I suspect most people who have heard about Nelson Mandela know that the South African government held secret talks with him while he was still in jail. What I didn't know was that the ANC wasn't aware of what was being talked about and were suspicious that he would be pressured into some deal behind their backs (as they saw it). I also didn't know that Consolidated Goldfields (since bought by Hanson plc) were worried about their South African mines and started a parallel series of secret talks in the UK between the ANC and white South Africans with indirect links to the government. These talks were organised by Michael Young and are the subject of Endgame.
The film is structured around a slow moving build up to the talks; following Michael Young as he tries to find white people willing to talk and is dogged by less than subtle secret agents. The camera work here is jumpy in an unsubtle and (to my mind) unsuccessful attempt to create tension. Mid-section of the film follows the two sets of talks. One in a posh English country house and the other in a South African jail. This is less about the substance of the talks than the roles of Thabo Mbeki (as a sophisticated and unyielding negotiator for the ANC), Professor Willie Esterhuyse (under orders to negotiate nothing and act as a reluctant spy) and Dr Neil Barnard (head of the Nation Intelligence Service as spider in the middle). This is the most successful part of the film, capturing the ambiguities of the government trying to both destroy the ANC and talk to it and similarly the ANC trying to figure out if the government is serious about peace talks or if it is a divide and conquer strategy. The final act begins with P.W. Botha's stroke and things happen so quickly I found it slightly unsatisfactory. Almost like F.W. de Klerk comes to power and then a miracle occurs.
People sitting around a table talking is not a good subject for a film, but Endgame succeeds in bringing out the irony of negotiations between a powerful government and the representatives of the people it is subjugating. The government wants concessions from the ANC but any concessions by the ANC would lead to it agreeing to some special deal for whites.
Watch trailer here.
Ian's rating 3/5 Anne's rating 3/5
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Transports Exceptionnels and Shapeshifter - Weekend Outdoor Culture
Sometimes going for a walk can be just a little dull, especially if you've been wherever you're going before. On the other hand, the weather has been so nice lately that its a bit of a pity to stay inside in order to be amused. So the fact that there's been some good entertainment in the great outdoors recently seems noteworthy.
On the last Saturday in February we went to see Transports Exceptionnels,which was a free event in Waitangi Park, part of the International Festival of the Arts. This event has been described as Dance with the Digger and it features two talented Frenchmen -one to dance and one to drive the digger- accompanied by Maria Callas singing Opera. The digger was sourced locally and was particularly shiny and splendid-looking
Philippe Priasso the dancer brought a cat burglar to mind, probably because of the combination of graceful movement and wearing black leather gloves. He hung from the digger bucket in every possible way, he posed on the digger arm, he ran in circles apparently pursued by the digger rotating and lay on the ground in its shadow. It was beautiful, daring and original, and the sun shone while the crowd sat on the grass in a circle and cheered and clapped.Top-notch entertainment and on the walk home we had local youth leaping into the harbour en masse as a bonus.
Last weekend we we went to Shapeshifter which is an outdoor sculpture exhibition that's also part of the Arts Festival. Not free, but the entry fee of $5 is completely reasonable. Most of the exhibition is in Lower Hutt's Civic Gardens and a few things are in the Dowse over the road. Civic Gardens (which we'd never visited before) is nice, with lots of big trees and a somewhat murky stream.
We had a programme which helpfully told us what each work was called and who had done it and how much it cost and then usually some art-speak about the artist's message and inspiration which seems pretty pretentious to a philistine like me but it added to the amusement we derived from the whole outing. The sculpture varied from the completely recognisable (a marble satchel) to quite abstract (twisted strip of metal) and it made for a pleasant stroll with interesting things to look at.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
The Road
For a change the Wellington Film Society got a scoop on a new film due for general release on 18 March (courtesy of the Paramount). The Road stars Viggo Mortensen as a father protecting his son in a post-apocalyptic world. Post-apocalyptic films are almost genre of their own. Usually they are either a sub-genre of SciFi or Horror, but in this case it is more of a human interest drama.
The lead characters in The Road don't have names, they refer to each other as Papa and Son. The film centres around Viggo Mortensen's character's all consuming goal of keeping his son and himself alive after his wife has committed suicide in despair that civilization will never return and humanity will inevitably starve to death. It is unusually bleak for an American film. Things start badly and you are left in no doubt that they will not get better.
I am in two minds about the ending as to whether it is a cop-out or a useful shock to underline message of the film and possibly undermine the inevitability of the moral journey. Either way iI think it was clumsily done. This may seem vague and hand-wavy but I don't want to give away too much about the ending in case you go and see it.
Like Where the Wild Things Are the plot is a light for a full length feature film but given that this film has to take you on an emotional and moral journey into the despair of its characters it probably needs most of the 11o minutes to get the audience there. The scenery, lighting and weather and other CGI effects all work to get you there. Winter in this film - grey, cold and muddy - is properly miserable.
Viggo Mortensen dominates the film and even Kodi Smit-McPhee (playing his son and constant companion) is effectively in a supporting role. There are cameo roles for Charlize Theron and Robert Duvall - the former representing a romanticised past (i.e. civilization).
Some of the filming was done on the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike which I'd never heard of before, but looks like a useful place for film makers.
Ian's rating 3/5
The lead characters in The Road don't have names, they refer to each other as Papa and Son. The film centres around Viggo Mortensen's character's all consuming goal of keeping his son and himself alive after his wife has committed suicide in despair that civilization will never return and humanity will inevitably starve to death. It is unusually bleak for an American film. Things start badly and you are left in no doubt that they will not get better.
The future is not a nice place and you have to be prepared to put aside niceties to survive, but will that turn you into a bad person?Father and son are travelling somewhere ("south to the coast") but it doesn't matter as the father knows it is a futile exercise. The question is: how selfish and inhuman do you have to be to survive in a world where they will be no new food? As the father is driven to more and more extreme acts to survive, his distance on the moral spectrum from the cannibals at the other end is getting shorter and shorter, and his son's questions become his conscience. The latter is an interesting device. Which doesn't entirely make sense, given that the boy (a foetus when the catastrophe happened) has never known our pre-apocalyptic society and moral values.
I am in two minds about the ending as to whether it is a cop-out or a useful shock to underline message of the film and possibly undermine the inevitability of the moral journey. Either way iI think it was clumsily done. This may seem vague and hand-wavy but I don't want to give away too much about the ending in case you go and see it.
Like Where the Wild Things Are the plot is a light for a full length feature film but given that this film has to take you on an emotional and moral journey into the despair of its characters it probably needs most of the 11o minutes to get the audience there. The scenery, lighting and weather and other CGI effects all work to get you there. Winter in this film - grey, cold and muddy - is properly miserable.
Viggo Mortensen dominates the film and even Kodi Smit-McPhee (playing his son and constant companion) is effectively in a supporting role. There are cameo roles for Charlize Theron and Robert Duvall - the former representing a romanticised past (i.e. civilization).
Some of the filming was done on the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike which I'd never heard of before, but looks like a useful place for film makers.
Ian's rating 3/5
Please, please me!
Having seen, and enjoyed, Emmanuel Mouret's unconventional Shall We Kiss? last year, with its gauche protagonists bumbling through their slow paced affair. I was keen to see what this actor / writer / director had come up with this time. His innocent and slightly bewildered face makes him an unusual (and non-threatening) actor to play a romantic protagonist. This allows him to address issues that would usually be off limits to more macho male characters.
Please, please me! (Trailer) opens with Jean-Jacques (Emmanuel Mouret) eager for some Saturday morning sex after a busy, sexless week, while his beautiful blonde girlfriend (Frédérique Bel) wants to sleep longer. His clumsy attempts to alternately keep his hands off her and seduce her become increasingly slapstick before morphing into a philosophical discussion on why their relationship is doomed (because lack of sex makes him desperate ... which turns her off). This seguing from one style of comedy to another as we follow Jean-Jacques through 24 hours of what are essentially a sequence of comic (and improbable) encounters with various beautiful women is what this film is about. Along the way there is a tribute to Get Smart with a series of small lifts, secret doors and tunnels, and a Carry On-like scene when he finds himself in a small flat with 4 nightie clad sisters. I may have missed something but there didn't seem much to hold it all together except the gauche and diffident Jean-Jacques.
Of the female co-stars the most memorable is the enigmatic Aneth (Déborah François) - zip expert and maid to the French President's daughter, who says more with her eyes than her mouth.
I have described this film to friends as "Mr Bean does a romantic comedy". But that is harsh comparison as Emmanuel Mouret's character is not as mean as Mr Bean and is more passive than stupid, and there is much more variety in the comedy than in a Rowan Atkinson film. But if you are faced with "Please, please me!" and "Shall We Kiss?" when choosing a DVD to rent, pick the latter.
Ian's rating 2.5/5 Anne's rating 3/5
Please, please me! (Trailer) opens with Jean-Jacques (Emmanuel Mouret) eager for some Saturday morning sex after a busy, sexless week, while his beautiful blonde girlfriend (Frédérique Bel) wants to sleep longer. His clumsy attempts to alternately keep his hands off her and seduce her become increasingly slapstick before morphing into a philosophical discussion on why their relationship is doomed (because lack of sex makes him desperate ... which turns her off). This seguing from one style of comedy to another as we follow Jean-Jacques through 24 hours of what are essentially a sequence of comic (and improbable) encounters with various beautiful women is what this film is about. Along the way there is a tribute to Get Smart with a series of small lifts, secret doors and tunnels, and a Carry On-like scene when he finds himself in a small flat with 4 nightie clad sisters. I may have missed something but there didn't seem much to hold it all together except the gauche and diffident Jean-Jacques.
Of the female co-stars the most memorable is the enigmatic Aneth (Déborah François) - zip expert and maid to the French President's daughter, who says more with her eyes than her mouth.
I have described this film to friends as "Mr Bean does a romantic comedy". But that is harsh comparison as Emmanuel Mouret's character is not as mean as Mr Bean and is more passive than stupid, and there is much more variety in the comedy than in a Rowan Atkinson film. But if you are faced with "Please, please me!" and "Shall We Kiss?" when choosing a DVD to rent, pick the latter.
Ian's rating 2.5/5 Anne's rating 3/5
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sherlock Holmes
Sherlock Holmes the movie isn't really aimed at Conan Doyle aficionados. It's a kind of an action movie with historic overtones and with some characters and background from a famous story. A slightly silly action movie at that. Think Shanghai Knights with more good-looking stars.
Sherlock Holmes is played by Robert Downey Junior and Dr Watson is played by Jude Law. They thwart a murder by arch-baddie Lord Blackwood who is arrested and hung for some previous murders but manages to avoid actually dying and stages a comeback from the dead and then tries to poison everyone in the House of Commons. Of course Holmes and Watson come to the rescue and then we have a highly improbable finale on a computer- generated Tower Bridge under construction where Blackwood finally gets the nasty end he deserves.
Along the way we get thinly disguised Masonic conspiracy, an old flame of Sherlock Holmes making a bit of a nuisance of herself, a few more murders, Watson making a huge effort to move out of Baker St and get his relationship with Mary off the ground, a cute bulldog and an amazing fight scene in a dry dock where the ship under construction gets launched by accident. One of the tenets of this movie is that Sherlock Holmes is an accomplished fighter although we can only wonder how he manages to maintain such a finely toned and fight-ready torso while moping around the house for weeks at a time.
The sound track was rousing but there was too much CGI for my liking. Why have a completely unconvincing CGI night view of Victorian London in the rain when you could just have found a street scene with houses of the right era and filmed that instead? The half built Tower Bridge was equally annoying. They did use some real locations like Brompton Cemetery but not nearly enough, in my opinion. I felt like the actors were just in front of a blank screen most of the time and the background got filled in later.
There's nothing wrong with escapist clap-trap but I've seen it done better.
Anne's rating 2/5
Perhaps I am getting too used to CGI but I didn't find it too obtrusive. I agree with Anne's assessment that this isn't really a Sherlock Holmes story but is a good Shanghai Knights-like romp.
Ian's rating 3/5
Sherlock Holmes is played by Robert Downey Junior and Dr Watson is played by Jude Law. They thwart a murder by arch-baddie Lord Blackwood who is arrested and hung for some previous murders but manages to avoid actually dying and stages a comeback from the dead and then tries to poison everyone in the House of Commons. Of course Holmes and Watson come to the rescue and then we have a highly improbable finale on a computer- generated Tower Bridge under construction where Blackwood finally gets the nasty end he deserves.
Along the way we get thinly disguised Masonic conspiracy, an old flame of Sherlock Holmes making a bit of a nuisance of herself, a few more murders, Watson making a huge effort to move out of Baker St and get his relationship with Mary off the ground, a cute bulldog and an amazing fight scene in a dry dock where the ship under construction gets launched by accident. One of the tenets of this movie is that Sherlock Holmes is an accomplished fighter although we can only wonder how he manages to maintain such a finely toned and fight-ready torso while moping around the house for weeks at a time.
The sound track was rousing but there was too much CGI for my liking. Why have a completely unconvincing CGI night view of Victorian London in the rain when you could just have found a street scene with houses of the right era and filmed that instead? The half built Tower Bridge was equally annoying. They did use some real locations like Brompton Cemetery but not nearly enough, in my opinion. I felt like the actors were just in front of a blank screen most of the time and the background got filled in later.
There's nothing wrong with escapist clap-trap but I've seen it done better.
Anne's rating 2/5
Perhaps I am getting too used to CGI but I didn't find it too obtrusive. I agree with Anne's assessment that this isn't really a Sherlock Holmes story but is a good Shanghai Knights-like romp.
Ian's rating 3/5
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Where the Wild Things Are
We had some free movie tickets to use by Christmas Eve, so Where the Wild Things Are seemed like the best of the available options. I have read the book (a long time ago) and the pictures have stuck with me much more than the plot - perhaps because the soft toys and children's wall frescoes are ubiquitous. I don't have any qualms about going to a movie for children but I had read that it isn't a child's movie but a movie for adults who want to remember what it's like to be a child, which seemed an appealing concept.
The story is about Max who is a 6 or 7 year old who lives with his mother and older sister. Like most 6 or 7 year old boys, he's addicted to adrenalin and attention, and like most 6 or 7 year olds that addiction can't always be fed at times convenient to himself. One evening when his mother is attempting to entertain a male friend, he gets a big telling off because his behaviour is embarrassing her,and so he bites her and runs off and ends up sailing a boat to the home of the Wild Things - an amazing somewhat unlikely landscape made up of forest juxtaposed with desert and seaside, populated with large furry creatures with horns.
Max has some adventures with his new furry friends,and gets crowned King of the Wild Things and you don't have to be a psychologist to work out that the Wild Things represent different aspects of his personality. His favourite is Carol, who likes to smash things to cheer himself up and assuage anger. KW is a bit alternative and has friends outside the group, and the Bull is a gloomy Eeyore-like character. After a major dirtball fight where some Wild Things get hurt (Douglas loses an arm which gives rise to one of the best quotes "that arm was one of my favourites") and Max learns that being angry and destructive can hurt people you care about and break possessions you care about. Realising he misses his Mother he sets sail for home and on arrival has supper with his Mother, all safe and sound.
I had a pleasant time watching this film. The psychological stuff isn't laboured too hard and the Wild Things are appealing and charming. Its a bit long for its content (an hour would have done) and there are one or two irritating flaws. The bit that bugged me most was Max running off through the neighbourhood with his Mother pursuing him, and then her giving up without finding him. This would have been believable if he had run up to his bedroom (like in the book) or even into the backyard but losing your child in a suburban street and then going home to wait for him calmly just wasn't credible - I'd be expecting police cars and search dogs.
For adults WTWTA has escapist qualities and a degree of charm; for children its probably too long and a bit obscure - reading them the book would be better.
Anne's rating: 3/5 Ian's rating: 2/5
The story is about Max who is a 6 or 7 year old who lives with his mother and older sister. Like most 6 or 7 year old boys, he's addicted to adrenalin and attention, and like most 6 or 7 year olds that addiction can't always be fed at times convenient to himself. One evening when his mother is attempting to entertain a male friend, he gets a big telling off because his behaviour is embarrassing her,and so he bites her and runs off and ends up sailing a boat to the home of the Wild Things - an amazing somewhat unlikely landscape made up of forest juxtaposed with desert and seaside, populated with large furry creatures with horns.
Max has some adventures with his new furry friends,and gets crowned King of the Wild Things and you don't have to be a psychologist to work out that the Wild Things represent different aspects of his personality. His favourite is Carol, who likes to smash things to cheer himself up and assuage anger. KW is a bit alternative and has friends outside the group, and the Bull is a gloomy Eeyore-like character. After a major dirtball fight where some Wild Things get hurt (Douglas loses an arm which gives rise to one of the best quotes "that arm was one of my favourites") and Max learns that being angry and destructive can hurt people you care about and break possessions you care about. Realising he misses his Mother he sets sail for home and on arrival has supper with his Mother, all safe and sound.
I had a pleasant time watching this film. The psychological stuff isn't laboured too hard and the Wild Things are appealing and charming. Its a bit long for its content (an hour would have done) and there are one or two irritating flaws. The bit that bugged me most was Max running off through the neighbourhood with his Mother pursuing him, and then her giving up without finding him. This would have been believable if he had run up to his bedroom (like in the book) or even into the backyard but losing your child in a suburban street and then going home to wait for him calmly just wasn't credible - I'd be expecting police cars and search dogs.
For adults WTWTA has escapist qualities and a degree of charm; for children its probably too long and a bit obscure - reading them the book would be better.
Anne's rating: 3/5 Ian's rating: 2/5
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Novemberkind
Novemberkind was the opening offering of the recent German Film Festival - which was staged to celebrate twenty years since the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. We went to the second night - apparently the first night at the Embassy was almost full. A pity, then, that the opening night crowd was subjected to such a depressing film. Not a bad film, but definitely depressing.
Novemberkind is set in roughly present-day Malchow, in what used to be East Germany. The central character of the film is Inga, a young woman who has been brought up by her grandparents believing that her Mother drowned when she was a baby. One day a slightly creepy older man called Robert (who is a professor of literature from Konstanz in what used to be West Germany) comes into the library in which she works and engages her in conversation and ends up taking her out for dinner. It emerges that Robert knew Inga's Mother and in fact she attended a writing course of his in Konstanz. So then a voyage of personal discovery begins for Inga, about what actually happened to her Mother and Father, and the audience is taken along for the ride.
The story is played very straight. As Inga makes discoveries we see the events as flashbacks, with the same actress that plays Inga playing her Mother. We never really know how she feels about her discoveries - we can only interpret from her interactions with other character in the film. There are no voice-overs, and no intimate chats with friends about what she's thinking. Robert the literature professor lurks in the background and we never get over the feeling he is just a creepy voyeur using Inga's plight as fodder for his next novel.
I think the film's raison d'etre is an illustration of the impact of Germany's East/West divide on the lives of individuals - in this case, Inga, Inga's parents, Inga's grandparents, and a Russian soldier Inga's Mother meets when Inga is a baby. If this is the case, it certainly achieves it's aim. For the audience, it's a bit of a harrowing ride,and as Ian points out, when it reaches it's conclusion there aren't many other options left. The unfolding of the plot is what makes the film interesting so I won't discuss it except to say that once Inga finds out that her Mother didn't drown 25 years ago but escaped to West Germany the big question is How could a Mother abandon her baby? And you'll have to watch the film to find out the detail, but the answer to the big question is that she couldn't.
I thought this was quite a powerful film and somewhat harrowing. I wasn't uplifted and so I hesitate to recommend it, but I wasn't bored.
Anne's rating 2.5/5 Ian's rating 2/5
Novemberkind is set in roughly present-day Malchow, in what used to be East Germany. The central character of the film is Inga, a young woman who has been brought up by her grandparents believing that her Mother drowned when she was a baby. One day a slightly creepy older man called Robert (who is a professor of literature from Konstanz in what used to be West Germany) comes into the library in which she works and engages her in conversation and ends up taking her out for dinner. It emerges that Robert knew Inga's Mother and in fact she attended a writing course of his in Konstanz. So then a voyage of personal discovery begins for Inga, about what actually happened to her Mother and Father, and the audience is taken along for the ride.
The story is played very straight. As Inga makes discoveries we see the events as flashbacks, with the same actress that plays Inga playing her Mother. We never really know how she feels about her discoveries - we can only interpret from her interactions with other character in the film. There are no voice-overs, and no intimate chats with friends about what she's thinking. Robert the literature professor lurks in the background and we never get over the feeling he is just a creepy voyeur using Inga's plight as fodder for his next novel.
I think the film's raison d'etre is an illustration of the impact of Germany's East/West divide on the lives of individuals - in this case, Inga, Inga's parents, Inga's grandparents, and a Russian soldier Inga's Mother meets when Inga is a baby. If this is the case, it certainly achieves it's aim. For the audience, it's a bit of a harrowing ride,and as Ian points out, when it reaches it's conclusion there aren't many other options left. The unfolding of the plot is what makes the film interesting so I won't discuss it except to say that once Inga finds out that her Mother didn't drown 25 years ago but escaped to West Germany the big question is How could a Mother abandon her baby? And you'll have to watch the film to find out the detail, but the answer to the big question is that she couldn't.
I thought this was quite a powerful film and somewhat harrowing. I wasn't uplifted and so I hesitate to recommend it, but I wasn't bored.
Anne's rating 2.5/5 Ian's rating 2/5
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
(500) Days of Summer
(500) Days of Summer is a romantic comedy that strives to be different and quirky. Largely it succeeds. Its point of difference is that it shows a relationship from a male perspective and from a male perspective that is the opposite of usual US TV/Film stereotype. Tom is an unabashed romantic, a believer in "one true love", while Summer (the girl he falls in love with) is more cynical and wants commitment-free fun. This film is also quirky in that it is not shy at quaintly imitating a slew of other film conceits (the all-knowing narrator, inter-titles, non-chronological scenes, a split screen scene, a song and dance routine, gratuitous animation, a wise-beyond-her-years sub-teen little sister, etc).
The fact that the story is told from Tom's point of view (slightly disguised by having an unidentified third person narrator) is both refreshingly normal (as opposed to film-like) and also annoying. It is normal in that, unlike many films, we don't have a God-like understanding of both the main characters. Just as in real life where we often don't understand those around us, including our nearest and dearest. It is annoying because whereas it is clear where Tom is coming from, Summer is an enigma - and her enigma is more interesting than Tom's character.
Tom is surprised that Summer agrees to go out with him (this might have something to do with her being new in town). He continues to pursue her and apart from repeatedly saying that she doesn't want a relationship and that they aren't having one, she goes along with him. This confuses the poor guy, who blindly pretends a relationship exists. While we are wondering why would such a beautiful woman go out with a guy who perpetually wears sweaters in L.A.? Why does she go for a walk in the middle of the night, in the rain, in downtown Los Angeles to apologise for not wanting to have sex when she is angry for him behaving like an idiot? Why does she break up with him? And isn't this counter to her often stated position that she doesn't believe they are having a relationship?
The old world décor, unfashionable clothes, rain, overcast weather, grungy buildings, children biking in CBD led me to the erroneous belief that the film was set in some city in the north or north east of the US so the announcement that this was Los Angeles came as a surprise. So perhaps there are parts of L.A. that are not all sunshine, mirror glass, fashionable clothes and given over to cars.
The plot is simple even by romantic comedy standards: Boy is obsessed with gorgeous woman (who he initially and correctly classifies as out of his league). She tells him up front that she's happy to have a bit of fun with him but is not interested in a relationship. He ignores this to his peril. Later she dumps him. He takes it hard. We are not watching this film for the plot.
The supporting cast are barely more than extras with lines to say. Tom gets more cynical towards the end but that is a side effect of depression rather than character development. Summer is more a collection of confusing behaviours than a personality we get to understand. We are not watching this film for its characters.
Even though Zooey Deschanel (Summer) is a wide-eyed beauty who'd turn heads in any company, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Tom) is a slightly geeky everyman, I think few would be watching this film for its star appeal. The reasons to watch this film are firstly the way the story is told - which is different enough to be interesting, without being distracting - and secondly for the its contribution to relationship wisdom. Unfortunately there is a confusion of messages in this film:
This is not a great film but it is a film that could give you something to think about or talk about afterwards.
Ian's rating 2/5 Anne's rating 2.5/5
The fact that the story is told from Tom's point of view (slightly disguised by having an unidentified third person narrator) is both refreshingly normal (as opposed to film-like) and also annoying. It is normal in that, unlike many films, we don't have a God-like understanding of both the main characters. Just as in real life where we often don't understand those around us, including our nearest and dearest. It is annoying because whereas it is clear where Tom is coming from, Summer is an enigma - and her enigma is more interesting than Tom's character.
Tom is surprised that Summer agrees to go out with him (this might have something to do with her being new in town). He continues to pursue her and apart from repeatedly saying that she doesn't want a relationship and that they aren't having one, she goes along with him. This confuses the poor guy, who blindly pretends a relationship exists. While we are wondering why would such a beautiful woman go out with a guy who perpetually wears sweaters in L.A.? Why does she go for a walk in the middle of the night, in the rain, in downtown Los Angeles to apologise for not wanting to have sex when she is angry for him behaving like an idiot? Why does she break up with him? And isn't this counter to her often stated position that she doesn't believe they are having a relationship?
The old world décor, unfashionable clothes, rain, overcast weather, grungy buildings, children biking in CBD led me to the erroneous belief that the film was set in some city in the north or north east of the US so the announcement that this was Los Angeles came as a surprise. So perhaps there are parts of L.A. that are not all sunshine, mirror glass, fashionable clothes and given over to cars.
The plot is simple even by romantic comedy standards: Boy is obsessed with gorgeous woman (who he initially and correctly classifies as out of his league). She tells him up front that she's happy to have a bit of fun with him but is not interested in a relationship. He ignores this to his peril. Later she dumps him. He takes it hard. We are not watching this film for the plot.
The supporting cast are barely more than extras with lines to say. Tom gets more cynical towards the end but that is a side effect of depression rather than character development. Summer is more a collection of confusing behaviours than a personality we get to understand. We are not watching this film for its characters.
Even though Zooey Deschanel (Summer) is a wide-eyed beauty who'd turn heads in any company, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Tom) is a slightly geeky everyman, I think few would be watching this film for its star appeal. The reasons to watch this film are firstly the way the story is told - which is different enough to be interesting, without being distracting - and secondly for the its contribution to relationship wisdom. Unfortunately there is a confusion of messages in this film:
- The most obvious: don't date up market.
- The equally simple: being in love feels great, but it comes with a hell-of-a-hangover.
- Tom's belief in the "one true love" is out of step with everyone in the film between 10 and 40 which suggests that this belief is considered as fuddy-duddy as the greetings cards Tom writes.
- A relationship doesn't exist or not exist because you say it does or doesn't, it a description of how two people interact regardless of what they might say or think.
This is not a great film but it is a film that could give you something to think about or talk about afterwards.
Ian's rating 2/5 Anne's rating 2.5/5
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
District 9
Last night, making a change from lowering the average age at the Pauatahanui Lighthouse the other Sunday afternoon, we raised the average age at an almost sold out showing of District 9 at the Embassy.
District 9 has been getting rave reviews from all and sundry, and justifiably so. The scenario is that twenty years ago an alien spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, and hovered ominously but uneventfully for sometime. Humans eventually cut their way in and discovered 1.2 million starving bipedal aliens inside, who they brought down to earth and housed in a refugee camp. Twenty years on the alien population has swollen to two million and the township they live in (District 9) is a slum. So its been decided to move them to a camp 25km outside the city and and a corporation called MNU (who seem to be a kind of military quango) has the job of organising the eviction.
Enter the "hero" of the film, Wikus Van der Merwe, the MNU employee who is in charge of the operation. Unexpected things happen to Wikus on eviction day and he begins a closer relationship with the aliens ("prawns") than he was expecting. On one level, District 9 is the story of what happened to Wikus, and on another its a story about apartheid - about how a fictional underclass is treated in South African society and how that mirrors how non-whites were treated in South Africa last century. While this second level is quite obvious it isn't too dominating or laboured too hard. And since Wikus' story is such a rollercoaster ride of shoot-em-up drama, you only have to reflect on the other aspect if you want to.
If you want to know more about the plot, there are lots of other reviews you could read. There are many joys watching this film and one of them is not knowing what's going to happen next. It begins and ends documentary style with talking heads and chunks of Sky-news-type footage, with straight filming of Wikus' story sandwiched in the middle. I enjoyed the novelty of Afrikaans accents and names, and the splatter factor of the fighting and I liked the fast pace and noise. I liked how the story was firmly rooted on earth (moderately unusual for a science fiction film) and how it focused on a particular individual while considering the plight of humankind. It was completely engrossing, escapist and exhilarating and watching it is a wonderful way to spend a couple of hours.
Anne's rating 4/5, Ian's rating 5/5
District 9 has been getting rave reviews from all and sundry, and justifiably so. The scenario is that twenty years ago an alien spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, and hovered ominously but uneventfully for sometime. Humans eventually cut their way in and discovered 1.2 million starving bipedal aliens inside, who they brought down to earth and housed in a refugee camp. Twenty years on the alien population has swollen to two million and the township they live in (District 9) is a slum. So its been decided to move them to a camp 25km outside the city and and a corporation called MNU (who seem to be a kind of military quango) has the job of organising the eviction.
Enter the "hero" of the film, Wikus Van der Merwe, the MNU employee who is in charge of the operation. Unexpected things happen to Wikus on eviction day and he begins a closer relationship with the aliens ("prawns") than he was expecting. On one level, District 9 is the story of what happened to Wikus, and on another its a story about apartheid - about how a fictional underclass is treated in South African society and how that mirrors how non-whites were treated in South Africa last century. While this second level is quite obvious it isn't too dominating or laboured too hard. And since Wikus' story is such a rollercoaster ride of shoot-em-up drama, you only have to reflect on the other aspect if you want to.
If you want to know more about the plot, there are lots of other reviews you could read. There are many joys watching this film and one of them is not knowing what's going to happen next. It begins and ends documentary style with talking heads and chunks of Sky-news-type footage, with straight filming of Wikus' story sandwiched in the middle. I enjoyed the novelty of Afrikaans accents and names, and the splatter factor of the fighting and I liked the fast pace and noise. I liked how the story was firmly rooted on earth (moderately unusual for a science fiction film) and how it focused on a particular individual while considering the plight of humankind. It was completely engrossing, escapist and exhilarating and watching it is a wonderful way to spend a couple of hours.
Anne's rating 4/5, Ian's rating 5/5
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Separation City
Just for a change, the weekend after the film festival, we went to the movies again, this time because we were invited. We lowered the average age at the Pauatahanui Lighthouse, we think.
I've read a lot about Separation City. "Not a first date movie" "Bittersweet comedy" "Hilarious" "A movie about falling out of love for the first time". And also that Tom Scott first wrote it twenty years ago and that the scenery is great. I think if you're from Wellington it's probably worth seeing just to admire familiar landscapes beautifully shot.
The "Hero" of the story is Simon, 30-something father-of-two, who works at the Beehive as a ministerial advisor and is married to Pam. Pam and Simon's sex life is the doldrums and their friends in their age group have problems too - Keith's wife has decided she's a lesbian, and Katrien and Klaus another have split up because she caught him bonking another woman in the marital bed. Simon fancies Katrien, (she's beautiful, foreign, a cellist and above all available, so why wouldn't he) and they attempt an affair. Pam rumbles Simon and Katrien, and chucks Simon out. Meanwhile Keith starts a men's group and Simon and his best buddy Harry go along.
One of Separation City's problems is that it hasn't quite decided what kind of film it is. It might be intended as a comedy since it IS very funny in parts and has plenty of good lines. And it has lots of physical comedy that would do credit to any farce. However, the subject matter (separation) isn't intrinsically funny and the plot seems to indicate there's a serious story to be told so it isn't really just for laughs.
It might also be intended as a drama about separation. So why all the gags and why the happy ending? Graeme Tuckett said on National Radio today that it was a romantic comedy and that people who like romantic comedies will go to it. I'd say if its a romantic comedy you want there are much more uplifting feel-good options out there. The sex scenes are characterised by a complete lack of foreplay, and are generally unsatisfying for one or both parties which contributes to the lack of feel-good flavour.
My take on Separation City is that it's a story about the plight that ordinary relationships can get into, which most people can identify with to some degree or another (either recognising themselves or people they know) with lots of jokes thrown in to make it palatable and a happy ending so we don't go home too depressed.
It didn't quite do it for me - I laughed a lot, and I thought it was well-acted but it didn't hang together. Definitely a wait-for-the-DVD film.
Anne's rating 2.5/5
Separation City is not about separation, its mostly about infidelity real and contemplated. On the good side it is very funny in lots of places, with some serious bits in between. Like Anne, I was confused as to the overall intent of the film. While I enjoyed the jokes and the great bedroom farce scene, I personally thought there was too much voice over, which a more experienced stage / screen writer could have avoided. Perhaps Tom Scott should have teamed up with Roger Hall.
For me Danielle Cormack was the pick of the actors, she had by far the best body language. You could tell what her character (Pam) was thinking before she spoke. On the other hand her performance in her sex scenes seemed out of character.
For Wellingtonians the drive from Parliament to the airport via Eastbourne will seem unnatural!
Ian's rating 2.5/5
I've read a lot about Separation City. "Not a first date movie" "Bittersweet comedy" "Hilarious" "A movie about falling out of love for the first time". And also that Tom Scott first wrote it twenty years ago and that the scenery is great. I think if you're from Wellington it's probably worth seeing just to admire familiar landscapes beautifully shot.
The "Hero" of the story is Simon, 30-something father-of-two, who works at the Beehive as a ministerial advisor and is married to Pam. Pam and Simon's sex life is the doldrums and their friends in their age group have problems too - Keith's wife has decided she's a lesbian, and Katrien and Klaus another have split up because she caught him bonking another woman in the marital bed. Simon fancies Katrien, (she's beautiful, foreign, a cellist and above all available, so why wouldn't he) and they attempt an affair. Pam rumbles Simon and Katrien, and chucks Simon out. Meanwhile Keith starts a men's group and Simon and his best buddy Harry go along.
One of Separation City's problems is that it hasn't quite decided what kind of film it is. It might be intended as a comedy since it IS very funny in parts and has plenty of good lines. And it has lots of physical comedy that would do credit to any farce. However, the subject matter (separation) isn't intrinsically funny and the plot seems to indicate there's a serious story to be told so it isn't really just for laughs.
It might also be intended as a drama about separation. So why all the gags and why the happy ending? Graeme Tuckett said on National Radio today that it was a romantic comedy and that people who like romantic comedies will go to it. I'd say if its a romantic comedy you want there are much more uplifting feel-good options out there. The sex scenes are characterised by a complete lack of foreplay, and are generally unsatisfying for one or both parties which contributes to the lack of feel-good flavour.
My take on Separation City is that it's a story about the plight that ordinary relationships can get into, which most people can identify with to some degree or another (either recognising themselves or people they know) with lots of jokes thrown in to make it palatable and a happy ending so we don't go home too depressed.
It didn't quite do it for me - I laughed a lot, and I thought it was well-acted but it didn't hang together. Definitely a wait-for-the-DVD film.
Anne's rating 2.5/5
Separation City is not about separation, its mostly about infidelity real and contemplated. On the good side it is very funny in lots of places, with some serious bits in between. Like Anne, I was confused as to the overall intent of the film. While I enjoyed the jokes and the great bedroom farce scene, I personally thought there was too much voice over, which a more experienced stage / screen writer could have avoided. Perhaps Tom Scott should have teamed up with Roger Hall.
For me Danielle Cormack was the pick of the actors, she had by far the best body language. You could tell what her character (Pam) was thinking before she spoke. On the other hand her performance in her sex scenes seemed out of character.
For Wellingtonians the drive from Parliament to the airport via Eastbourne will seem unnatural!
Ian's rating 2.5/5
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Jerichow
Jerichow is a bleak German love triangle.
Thomas, strong, silent, almost withdrawn and recently discharged from the army plays good Samaritan to Ali a portly, middle-aged Turkish-German businessman. Consequently Ali offers Thomas a job helping manage his chain of snack bars. Enabling Thomas to meet Laura, Ali's much younger, slim blonde wife.
With its lack of dialogue, actors and only necessary scenes this is a very economical film, which revolves around Ali. His outwardly cheerful and chatty persona carries the dialogue. His almost constant presence and occasional absence create the sexual tension between the would be lovers and fleeting opportunities to release it. A man who has made his fortune against the obstacles of racial discrimination, he is obsessive and suspicious, a serious opponent for Thomas and Laura's plans. We are not led to like Ali (or indeed Thomas or Laura either), but we are interested in their fate. Will Laura end up with Thomas or Ali, in fact why was she with Ali in the first place?
The plot has the feel of a Shakespearian Tragedy, trimmed of its fat and comedy. Fate has it in for someone, may be all of them, and it seems like nothing will stop it. If you like happy love stories then this isn't your film, but if you like tension and not knowing how things will end and you can handle characters who look like normal people living unglamorous lives then this might be your sort of film.
For a man who otherwise guards his privacy, counter intuitively Thomas never locks his front door.
Ian's rating 3/5
Thomas, strong, silent, almost withdrawn and recently discharged from the army plays good Samaritan to Ali a portly, middle-aged Turkish-German businessman. Consequently Ali offers Thomas a job helping manage his chain of snack bars. Enabling Thomas to meet Laura, Ali's much younger, slim blonde wife.
With its lack of dialogue, actors and only necessary scenes this is a very economical film, which revolves around Ali. His outwardly cheerful and chatty persona carries the dialogue. His almost constant presence and occasional absence create the sexual tension between the would be lovers and fleeting opportunities to release it. A man who has made his fortune against the obstacles of racial discrimination, he is obsessive and suspicious, a serious opponent for Thomas and Laura's plans. We are not led to like Ali (or indeed Thomas or Laura either), but we are interested in their fate. Will Laura end up with Thomas or Ali, in fact why was she with Ali in the first place?
The plot has the feel of a Shakespearian Tragedy, trimmed of its fat and comedy. Fate has it in for someone, may be all of them, and it seems like nothing will stop it. If you like happy love stories then this isn't your film, but if you like tension and not knowing how things will end and you can handle characters who look like normal people living unglamorous lives then this might be your sort of film.
For a man who otherwise guards his privacy, counter intuitively Thomas never locks his front door.
Ian's rating 3/5
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
The Maid
The Maid (La Nana) is a Chilean portrayal of the relationship between a long time live-in maid and the family she works for. Raquel is 41 and has been working for the Valdes family for 23 years. Her job has become her life and she simultaneously resents how the job has consumed the best part of her life without much reward (financial or otherwise) while also resenting any challenge to "her place" with the family. Raquel's isolation in the large empty house during the day and the boredom of her day off underline how her job has imprisoned her.When Mrs Valdes chides Raquel for forgetting an instruction she complains about overwork, when Mrs Valdes responds by floating the idea of hiring a girl to help Raquel, she retorts that she doesn't need any help. This conundrum is Mrs Valdes's problem to solve (within the self imposed constraint of not upsetting Raquel), while Raquel tries to make sense of her life and her dissatisfaction with it.
Raquel's childish passive-aggressive approach to any problem is the main source of humour that lightens what could otherwise be a depressing story. Finally it takes imperturbable and friendly new maid Lucy to break through Raquel's defences and show her that there is another way to relate to people and that life is possible outside work.
The Maid takes us on an emotional journey to an impasse and then through it (with plenty of humour on the way) to and ending that isn't as sugar coated as other film makers would be tempted to make it. It is also an interesting look at the relationship between servants and their employers, something Kiwi's are less familiar with than Chileans.
(If you want a spoiler then this link will give a fuller account of the plot)
Ian's rating 3/5
Mid-August Lunch
Italian films (like their French and American counter parts) are noted for their beautiful actresses. But Mid-August Lunch breaks that mould. The average age of the four actresses is 88. The concept of a guy living with his mother into his middle age or later is a distinctly Italian one. Gianni is leaving middle age behind but certainly not leaving home. He has money worries but otherwise tries to lead a simple life. So he is not prepared for the series of events which lead him and his mother to house and feed three other old women for the August holiday of Ferragosto (an Italian holiday that dates back to the Roman Empire). These four old women are no more happy with the situation and each other than Gianni is. They employ all their skills at bitchiness, hautiness, forgetfulness in trying to get their own way, but it is Gianni's eager-to-please attitude and unexpected help from a drinking buddy that smooths the feathers and unexpectedly turns the awkward situation into a happy feast in a hot and almost deserted Rome.
This is a sweet gentle and very watchable comedy. The only nod to more traditional Italian films is a shot of Gianni on his balcony watching a sweet young thing in a summer dress get into a convertable in the street below.
Ian's rating 3.5/5
Sunday, August 02, 2009
OSS 117 - Lost In Rio
You may not have come across OSS 117 before - he's a French Secret agent. Think 007, but sillier. He's a sort of cross between James Bond and Inspector Clouseau with some American Pie crassness thrown in.Lost in Rio is set in the 1960's, mostly in Brazil and the clothes, scenery and cars are almost worth going for by themselves. OSS 117 (Hubert Bonisseur de la Bath) has been dispatched to Rio to retrieve a list of French citizens who collaborated with the Germans in WWII, and a further list of Nazis who are in hiding overseas. The person ransoming these lists is a Nazi-in-hiding so Hubert ends up with a glamourous female Mossad agent helping him out. This provides fodder for lots of sexist and racist jokes - along with his king-sized ego and fear of heights, Hubert is incredibly un-pc. He is larger than life with bryl-creemed hair, unnaturally perfect teeth and a fondness for checked sports jackets that some may find cringe-worthy.
Lost in Rio isn't non-stop slapstick French farce of the Ruby and Quentin variety, but there's plenty of action and physical humour - lots of shooting sprees where of course OSS 117 remains untouched and a particularly splendid scene where Hubert's head gets stuck in some lift doors. There's also a big dose of deadpan humour - my favourite example is Hubert going into the German Embassy in Rio and asking for a list of Nazis resident in Brazil.
If you're in the mood for a spoof and general silliness then this could be what you're looking for.
Anne's rating 3.5/5 Ian's rating 4/5
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Grace
Horror movies tend to conform to narrow clichés, so I tend to look out for ones that promise innovation. Grace promises a vampire baby (and a send-up of pre- and post-natal obsessions). That Madeline Matheson's baby is not keen on milk is perhaps not unusual, that baby Grace prefers blood is, and it rather upsets Madeline's vegan lifestyle. That baby Grace attracts flies is another upsetting issue. Then there is the maternally obsessed, interfering mother-in-law who thinks that the "women her son married" is not fit to be a mother.
Given that breast feeding plays such a big part in this film, it is a pity that the film suffers from the typical mainstream American TV/film prudishness towards naked breasts. The director's efforts to show breast feeding while not showing breasts seems awkward and unnatural.
Ian's rating 3/5
Given that breast feeding plays such a big part in this film, it is a pity that the film suffers from the typical mainstream American TV/film prudishness towards naked breasts. The director's efforts to show breast feeding while not showing breasts seems awkward and unnatural.
Ian's rating 3/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
