a secret. After a series of nearly fatal mishaps, and finally hoping to make a change in her life, Irene decides to check herself into a rehab center. She knows that kicking the habit would be tough, but the experience proves even more difficult than she could have anticipated.

At the center, Irene meets and falls in love with a fellow reformed addict, Bob (Hugh Dillon), who works as a male nurse. Since she is married, Irene makes all efforts to keep the illicit affair clandestine, until she's caught off guard by one of her kids. What makes the movie interesting is that Irene and Bob's stories are complicated and full of paradoxes.

The narrative follows with extreme restraint as Irene goes through drug busts, counseling sessions, group therapy, and honest and dishonest conversations with her husband. And director Granik shows humor too. Reproached by her supermarket boss for a slower pace and less than graceful attitude toward her customers, Irene fires back, “When I was high, I was fast, and now that I'm clean, I'm slow.”

The tale is excellent at conveying how frail and vulnerable people who go through rehab are. Indeed, when one of the couple falls into a relapse with the addiction, their commitment to staying clean and to each other is completely shattered.

Both characters hit bottom and do things, consciously and subconsciously, that they know they would regret and would also hurt those around them. Highly aware of her predicament, Irene in particular knows that she must fight her way to a better place at a price. The characters' epiphanies are not tidy, and there's no happy or sweeping resolution. While there's movement toward redemption, it's not neat or pat; the film just ends.

Aptly titled, “Down to the Bone” is based on Granik's 1997 short film, “Snake Feed,” which won the Sundance Film Festival Short Award in 1998. In its current shape, the film is not only ultra-modest but also under-populated. In addition to Irene's husband, Steve (Clint Jordan), there's only one other character, Lucy (Caridad De La Luz), Irene's co-worker in cleaning houses.

Granick uses her central performers and working class locale of Upstate New York to good effect. Downbeat and realistic, the script is remarkable for avoiding clichs about drug-addiction and rehabilitation and for maintaining a matter-of-fact, non-melodramatic approach. Neither the characters nor the actors who plays them ask for sympathy from the audience, just greater sensitivity to a subject that so far has received mostly sensationalistic Movie-of-the-Week treatment.

Adopting a semi-documentary style, this beautifully wrought film accurately and authentically explores the wrenching road to recovery, without ever resorting to histrionics. It's hard to tell whether the flags shown at the beginning of the film are meant to reflect the post 9/11 mood of run-down working class-America, or whether they are used as an ironic backdrop for a truly downbeat story.

The origins of the film go back to Granik's meeting with Corinne Stralka, a woman who worked as housekeeper at an inn in Upstate New York, where Granik was shooting a documentary. After this chance meeting, Granik began videotaping Corinne and her family, thinking her work would result in a cinema verite documentary.

In “Snake Feed,” the short that preceded the feature-length movie, Corinne, her kids, and her partner, Rich Lieske, played themselves. After making the short, Granik continued to videotape and interview her subjects for several years before deciding to try her hand at a feature.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Bigger Than Life

Director: Nicholas Ray
Year: 1956

In its own way, this slice of the darker side of 1950s suburban American life is scarier than 50 slasher flicks. And perhaps it resonates more for me because I can relate to the central premise of the film--watching someone you love become a changed person thanks to misuse of prescription drugs. Been there, done that. So while things never quite got to the point that they did for the characters in this movie, I've been awful close. Like Walter Matthau's kindhearted best friend Wally, I've had to literally have to wrestle someone back from the brink. It's hard to fight with tears in your eyes and it's even harder to watch a movie, but that's what "Bigger Than Life" was for me. A snapshot, a memory and ultimately, a nightmare.

Ed Avery (James Mason) is a fine upstanding man. He has an adoring wife named Lou (Barbara Rush) and a happy little boy named Richie (Christopher Olsen). Ed is a schoolteacher, well-respected by colleagues and superiors alike. He has two secrets though, a fairly benign one and a more serious. Two or three times a week, he works as a dispatcher for a cab company in order to make ends meet. Money is tight in the Avery household and that's one of the threads that runs through the film. Ed is also in great and almost constant pain, and apparently has been trying to keep this hidden for the last six months.

Following a dinner party for Ed's friends, the pain becomes too great and Ed passes out--not once but twice. He is taken to the hospital where a battery of tests are run. Lou comes to visit and--after one of his co-workers from the cab company drops in--Ed confesses to his "double life." There's much relieved laughter--Lou of course thought he was having an affair but it turns out that Ed was only trying to make things better for her and Richie. It's a real puzzler as to what's wrong with Ed's health, but eventually the doctors decide on a diagnosis. And the prognosis is grim, Ed could very well soon be dead. However, there is some hope; the (then) new drug cortisone has been known to help. Ed is given a prescription with strict instructions on how and when to take the pills.

Very soon, Ed's behavior begins to change. Despite the family's financial hardship, he insists on taking Lou to the finest store in town to buy some clothes. Throwing the football around with Richie now has an intense, hard edge. And in one memorable scene, Ed manages to offend practically every parent of his students as he delivers a speech about the limitations of children at a PTA meeting. Things grow even worse--a now paranoid Ed, who is taking far more than the daily dosage, accuses Wally and Lou of having and affair and in due time he announces his plan to leave her and devote his time to a nebulous research project that he feels will change the course of education.

It's riveting to watch, and Ed's descent is made more poignant by his family. Lou is the classic enabler, refusing to see the obvious even when Wally implores her to do something. Richie, who eventually becomes the focal point of Ed's psychotic rantings, is a poor confused kid. At one point, when things are at their worst, Richie exclaims that he'd rather have his father stop taking the cortisone and die than continue on his downward spiral. The movie reaches its frightening crescendo when Ed turns into a Bible-quoting madman bent on the destruction of his family.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this movie was not a financial success upon its release. It's not the typical happy nuclear family, "Father Knows Best" fare. But it earned enormous respect among critics--writing in the influential French journal "Cahiers du Cinema," Jean-Luc Godard proclaimed it one of his 10 favorites. But looking back, we see that Ray and Mason, who also co-wrote and produced the film, were remarkably forward thinking in their portrayal of the insidious things that can happen when prescription drugs are misused. Ray is simply wonderful in his role, spanning the entire range of human emotion in the course of 95 minutes. Matthau is also strong in his role as the best buddy, offering humor, logic and empathy throughout the proceedings.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Stimulating cinema: The Pope's Toilet

Directors: Cesar Charlone and Enrique Fernandez
Year: 2007

Note: Originally I wrote this back in January of 2011. It's not cold and snowing here today; alas, the part about the diet is true.

It's a cold gray day outside today. Snow is coming down in buckets and it's been consistently freezing for several weeks. Combined with the fact that I have just embarked on a new workout/diet program in an effort to (once again) lose those unwanted pounds, I am not the happiest camper right now. But I've had my pity party and now it's time to move on. I have to remember that I have a lot going for me in my life and annoyances like the weather and working out for an hour a day are just that--annoyances. I'm not in danger of going bankrupt or anything like that. I haven't staked my entire future on a dream that may or may not come true.

Which brings me to today's post and this remarkable movie from Uruguay. Maybe my mood is affected by watching this--"The Pope's Toilet" is truly one of the most poignant, gut-wrenching movies you will ever see. And the genius of it is, that the raw emotion stems from what should be a wondrous experience--a visit from the Pope. The sadness is tempered with lots of comic episodes, but the overall theme of the movie is chasing dreams--and we all know that more times than not, the dreams escape our grasp.

The setting is 1988 in Melo, Uruguay, a mountain village near the Brazilian border. Beto (Cesar Troncoso) and buddies eke out a meager existence working as smugglers, riding their bikes back and forth across the border several times a week, returning with groceries and other goods which they can then sell to small-time shopkeepers in their village. The work is grueling, the rewards are small and on top of it all, Beto and his friends are the frequent victims of shakedowns, courtesy of a corrupt customs official named Meleyo (Nelson Lence). Beto has a wife Carmen (Virginia Mendez), who is patient and kind and remarkably supportive even in the face of the tough life they are living. There is also brooding teenage daughter Silvia (Virginia Ruiz), who is ashamed of the way her dad makes a living and who dreams of fleeing her tiny village to go to the capital of Montevideo and study to be a radio broadcaster (the scenes where Silvia practices her delivery under the cover of darkness are incredibly touching).

Excitement is running high in Melo--Pope John Paul II will soon be arriving for a visit. The townspeople view this as an opportunity to make some quick and plentiful cash selling food and souvenirs to the multitudes that are expected to descend on their village. Of course, these plans require start-up capital and the villagers are forced to mortgage everything the have in order to acquire their materials. It's a risky proposition--extremely so--and Carmen cautions against trying to make money off the Holy Father. But the lure of riches is too great and everyone busily throws themselves into making chorizo sandwiches and cookies and blowing up balloons. Beto, of course, has a scheme too. With everyone eating so much, certainly there will be a need for a bathroom. So he decides to build one on his property with the plan of charging visitors who need to make use of the facilities.

Carmen tries to point out some possible negatives ('what if they go before they leave home?") and offers an idea of her own that Beto promptly shoots down. It's all or nothing for him and soon he is launching himself headlong into building the finest public convenience in the area. The family's savings are soon exhausted though and Beto ultimately makes a deal with the devil--Meleyo--to make some "special" runs. The payout is handsome but the price is high--Meleyo now owns Beto. And when Silvia sees her dad discussing terms with the local bad guy and calls him on it, the simmering tensions in the house spill over.

I won't go into any more plot details because I would really hate to spoil the final moments for anyone who is reading this and is interested in this movie. I will say though, that there are some truly moving, powerful scenes and it makes you wonder if the title of the movie can be taken metaphorically as well as literally. Everything about this movie is amazing--the acting, the camerawork, the cinematography, everything. I could go on and on but trust me on this--if you watch "The Pope's Toilet" and aren't moved, well ...

Friday, September 16, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Greenberg

Director: Noah Baumbach
Year released: 2010

It's kind of a hackneyed cliche at this point but I'm going to trot it out there because it fits; I wanted to like this one more than I did. I just found myself being overwhelmed by my dislike for the title character, to the point where there was little else that I could even remember after it was over. And there's certainly a whole lot to like, as A.O. Scott points out in his review that was originally published in the March 24, 2010 edition of the New York Times. Still in all, a good little movie and certainly not a waste of time watching it.

“Hurt people hurt people.” This nugget of therapy talk is passed from one character to another in Noah Baumbach's "Greenberg," offered as an explanation, an excuse and a sort-of apology. While those four words don’t quite sum up the whole of the human condition, they might stand as a concise summary of Mr. Baumbach’s recent movies. The battling pair of married (and then divorced) writers in "The Squid and the Whale," the warring sisters in "Margot at the Wedding"--they and their loved ones walk through life nursing psychic wounds and brandishing metaphorical knives.

Roger Greenberg--a former musician who works as a carpenter and whose vocation is writing eloquent letters of complaint about apparently minor inconveniences — is both heavily scarred and heavily armed. Played by Ben Stiller as a wiry, gray-haired ball of raw nerves and well-oiled defense mechanisms, Roger returns to Los Angeles after 15 years in New York and a short stay in a mental hospital after a breakdown. He roosts in the large hillside house of his brother (Chris Messina), who has gone with his wife and children to Vietnam for a long vacation.

“I’m trying to do nothing right now,” Roger explains to everyone who doesn’t ask. Whether he succeeds is an open question. He looks up some old friends, worries about the neighbors and his brother’s dog, and pursues an awkward stop-and-start romance with his brother’s personal assistant, Florence Marr (Greta Gerwig). Roger, at 40, seems uncomfortably stuck in his own receding youth, but Florence, who hangs out in art galleries with her friends and sometimes sings at a half-empty hipster bar, really is 25.
Although Roger Greenberg is a world-class narcissist, “Greenberg” is not all about him. It is the funniest and saddest movie Mr. Baumbach has made so far, and also the riskiest. Mr. Stiller, suppressing his well-honed sketch comedian’s urge to wink at the audience, turns Roger into a walking challenge to the Hollywood axiom that a movie’s protagonist must be likable. But Mr. Baumbach, relishing his antihero’s obstinate difficulty--which is less an inability to connect with other people than a stubborn refusal, on hazy grounds of principle, to try--treats Roger with compassion, even tenderness.

And in finding others who are willing, sometimes against their best interests, to venture that kind of generosity, he turns what might have been a case study of neurosis into an exploration of loneliness, friendship and the sense of emotional deprivation that can fester in a landscape of comfort and privilege.

This landscape is an important part of the film, as is the city of Los Angeles, captured in its shaggy, smoggy, unglamorous beauty by the exceptionally talented cinematographer Harris Savides. The easiest rebuke to aim at Mr. Baumbach, the child of East Coast literary intellectuals and the husband of a much-admired actress (Jennifer Jason Leigh, who appears in “Greenberg” and shares a story credit with her husband), is that he occupies himself with a narrow and (to him) familiar swath of social reality. Fair enough, but so did Henry James. And like James — I swear I won’t push this analogy too far, lest I start sounding like the dad in “The Squid and the Whale” — Mr. Baumbach is highly sensitive to nuances of behavior and tiny distinctions of status.

To some extent, “Greenberg,” like nearly all of Mr. Baumbach’s work going back to "Kicking and Screaming" is a comedy of manners. West Coast versions of the hyper-articulate recent college graduates of that movie, his 1995 directing debut, have grown up and been supplanted by a strange new generation. Some of the humor in “Greenberg” comes from the various collisions between youth and middle age. Kids these days! They don’t know what you’re talking about when you quote "Wall Street" and they don’t appreciate Duran Duran. Damned Internet!

Roger drifts partly back into a circle of old friends and band mates, and seeks out Beth (Ms. Leigh), a former girlfriend who has been married and divorced since he saw her last. She, like Roger’s still loyal best friend, Ivan (Rhys Ifans), has been attempting to live an adult life, and several scenes capture the awkwardness of people trying to hold on to their youth and trying to find a comfortable way to be grown-ups. (By drinking beer, for example, at their children’s birthday parties.)

You don’t have the feeling that Ivan or Beth has changed much since the mid-’90s, but each has accepted the necessity of compromise. This is a basic element of maturity that Roger refuses. Beth and Ivan are trying to swim, or at least are managing to tread water, while Roger can barely dog paddle his way out of the shallow end of his brother’s pool.

It is partly arrested development--the refusal to act his age--that draws Roger to Florence, who functions less as a standard love interest than as his mirror image and moral counterweight. Like Roger, she is lonely and adrift, but her identity crisis is different from his. While he is aggressive even at times of indecision, Florence, at her most decisive, still seems tentative and hesitant.

“You need to stand up for yourself,” Florence’s employer tells her, and Roger, who takes repeated advantage of her passivity, mistakes it for low self-esteem. “You have value,” he tells her at one point, repeating another therapeutic nostrum he picked up from Beth.

“I already knew that,” Florence shouts back, in a rare display of anger. “You didn’t have to say that.”

Her problem is that she is not sure what or who else should have value to her. Florence is in the early stages of the battle for love and success, having taken her marching orders along with her college degree. But she has only a vague sense of the mission.

Roger, meanwhile, fancies himself a conscientious objector, courageously refusing to follow the rules of engagement and showering contempt on anyone who does. This gives him license to be thoughtless and mean whenever he wants, and his repeated, unprovoked cruelty to Florence may be, for some viewers, impossible to forgive.

But “Greenberg” is not easily forgotten, and the misery of Roger’s company provides its own special kind of pleasure. Mr. Baumbach’s sense of character and place is so precise — the film seems so transparent, so real — that his formal audacity almost passes unnoticed. Rather than push Roger and Florence through the grinding machinery of an overdetermined plot, he allows them to wander and sometimes to stall, to inhabit their lives fully and uneasily. They are more like characters in a French movie than the people you usually meet under the Hollywood sign.

Only at the end, in the wake of a brilliantly executed party sequence--in which Roger, the solitary Gen-Xer, finds his world of defensive ironies and carefully preserved pop cultural references overrun and trashed by a swarm of Millennials--does his arc, as residents of Hollywood might call it, become apparent. Mr. Baumbach abruptly, and with a subtle display of self-conscious wit, reveals “Greenberg” to have been a romantic comedy all along. Here we are in a car speeding toward the airport and what might be the prospect of a happy ending. And suddenly a movie about a man who is defiantly difficult to like becomes very hard not to love.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Stimulating cinema: Welcome

Director: Philippe Lioret
Year released: 2010

The folks at Film Movement are responsible for this one, along with a number of other gems--all of astonishingly high artistic value. The review below was written by Stephen Holden and published in the New York Times on May 7, 2010.

Philippe Lioret's compelling, finely balanced immigration drama, "Welcome," is set mostly in Calais, the port in northern France that is the closest French city to Britain. Here, where on a clear day the cliffs of Dover are visible like a glimpse of the promised land, is where Bilal (Firat Ayverdi), a 17-year-old Kurd, lands on a chilly, bleak February afternoon in 2008.

Having spent three months traveling on foot from Mosul, Iraq, during which he was captured and held prisoner for eight days by the Turkish Army, Bilal is a stubborn fool for love who hopes to cross the English Channel to be with his Kurdish sweetheart, Mina (Derya Ayverdi, Mr. Ayverdi’s sister). But he is persona non grata with her family, which has settled in London, where her father plans to marry her off to a prosperous cousin who owns grocery stores.

Like few other films about illegal immigration and its perils, “Welcome” puts you so completely into the shoes of a young man facing almost insurmountable obstacles that you feel a profound empathy not only for him but also for all who are ready to risk everything for the dream of a better life. Mr. Ayverdi’s portrayal of a shy innocent driven by blind faith in himself and ferocious stamina finds exactly the right spirit of determination tinged with petulance to make him entirely believable.

Because Bilal finds a reluctant, and unlikely, champion in Simon (Vincent Lindon), a middle-aged swimming instructor at a public pool in Calais, the movie has a lot in common with "The Visitor," which portrayed a similar relationship. But its story has a more organic feel and deeper emotional resonance. Granite-faced and baggy-eyed, his mouth set in a tight line, Mr. Lindon’s Simon epitomizes a solid, stoic Gallic masculinity in the mold of Jean Gabin.

When Bilal enters his life, Simon is in the midst of being amicably divorced from his wife, Marion (Audrey Dana), a schoolteacher who helps run an outdoor soup kitchen for the city’s 500 or so illegal immigrants. The spur to Simon’s unexpected patronage of Bilal is Marion’s accusation that he is indifferent not only to her but also to the plight of those less fortunate. Her stinging criticism wakes Simon up to his own self-absorption at exactly the moment when Bilal visits the pool where Simon works, seeking lessons so that he can swim the English Channel in a wet suit.

Bilal has already blown his best chance of crossing the water safely, having borrowed 500 euros to pay a “handler,” who in an early scene smuggles him and several others in the belly of a truck bound for a ferry to England. During the trip, which involves putting a plastic bag over his face at checkpoints to foil sensors programmed to detect human activity, he panics and gives the group away.

Because Simon and Marion were childless, Bilal, without Simon’s quite realizing it, becomes his surrogate son. The most dedicated pupil Simon has ever had, Bilal makes astonishingly rapid progress, and eventually Simon takes him to the water’s edge for practice.

One of the film’s achievements is to put you just as much in Simon’s shoes as in Bilal’s. Simon’s cynicism and sense of caution are constantly pulling him back and making him question his impulse to help the boy. Tiny misunderstandings can flare into lightning rages if Simon thinks Bilal might be playing him for a sucker. And Bilal, for all his sweetness, is no meek little angel. Below his litanies of humble thank yous is a will of iron, along with a streak of avarice.

In agreeing to help an illegal immigrant, Simon is breaking the law. His neighbors complain to the police and insinuate that Simon is sleeping with Bilal. If it can be proven that he is sheltering the boy, Simon faces arrest and possible incarceration. Even Marion, who is amazed at his change of heart, decides that he is going too far.

When Bilal eventually undertakes the solo journey, the movie shows you just how perilous it is. Aerial views reveal the currents Bilal will be fending off, while sea-level shots in the choppy gray water, in which vessels loom like predatory monsters bobbing in and out of view, make you feel like a fragile, shivering dot. The same sense of visceral immensity is conveyed by scenes of giant trucks lined up to make the ferry crossing at twilight.

As deeply as it explores the souls of Bilal and his wary protector, “Welcome” evokes a world of overwhelming forces, both natural and social, plying the waters of history. These forces may be resisted, but they will not be stopped.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Stimulating cinema: In Bruges

Director: Martin McDonagh
Year released: 2008

Another excellent film--and really, why should you waste two hours of your time knowingly watching something that isn't any good. Two hitmen--hilariously with guidebooks in tow--are sent to lay low in Bruges, Belgium. There's a great mixture of action and comedy. I'm not Hollywood enough to worry that Colin Ferrell's performance in this one got him "back on track" or "fulfilled our expectations of how funny he could be." I just know it's a very fine film--and Roger Ebert agrees:

You may know that Bruges, Belgium, is pronounced "broozh," but I didn't, and the heroes of "In Bruges" certainly don't. They're Dublin hit- men, sent there by their boss for two weeks after a hit goes very wrong. One is a young hothead who sees no reason to be anywhere but Dublin; the other, older, gentler, more curious, buys a guidebook and announces: "Bruges is the best-preserved medieval city in Belgium!"

So it certainly seems. If the movie accomplished nothing else, it inspired in me an urgent desire to visit Bruges. But it accomplished a lot more than that. This film debut by the theater writer and director Martin McDonagh is an endlessly surprising, very dark, human comedy, with a plot that cannot be foreseen but only relished. Every once in a while you find a film like this, that seems to happen as it goes along, driven by the peculiarities of the characters.

Brendan Gleeson, with that noble shambles of a face and the heft of a boxer gone to seed, has the key role as Ken, one of two killers for hire. His traveling companion and unwilling roommate is Ray (Colin Farrell), who successfully whacked a priest in a Dublin confessional but tragically killed a little boy in the process. Before shooting the priest, he confessed to the sin he was about to commit. After accidentally killing the boy, he reads the notes the lad made for his own confession. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Ken and Ray work for Harry, apparently a Dublin crime lord, who for the first two thirds of the movie we hear only over the phone, until he materializes in Bruges and turns out to be a worried-looking Ralph Fiennes. He had the men hiding out in London, but that wasn't far enough away. Who would look for them in Bruges? Who would even look for Bruges? Killing the priest was business, but "blowing a kid's head off just isn't done."

The movie does an interesting thing with Bruges. It shows us a breathtakingly beautiful city, without ever seeming to be a travelogue. It uses the city as a way to develop the characters. When Ken wants to climb an old tower "for the view," Ray argues "why do I have to climb up there to see down here? I'm already down here." He is likewise unimpressed by glorious paintings, macabre sculptures and picturesque canals, but is thrilled as a kid when he comes upon a film being shot.

There he meets two fascinating characters: First he sees the fetching young blond Chloe (Clemence Poesy, who was Fleur Delacour in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"). Then he sees Jimmy (Jordan Prentice), a dwarf who figures in a dream sequence. He gets off on a bad footing with both, but eventually they're doing cocaine with a prostitute Jimmy picked up and have become friends, even though Ray keeps calling the dwarf a "midget" and having to be corrected.

Without dreaming of telling you what happens next, I will say it is not only ingenious but almost inevitable the way the screenplay brings all of these destinies together at one place and time. Along the way, there are times of great sadness and poignancy, times of abandon, times of goofiness, and that kind of humor that is really funny because it grows out of character and close observation. Farrell in particular hasn't been this good in a few films, perhaps because this time he's allowed to relax and be Irish. As for Gleeson, if you remember him in "The General," you know that nobody can play a more sympathetic bad guy.

Martin McDonagh is greatly respected in Ireland and England for his plays; his first film, a short named "Six Shoooter" starring Gleeson, won a 2006 Oscar. In his feature debut, "In Bruges," he has made a remarkable first film, as impressive in its own way as "House of Games," the first film by David Mamet, who McDonagh is sometimes compared with.

Yes, it's a "thriller," but one where the ending seems determined by character and upbringing rather than plot requirements. Two of the final deaths are, in fact, ethical choices. And the irony inspiring the second one has an undeniable logic, showing that even professional murderers have their feelings.

Stimulating cinema: Four Lions

Director: Chris Morris
Year released: 2010

Bloody brilliant film about a group of would-be jihadists who can't seem to can't out of their own way. Genuine laughs are derived from a scary topic (terrorism). Truly one of the best films I have seen, ever. The review comes from A.O. Scott and was originally published in the New York Times on November 4, 2010.

Terrorism is stupid. Terrorists are stupid. It seems to me that these truths have not been sufficiently acknowledged, especially by movies, which tend to imagine terrorists as the diabolically clever authors of complicated conspiracies. But surely the recent historical record suggests that for every extremist mastermind scheming in a cave somewhere, there are innumerable stooges, fools and copycats, their dreams of glory tethered to half-baked ideas and harebrained plots. Incompetence married to zeal is hardly benign--dumb people have done their share of damage in the world--but it can nonetheless be funny.

These musings are inspired by "Four Lions," a shockingly hilarious, stiletto-sharp satire directed by Chris Morris and written by a squad of British wits. It concerns a squad of British nitwits eager to wage jihad and unsure of just how to go about doing it. That there are five of them in a movie called “Four Lions” is testament either to their aggregate brain power or to their mathematical skills, though it is also true that one of the group is subtracted by an incident of premature martyrdom involving a sheep.

Shot in a jerky, low-budget style just a few steps removed from the inflammatory Web videos its characters try to make, “Four Lions” is unsparing and yet also curiously affectionate. Taking place mainly in a nondescript, lower-middle-class suburb, with excursions to Pakistan and London, the film proceeds through a barrage of multilingual, heavily accented slang, punctuated by bursts of nearly “Jackass”-worthy slapstick, some fatal. In the manner of "Extras" or "In the Loop" it offers a thoroughly cynical, cringe-inducingly precise portrait of a slice of contemporary society.

It is hard to know just how to introduce the five self-styled mujahideen whose confused, powerful desire to blow something up sends the movie on its chaotic, farcical journey. Perhaps in ascending order of intelligence? In that case, Waj (Kayvan Novak) would probably come first, since he cannot tell a chicken from a rabbit and studies Islamic doctrine in children’s books like “The Cat Who Went to Mecca.” He would be followed by Faisal (Adeel Akhtar), a dreamy, timid soul whose big operational idea is to train crows to be suicide bombers.

Waj and Faisal are disarmingly sweet-natured, given that they have chosen the path of violence. The same cannot be said for Barry (Nigel Lindsay), whose belligerent fanaticism may stem from the fact that he is presumably a convert to Islam. Or he may just be nuts. His big operational idea is to bomb a local mosque, which he says will “radicalize the moderates.”

In any event, when Barry recruits Hassan (Arsher Ali), who expresses his religious beliefs through bad hip-hop rhymes, he precipitates one of many schisms within the cell, in particular because the leader, Omar (Riz Ahmed), is jealous.

To say that Omar is the brains-- and also the conscience-- of this band of brothers is accurate, as far as it goes. Though he cannot aim a rocket launcher, a failure that gets him and Waj thrown out of a training camp in Pakistan, Omar can tell a rabbit from a chicken, and he can see his comrades’ foolishness. This means that he can expand the movie’s comic range by making fun of them and also that he becomes a vessel for the audience’s sympathy. That he is a regular guy with a job as a security guard, a good-humored wife (Preeya Kalidas) and a young son makes him all the more likable, even as his likability makes his commitment to violence especially disturbing.

Unlike, say, Udayan Prasad and Hanif Kureishi's sensitive and prescient "My Son the Fanatic," "Four Lions" is not an examination of the social and psychological roots of British Muslim fundamentalism. Its mockery is cruel, well aimed and, in its way, fair, since non-Muslim Britons and nonviolent Muslims (like Omar’s pious brother) come off no better than the titular pride of lions.

Inept as they are, the five members of this foursome follow the logic of their convictions to the end, and the film is nervy enough to do the same. It sustains its comedy past the point of sensitivity or good feeling, tickling the audience with matters that may be too painful, too awful, to contemplate otherwise and building toward an ending that manages to be grim, appalling and uproarious all at once. You laugh until the laughter turns to ashes in your mouth. And then you laugh some more.

Stimulating cinema: A Screaming Man

Original title: Un homme qui crie
Director: Mahamat-Saleh Haroun
Year released: 2010

For a film with the word "screaming" in the title, Mahamat-Saleh Haroun's latest is actually a very quiet, thoughtful--and thought-provoking--work. The screaming takes place on the inside, as the central character Adam (Youssouf Djaoro) deals with his searing inner turmoil and conflicting emotions. The central theme is about the struggle of growing old; once a champion swimmer Adam is now seeing his little corner of the world taken away by his son Abdel (Diouc Koma). And he doesn't like it--even though he clearly loves and respects his only child. This is a beautifully shot film that explores that darker side of the father-son relationship. The review below was originally published in the May 13, 2011 edition of the London Guardian and written by Phillip French.

When the name of the landlocked African republic of Chad comes up, most cinephiles will think of the opening of Antonioni's The Passenger. In that masterly 1975 film, playing a reporter at the end of his tether while covering a hopeless civil war, Jack Nicholson swaps his identity with a dead man he finds in a remote Saharan hotel. It seems to sum up the sense of desperation and extreme experience that, rightly or wrongly, Chad incites.

However, as in other troubled, desperately poor African countries, there are a handful of gifted artists of world stature, mostly musicians but also painters and film-makers, and A Screaming Man, the fourth feature film by Mahamat-Saleh Haroun, Chad's only prominent film-maker, won the jury prize at last year's Cannes film festival. This year Haroun is serving on the festival jury under Robert De Niro and later this month he's to be the subject of a brief retrospective season at BFI South Bank, or the National Film Theatre as some of us insist on calling it. For many years Chad hasn't had a cinema, so making a movie there is rather like cutting a key without having a lock to use it on. But – a hopeful sign – an old cinema has been reopened and renovated to show Haroun's movies.

Although having lived in France for 30 years after receiving severe war wounds, the 50-year-old Haroun has set all his films in Chad. There's a theme running through the simple, deeply affecting Abouna and Daratt, the previous films by Haroun that have been released in this country, of families falling apart under the strain of war and poverty. In Abouna, a previously dedicated father suddenly disappears from the family in Chad's capital of N'djamena; in Daratt, a young man is dispatched by his blind grandfather to find and kill his father's murderer after a general amnesty has been decreed following 40 years of civil war. This theme is also pursued in A Screaming Man, where social insecurity, poverty and an ever-widening civil war tear a family apart.

All his films are financed in Europe, and A Screaming Man clearly has a European model in FW Murnau's silent classic The Last Laugh (aka Der letzte Mann). Scripted by Carl Mayer (the only truly great writer to work exclusively in the cinema and now buried in Highgate cemetery), The Last Laugh centres on a pompous doorman at a grand hotel in Berlin humiliated by being reduced to working as a lavatory attendant. In Haroun's version he becomes Adam, a 55-year-old swimming-pool attendant at a smart hotel for upper-class guests, mainly foreigners. A former national swimming star known to everyone as "Champ", he has the stiff, proud bearing of a regimental sergeant major and is assisted by his handsome westernised son, 20-year-old Ahmed.

But with fluctuating fortunes in war-torn times, the hotel's new manager, Mrs Wang, is laying off staff and Adam is given the less dignified and remunerated job of gatekeeper. Ahmed is promoted to running the pool and is clearly more popular with female clients. A rift is created between them, and in a beautifully modulated scene shot in a single take, Mariam, the mother of the family, tries to keep the peace.

A Screaming Man doesn't have the expressionistic force of The Last Laugh, but it does have a performance of immense dignity from Youssouf Djaoro as Adam, whose biblical name becomes increasingly appropriate as the film proceeds. It also develops Carl Mayer's story far beyond anything in the original. Through the pressures working on Adam and the demands of a country involved in a pointless war, the young Ahmed is quite literally dragged away to war, and Adam is restored to his old post. This job, however, becomes increasingly unimportant.

The war is never viewed directly. It is something happening across the desert, but getting ever closer. Wounded soldiers appear in the street; UN troops use the pool. The noise of airliners overhead is replaced by that of military aircraft. The guilt-stricken Adam and his kindly wife take in a pregnant singer from Mali, Ahmed's 19-year-old girlfriend they had never heard of. A curfew is called as the town degenerates into anarchy. Having felt betrayed by his employees, Adam is now haunted by having himself become a traitor in a society given over to self-interest. He thus sets out to do the honest, upright thing. His task is to make moral sense of his life in a chaotic world where morality was once established through the position he held in an ordered, hieratic community.

A Screaming Man is a quiet film about family life, the relationship between fathers and children, and the way generations can shape and reshape each other. It ultimately has a sublime quality. The spirit of such quiet, reflective directors as Ozu and Bresson lies behind it and there are no sudden cuts or startling images.

The dominant motif is water. Father and son compete as swimmers. The pool and the river are places of escape from this harsh desert world. Water is not only a precious commodity for survival, but also a religious element for immersion and spiritual cleansing. Appropriately, A Screaming Man begins and ends with Adam in the water which has taken on a divine, healing quality in the course of the film.