The Way

Some films entertain the viewer by keeping them in suspense letting the story twist and turn as it unfolds, others let you know upfront where the story is going and leave it to the art of story-telling to draw you in. This film from Director Emilio Estevez belongs to the latter. There really is no ‘plot’ to spoil – but I promise not to spoil the detail of how the story is told.

Tom (Martin Sheen) is a morose widower with his own Ophthalmic practice in California. His (also real-life) son Daniel (Emilio Estevez) is completing his PhD studies at Berkeley but as he approaches his 40’s he wants more from life than the title Doctor. He wants to travel and learn from the University of the road and so he drops out of his studies – much to the displeasure of his father.

Daniel’s travels take him to the Pyrenees where he decides to embark on the ‘Camino di Santiago’ (The Way of St James’) – an ancient pilgrims route from France, across Northern Spain to the city of Santiago di Compostela where the Apostle James’ remains are enshrined in the Cathedral. The 1000 km route attracts thousands of pilgrims each year who travel the way staying in hostels along the route. Each pilgrim has their own reason for travelling ‘The Camino’ (The Way) – often not religious reasons.

Daniel gets lost in the Pyrenees and is caught out by the weather and dies. The unwelcome news of his son’s death reaches Tom as he is enjoying a round of golf with colleagues – living the comfortable life-style his hard work has enabled him to choose. Tom travels to France straight away to identify the body and return it to the USA.

The local Police Captain is a wise and kindly man who helps Tom to understand why people go on the ‘The Camino’. This further mystifies Tom who still doesn’t understand why Daniel did what he did. In a split second of clarity, Tom decides to have Daniel’s body cremated and armed only with Daniel’s guide book and back pack sets off along The Way. Tom carefully takes Daniel’s ashes and deposits some of them at shrines along The Way.

Whilst the characterisations are compelling and the cinematography depicts the varied landscapes beautifully, the script is at times clunky and less refined. That ‘The Way’ is a metaphor for the journey of life is made clear early on – yet we have to be told that is the case by the Irishman Jack (James Nesbitt) one of Tom’s travelling companions picked up along the way. The metaphor is extended to show that whilst Tom would prefer to complete the pilgrimage in isolation, real life forces us to encounter and journey with others – and we can’t always choose who our companions are. The other two who make up the journeying quartet are Joost (Yorick van Wageningen), a jovial and benevolent epicurean from Amsterdam and Sarah (Deborah Kara Unger), an angry Canadian women who projects her hang-ups on to others as she chain-smokes her way to Santiago.

The dynamics between the four of them and the encounters they face along the way provide the grist for the mill of the story telling as Tom, and the others, face their issues and reconcile their internal and external demons. Throughout the journey, Daniel keeps spookily appearing in Tom’s mind’s eye to turn the screw of guilt and remorse a little tighter. Some of the pilgrims expect change to come about simply because they have subjected themselves to the discipline of ‘The Way’ whilst others find it requires self-examination and possibly a change of heart to enable them to see more clearly and move on in their understanding of life.

Although presenting a formulaic road movie, the acting, setting and context make this a very worthwhile film. This is another film that holds up a mirror to the viewer and invites them to reflect on their life goals, relationships and the need to enjoy the here and now rather than some distant and unreachable ideal. It invites a move towards personal authenticity within community rather the pursuit of a dream that serves only self and ultimately alienates everyone – even those who should be closest. Daniel died whilst trying to truly live, Tom was seemingly dead in the life he thought he’d chosen.

This film would be great to watch in a group and then discuss the issues it throws up and how the five main characters responded – and if we have courage, how we respond. If you’ve not seen it, get hold of the disc or watch on-line. I’ll give it 8/10.

Le Week-End

Saw this today at Harbour Lights Southampton on a members' free preview. Thank you Picture Houses! A gift in more than one sense.

This is another film in the growing list of titles which are about and for the silver haired brigade. Others would do well to watch and learn. The premise is simple. Nick (Jim Broadbent) and Meg (Lindsay Duncan) are recent empty nesters who travel to Paris on their 30th wedding anniversary to rekindle their mojo.

What the film really does, is hold up a mirror and invite the viewer to conduct a long hard examination of where they are in life, what their priorities are and what their aspirations are - all within the context of a moribund marriage. Meaning-of-life stuff. As sixty-somethings facing a late mid-life crisis, Nick and Meg bicker and fight their way through the weekend. If this film wasn't liberally peppered with humour, it would be too heavy, disturbing and sapping of emotional energy to bear watching!

Both the main characters are contemplating a change of direction but both are haunted by their insecurities which translate into an inability to talk about the real issues and so each shadow boxes - but even the shadows are phantoms. The way in which the story unfolds exquisitely depicts the emotional frailty that can hold a relationship together - more like being held together by the gaps in the structure rather than the structure itself. This is undoubtedly aided by the first class acting of Broadbent and the lovely Duncan.

I found neither Nick nor Meg to be likeable characters. It takes a chance encounter with old friend, Morgan (Jeff Goldblum) for the dynamics of the weekend to change and begin heading in a different direction. An invitation to a supper party celebrating the success of Morgan's latest book provides the conversations that become the catalyst offering the possibility of change.

The whole film is beautifully set in Paris and the screenplay delivers a number of memorably stunning lines - mainly from Nick. I felt I could relate and identify with the struggles Nick was facing very easily, but I found that connecting with Meg was much more difficult. I wonder if that is a Martian/Venusain distinction, a gender thing? I must take my significant other along and see what she makes of it.

As I said, younger people in relationships would do well to see this and contemplate how it might help them avoid angst and regret later in life. It would make a good subject for a relationship study and group discussion. For everyone it offers a generous and benevolent opportunity to carry out an 'examine' on your own relationships. Hopefully with encouraging results! I'm going to give this gift of a film 8.5/10.

Rush

Whilst the context for this story is Grand Prix racing, this is essentially a story about two very different men. You don't have to be a Formula 1 fan to enjoy this movie. Whereas Senna was a docudrama, this is more a dramadocu if that makes sense. Director Ron Howard employs creative licence at key points. Each frame of the film is imbued with raw emotion that draws you in and engages you. The film explores the rivalry between Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Lauda (Daniel Brühl) as they make the leap from Formula 3 to Formula 1 in the mid 70's.

I was in my late teens when this was for real and I remember many of the highlights of the story - including Lauda's terrible crash and too many others around that time. Ron Howard has faithfully recreated the 1970's feel with its unregulated pit lane and the wheel-to-wheel jousting. The story captures the insecurity that lies beneath Hunt's playboy bravado and Lauda's detached, almost clinically forensic approach to not only building racing cars but also relationships.

This is a film about drivenness as both the main characters were driven - but by very different motivators. Hunt squandered the privileged start to life his father's wealth and position had secured - if you ever need a visual representation of the Prodigal Son, without the repentance, this is it! The film dramatically depicts Hunt's lust for life and sexual encounter - near the beginning he walks into a hospital ER and announces himself in 007 style as 'Hunt, James Hunt. Weren't you expecting me?' The story uses creative license to show that Hunt did have standards and a code of honour by which he lived - his treatment of a journalist who asked a cheap question at a press conference evidences that. The episode is believable. Although Hunt and Lauda continually spar like bickering teenagers, it becomes clear as the film develops that both hold the other in the highest regard. There are also moments of comedy that involve both characters.

Lauda too had a privileged upbringing and was offered the chance to take over the family business and become wealthy. He renounces his father's offer and sets off to take out a loan and buy his way into Formula 1. Each driver was totally assured of their own ability and saw the crown of World Champion as being rightly theirs. Lauda's attention to engineering detail to enable his car to perform better is contrasted with Hunt's gladiatorial approach where it's all down to the chase for the top place on the podium. One man thought, the other felt - but that is too simplistic as both are portrayed as complex characters who both felt and thought.

Lauda's 'proposal' to Marlene (Alexandra Marie Lara) is more honest and down-to-earth than Hunt's proposal to Suzy (Olivia Wilde) but whereas one underwhelms but delivers, the other flatters to deceive and it all ends in tears. The scenes of Lauda being treated for his injuries and the pain which he actually, and Marlene vicariously, experienced are both graphic and gripping. By painfully forcing his helmet over his healing wounds Lauda built up the resilience and motivation to return to racing just six weeks after his horrific accident.

The cinematography is at times highly inventive - cameras inside driver's helmets. The soundtrack is pounding out the beat in a way that sync's beautifully with the rhythm of the race track. Both lead actors deliver noteworthy performances as they enact a screenplay that is textured and multi-faceted - it tells a great story very well. At a touch over two hours it is well paced and never lags. The only thing I would be critical of are the CGI effects that at times looked too superimposed to be convincing.

This is a great film and one which should be enjoyed by all. The favourable reviews have got it right. Go and see it while it's on general release - truly a film that gives more on the big screen. I'll give it 8.5/10.

Cloud Atlas

"What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?" 

I'm not sure I've ever watched a film that is the best part of three hours long and not checked the clock to see how time is progressing. This film is breathtaking, enthralling, captivating, thought-provoking and epic in its scope. The best film made this millennium - so far. I liked it - a lot.

This film made it's debut a year ago today at the Toronto Film Festival and has been polarising critics and audiences ever since. I can imagine that if you simply sit down and watch it without any prior knowledge it could be as bewildering as it is mesmeric. Both my youngsters (at university) had seen it and confessed to not really understanding what it was about. Some reviews I read when it was released came to similar conclusions. I tried to see it in the cinema when it came out but didn't manage to and I made sure I got a copy on disc as soon as I could. However, people's comments made me wary and I didn't rush to watch it - so it sat on my shelf with too many other unwatched discs.

The film is produced by the the Wachowski siblings, Lana and Tom and also Tom Tykwer and as many of you know, they were responsible for my favourite film of the last millennium! (Or at least the Wachowski's were). It's production budget of $102m is the biggest for any independently produced film (made by Babelsberg - Germany) and it has already turned a profit - despite not being a runaway success at the box office. I have a feeling that this film will be a sleeper and will achieve cult status much like Shawshank and Blade Runner have, long after their theatrical release.

The film is based on David Mitchell's book of the same name. Not only did I read the book first, but I also listened to it on audiobook - an unusual thing for me to do as I prefer to see the film first - it makes visualising the written story much easier for me! I'm glad I did as I was able to make some sense of the film.

The premise of the film is that 'everything is connected' and that an action in some part of our history can trigger an outcome much further down the line. In discussing the film, I'm not really giving anything away in respect of the narrative. It is not so much the story that is noteworthy but the way in which it is told. This is an old-fashioned morality tale.

Mitchell's book employs a literary device that introduces us to six seemingly unrelated stories, each set in a different era. Each story uses a different writing style and presents itself as a different genre of writing. A character from one story impacts the story that follows and act of kindness repaid in Victorian times aboard a sailing ship on the Pacific Ocean sparks hope for a new future in a post apocalyptic dystopian community living on 'The Big Island' in the 24th century. Whereas Mitchell's book employs a straightforward 1-2-3-4-5-6-5-4-3-2-1 sequence in terms of ordering the stories, the film jumps from one to another as it parallels the fall and rise of the characters within in each as they mirror the same story of greed, deceit and murder. The edits are at times brutal and just as Mitchell's book will leave a story in mid sentence so the the film's edits juxtapose a VW Beetle with a maglev transport and then a three-masted sailing ship. The device that really adds layers of complication to unpicking the film is that the same actors play different characters in each of the six stories!!!!

The six stories are:

• 1850 The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing
• 1931 Letters from Zedelghem
• 1975 Half-Lives: The First Luisa Rey Mystery
• Present The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish
• 2144 An Orison of Sonmi~451
• 2321 Sloosha's Crossin' an' Ev'rythin' After

On the BBC Radio 4 programme Bookclub David Mitchell said of his book 

"Literally all of the main characters, except one, are reincarnations of the same soul in different bodies throughout the novel identified by a birthmark...that's just a symbol really of the universality of human nature. The title itself "Cloud Atlas," the cloud refers to the ever changing manifestations of the Atlas, which is the fixed human nature which is always thus and ever shall be. So the book's theme is predacity, the way individuals prey on individuals, groups on groups, nations on nations, tribes on tribes. So I just take this theme and in a sense reincarnate that theme in another context."

Visually the film captures each of its eras with stunning and creative attention to detail. The soundtrack has been nominated for and has won awards. I imagine that watching on the big screen is a very different experience to seeing it on a TV - it will be more immersive, especially on IMAX. The acting is first class from the whole cast - with some actors crossing gender to play their character! There are some passages of the film that follow the book exactly and at other times, locations, events and dialogue have been changed to deliver a film that is highly creative but remains faithful to the book.

This is undoubtedly a film that will repay a little homework before watching, a lot of concentration whilst watching and a life-time of reflection after watching. I would happily see it again tonight! Get the drinks and popcorn in and settle down for a wonderful experience. This is the first film on this blog to score 10/10!

P.S.

I came across a very interesting analysis of this film from a Humanist/Buddhist perspective in the Journal of Religion and Film published by the University of Nebraska by Ting Guo. Click here for the link.

A Simple Life

This is an intimate and gentle film about honour, respect and service. It is set in Hong Kong and is in Cantonese with subtitles. Ah Tao (Deannie Yip) has been the servant for the Leung family for 60 years and has faithfully served 4 generations. Most of the family now live in the USA but Roger (Andy Lau) remains based in Hong Kong although his work as a film producer takes him away to the mainland quite often. One night he returns from a business trip to find Ah Tao collapsed in the flat - she has had a stroke. Determined not to be a burden to Roger or the family she decides that on discharge from hospital she should move into a nursing home to be looked after.

After 60 years of faithful service Roger does all he can to ensure that Ah Tao is well looked after. He makes regular visits to her in the nursing home and is encouraged by the progress she makes through physiotherapy. However, Ah Tao is always mindful that strokes seldom come alone and that she will be prone to another one. Having lived with one family for so long, we see the painful transition Ah Tao has to make to become part of the community that shares the nursing home with her. Determined to do so on her own terms she wins over the staff and residents and soon becomes a gentle though prominent member of the community.

Roger is single and seems happy with that status. He devotes a lot of time to Ah Tau when he is in Hong Kong and displays nothing but generosity and gentleness towards her. When one of his films is premiered he takes her to the grand opening and party afterwards passing her off as his Godmother as the stigma attached to being a servant would undermine the participation of both of them.

This is a quiet film, sometimes with sparse dialogue. At times it takes on an almost fly-on-the-wall documentary feel with its jerky hand-held camera work and people often talking over each other while the subtitles struggle to keep up. The film relies on great acting from the two leads whose gestures and glances often communicate far more economically than the fullest of spoken dialogues. Through observing the other members of the nursing home community we are drawn into their stories and families and the festivals and celebrations that are important to the Chinese community - including celebrating mid autumn!

At nearly two hours long and being slow paced, it does require a certain degree of dedication to stick with it. However, you will be rewarded by a warm human drama that is a source of hope and inspiration for how we might all better conduct our relationships. I thought it was well worth the investment. I'll give it 7.5/10.

Luther

History is always written by the victors. This 2003 biopic of the angst-ridden Augustinian monk fighting against his conscience and the Roman Catholic Church is selective in the history it portrays - and omits - and delivers a popular hero that changed the course of world history.

Joseph Fiennes delivers a performance with conviction and compassion that portrays Luther as the conflicted, almost possessed, guilt-ridden sinner destined to burn for eternity in the fires of hell who then becomes the self-doubting unintended leader of a popular movement. This is a Luther who is more concerned with the plight of the poor and down-trodden than with the finery of the nobility. A Luther who is offered many opportunities to save himself but who holds firm in the face of immense pressure and intimidation to seek a greater salvation. A Luther who rejects the adulation and acclaim of the masses and urges everyone - peasants, nobility and Church hierarchy - to follow Christ and share his love by the way they live.

Where this film excels is the way in which it shows the political manoeuvrings of the various heads of state and their desire for self-determination. This fight mirrors Luther's own battle for his 'sola scriptura' based self determination free of the tax-gathering strictures of the Roman Catholic Church that fed the profligate and hedonistic lifestyle of Pope Leo X. The scenes in Rome of brothels for priests and indulgences for all who will pay, the opulence of the Papacy and the punitive acts of penance meted out by well-fed priests are well portrayed as Luther's ire rises. Not given to doing things by halves, he resolves to rediscover a purer Biblical way of living the Christian faith freed from the accretions of a Church with an insatiable appetite for collecting taxes. On his return from Rome he is intercepted by friends who secret him away before harm can come to him and as he begins translating the New Testament into German so the peasants begin to rise up against the Church and their rulers.

It is clear that Luther had a very sharp mind and was a persuasive orator. He used the developing political climate to encourage the regional nobility to defy the Holy Roman Church with the incentive of becoming Saxons (Germans) rather than Roman puppets. Luther also quelled the rioting and insurrection in Wittenberg drawing people back to a more peaceful and Gospel-centred way of living. With 100,000 dead, the threat of Turkish invasion, fires burning and civil war also a real threat, things came together to bring a new direction for the followers of Luther who lined up behind the Augsburg Confession in 1530. Released from the vows of his Order, he married a runaway nun - Katharina von Bora and they raised a family together in Wittenberg.

Last year I had the privilege of attending a week long preaching conference hosted by the University in Wittenberg where Luther was Professor. Many cultural and historical events were organised and so we immersed ourselves in the life and legacy of Lutherstadt for a week. To have walked the corridors of the 'Luther haus' and seen where his friend and colleague Philipp Melancthon lived, to have seen an original indulgence chest with it's slot for the peasant's coins, to have visited Luther's pulpit at the town church and to have walked through the door of the Castle Church on which he nailed his 95 theses (or not) - these were all poignant reminders of how our understanding of living a life of faith and how to be Church has always been a moot point. Luther was a prophet who called God's people back to their Creator. Who are the prophets today, what are they saying and how does being a disciple of Jesus Christ manifest itself here and now? Is it any different to the call Luther made?

For me the film was a bit too long - too much hand wringing and confessional pouting. Set alongside the other cinematic offerings of Luther's life, this is a useful addition. (I wish someone would make a similar biopic of Thomas Cranmer!) It would do us well to remember that the film was in part funded by the Lutheran Church, and as I said, history is always written by the victors. The town of Wittenberg-Lutherstadt was already making preparations for the 500th anniversary of the nailing of the 95 theses - no doubt pilgrims will visit and make their votive offerings at the many tat shops. I wonder what the man himself would make of that?

This remains an interesting historical drama giving a helpful insight into the founding of one of the the world's major Christian denominations and an episode which helped to empower the Reformation more widely across Europe. I'll give it 7/10.

The Ipcress File

Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) presents the antithesis of James Bond in this 1965 Brit-Spy drama - the first of a trilogy. Set at the height of the cold war and based on Len Deighton's 1962 novel, this film offers a brilliant snapshot of British class structure where rank and regiment and club are everything. Palmer is cockney working class but has a taste for good food and beautiful women. He grinds his own coffee freshly every morning and brews it in a cafetiere. He shops for imported ingredients in a supermarket - a recent innovation in sixties Britain. His chirpy ironic and insolent insubordination sets him against his officer-class masters who, whilst viewing him as possessing valuable talents, ultimately see him as expendable.

The story revolves around the 'brain drain' and brain washing which were live concepts in the unstable world of the sixties - an ever-present part of the nightly news and spy films during my childhood! Apparently the type of brain washing depicted in this film was modelled on a project the CIA were running in Canada, so it was based in reality. I've seen this film many times - but this was probably the first time in a cinema. I know it is a spy film and spies live in the shadows and dark alley ways, but for me the print had lost any hint of brightness and the colours were too subdued and muted - apart from the wonderful Routemaster buses and telephone boxes which appeared a lurid scarlet. With the Americans depicted more as interfering adversaries and the KGB nowhere in sight, it has a different slant to most sixties spy fare.

The fact that the film remains so popular - 7.3 on IMDb and 7.7 on Rotten Tomatoes is a testimony to its simple conception, strong story and great acting - no CGI or massive special effects here. In 1999 it was voted number 59 of the top UK films of the 20th century in a BFI poll.

Apart from its lack of colour, this is still a vibrant and extremely watchable film. The performances and story are engaging, the locations chosen to promote the Britishness of this Pinewood Studios film. Fifty years on, watching this again gave me a warm nostalgic glow for the London of my childhood. It was an all round good experience. I'll give it 8.5/10. When was the last time you saw it?

What Maisie Knew

I caught this today at Harbour Lights on a members' free preview screening. Well done 'Picture house'.

This film is equally as sad as it is heartwarming. It is a contemporary retelling of the Henry James novel from 1897 of the same name. It tells the story of Maisie (Onata Aprile) who is a seven year old girl growing up in a privileged way in Manhattan New York. Her mother Susanna (Julianne Moore) is an ageing hippy rock-chic, still recording and touring but never having been able to move beyond petulant selfish teenager herself. Her father Beale (Steve Coogan) is an art dealer who is so distracted by his business that he is unable to maintain a meaningful relationship with either his wife or his daughter.

It comes as no surprise that the strained marriage flounders to breaking point and ends up in court. Beale gains the upper hand in terms of custody and access. Susanne is embittered that the Judge didn't look too kindly on her and repeatedly bemoans the fact throughout the film.

The story is told from Maisie's perspective and it is clear that that she is the most balanced and even-keeled character in the film. Both her parents are preoccupied by their respective careers. Susanne hosting extravagantly noisy rock parties in the apartment with hints of drug-taking. Beale talks about endless maybes and promises Maisie and au-pair Margot (Johanna Vanderham) boat trips in the Aegean after a business trip to Italy - which never materialises.

The film sets up a painful pattern of repetition. As soon as Maisie is delivered into the company of either parent they fawn over her - until some external intervention becomes more attractive. Their commitment to Maisie is shallow - painfully and woefully inadequate.

It is clear from the way the story is told that Maisie knows full well what is going on and that she knows who feels what for whom. Both her parents quickly remarry. Susanne marries the handsome younger bar-tender Lincoln (Alexander Skarsgård) who is decent, morally alert and, unlike Susanne, not driven by the kudos of wealth, acclaim or celebrity. She marries him to demonstrate to the courts her stability and ability to be a model parent. Beale marries the au-pair Margot - not seemingly for love, but because she is young, beautiful and a ready-made baby-sitter for Maisie.

The narrative arc is obvious from early on. The interesting thing is how will it come to be. The acting is first rate from all, delivered with tenderness and sensitivity. This film delivers a brilliant expose of the pains of divorce and its effect on the children. The film tries to portray Susanne and Blaise as the victims but of course the real victim is Maisie. In the end, the choice of which family unit she chooses to be a part of is left to her. Very postmodern, but in the film, Maisie is the only one with enough common sense to make the right decision.

This is a heart-warming and affective story with great acting that brings a Victorian novel bang up-to-date. When it hits screens please do go and see it - this would make a great film to discuss in a group over pizza afterwards. I'll give it 8/10.

The Station Agent

A colleague of mine was surprised that I hadn't seen this and implored me to get hold of it. I'm glad she did - thank you Catherine. I think there are two ways to look at this film - you could either see it as a film about nothing, or a film about everything. I think it is a film about everything.

The central character is Finbar McBride (Peter Dinklage). He is passionate about everything to do with railways and at the start of the film we see him working in the backroom of a model railway shop in Hobeken New Jersey, where he fixes locomotives and carriages as part of the shop's repair service. The shop's owner dies suddenly and leaves Fin a small railway depot and some rolling stock in rural New Jersey. With no other option, Fin moves into the Station House and despite his best efforts acquires two acquaintances - Joe (Bobby Cannavale) who is running his father's hot dog van next to the Station and Olivia (Patricia Clarkson) a local resident. The three of them form an unlikely circle of acquaintances - it would be difficult to call it friendship. As far as it goes this is the plot. But this is not a film so much about the narrative arc as about the journey the characters undertake.

Each of the three have their 'issues' to deal with. Fin is a Little Person, Joe is a second generation Cuban emigre and Olivia is working through the tragic death of her son and subsequent separation from her husband. That each of the main characters has a readily identifiable 'issue' with which they are coming to terms is perhaps a little convenient, but I wonder what about most people who spend all their time and energy concealing theirs? Joe is painfully aware that his physicality immediately draws unwelcome and often hostile attention. Afraid of silence and aloneness, Joe cannot let a second pass by without filling it with some usually inane prattle, whilst the whole area knows about Olivia, her volatility and attempts at self-expression through her disjointed impressionistic art.

Each of the three are in some way marginalised and find it difficult to accept thier position. Fin simply wants to be left alone to read his books on railways and spot trains. He walks everywhere, usually along a railway line, as it a solitary and less confrontational mode of transport. Joe is covering for his sick father and sells less than enough to make a living but never seems to worry. Why would someone living in Manhattan drive out to rural New Jersey to sell Hot Dogs in the middle of nowhere? Olivia pops pills and tries to keep herself to herself as she wallows in the grief she cannot escape from.

Each one of them is on their own - yet their alone-ness gradually allows them to build into a community of acceptance. Not acceptance of one another's 'issues' but acceptance of one another - something which transcends their issues. The film portrays a powerful picture of community and the human need for it - even (or perhaps especially) in adversity. This is where the power of the film lies. Sometimes the music and the camera angles are little contrived simply to make the point, but for the most part this is a gentle and heart-warming film - a gift.

Perhaps because of his size, Fin is seen by people (especially women) to be non-threatening and so they disclose their deepest secrets to him quite voluntarily. The openness of a friendship offered by a local school girl empowers Fin to place himself in a position of vulnerability in front of her peers. Joe seems to crave company and relationship but is locked in to caring for his father. Olivia's charms are obvious for all to see but she cannot decide to whom she is committed - or even if she can bear the pain of loving with the attendant risk of the pain of loss.

As I said, I think this is a film about everything - relationships, community, humanity, acceptance and love. Things that are really important and are inbuilt components of our existence. Please do get hold of this film and watch it - you will be rewarded. I'll give it 8/10.

Lovely, still

When the lead actors in a film are Oscar winners Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn, you know this is going to be a film worth engaging with. The question is, what return will you get on your investment?

I guess there are two ways to watch this film. A way that gets it and a way that doesn't. If you watch this film and don't get it then you will be left feeling robbed and cheated and that you have just wasted 88 minutes watching a schmaltzy tale of two older folk going on a first date. If you do get it, you will applaud Director Nicholas Fackler (only 23 when he made this!) for his creativity, genius and gentle and affecting way in which he handles the subject. You'll want to watch it a second time to be able to read the story with the benefit of the hindsight that the ending brings.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE STORY SPOILED STOP HERE. THIS FILM WILL HAVE MORE IMPACT IF YOU ALLOW ITS STORY TO WORK ON YOU BEFORE YOU KNOW HOW IT ENDS. YOU WILL WANT TO SEE IT A SECOND TIME ONCE YOU KNOW.

For most of the story (first 75 minutes) it appears to be a soppy and sentimental tale of two folk in older life finding love for the first time. The fact that the story is set just before Christmas and each shot is filled with twinkling lights and seasonal songs, adds to the schmaltziness and ramps up the investment of emotional capital that watching this film requires of the viewer.

Landau plays Robert Malone, an older man with a set daily routine who lives on his own and 'works' in the local supermarket. He is plagued, or even haunted by dreams depicted as ghostly dendrons and synapses attempting to link and create memories of an earlier, happier time. In the store all we see him doing is drawing on a notepad at a table and then offering the store manager Mike (Adam Scott) advice on various aspects of the retail trade. Robert seems as bemused as the Manager by the process. Sometimes Robert appears more lucid than others.

Having gone off to work and left his front door wide open, he returns to find Mary (Burstyn) in the house. She has just moved in opposite to live with her daughter Alex (Elizabeth Banks) and seeing his car impaling the garage door, claims she was just checking that he was okay. He reacts angrily and asks her to leave but he clams down and she asks him to take her out on a date. After hesitating Robert agrees and over the intervening 24 hours suffers the highs and lows of angst that any inexperienced teen anticipating a date experiences. This time it is Robert who seeks advice from Mike.

The date happens and is a success and over the course the next few days the couple spend more time together and grow closer together. As Robert crosses off the days on his calendar we often cut to Mary anxiously clutching a bottle of pills and counting them out - presumably to see if she has enough to get through the holiday season. Then one evening she accidentally drops them into a sink with a running tap and they disappear down the drain. She tries to get a replacement prescription but can't without a Doctor's authorisation - and the holidays have started. So begins a deterioration in Robert's behaviour, confidence and level of lucidity.

The pills were Robert's - he is battling Alzheimer's. Mary is his wife, Mike and Alex his children and Robert was the founder and original manager of the store which his son now runs and where he goes to spend each day as it is a familiar and safe place. Mary had moved in with Alex because it was getting too difficult to manage and the family didn't want to place Robert in a 'home'. With the medication and a renewed relationship, all had hoped that Robert might be winning the battle. Sadly Alzheimer's is a pernicious and obdurate adversary.

I've left some of the ending untold so there are still one or two twists for you to experience. This is a very clever film that deals with a difficult subject very creatively and with great warmth. Landau and Burstyn turn in incredible performances that will tug at your heart-strings. I guess that with an increasingly ageing population, this is yet another film amongst a growing number that portray what is the reality of older life for many.

Creative and brave cinema. Do please watch this film - probably twice. I'll give it 8.5/10. For me the return on my investment gave an expected and large bonus!

Normal

This film is a brave attempt to explore the depths of dysfunction that grief, denial and a preoccupation with the trappings of success forced upon the unsuspecting bring. It is a cross between Ordinary People and American Beauty (yes I know it's set in Vancouver).

The central character in the film is never seen - except in out-of-focus flashback. He was killed in a car crash and the as the story unfolds the people and the families caught up in the accident - victims and perpetrators, collide. Within the narrative arc are a number of sub-plots which bring interest and explore some of the themes the film presents in greater depth. Tygh Runyan's performance as the autistic Dennis steals the show by a long way.

The film is not uplifting. For much of it the bereaved mother, Catherine (Carrie-Anne Moss), pouts her way through the depression and denial she appears to embody. Others seek to rebuild their shattered lives and find love in inappropriate ways through desperate encounters that flatter to deceive.

Much of the camera work is hand-held and the editing is at times brutal which left me feeling a little sea-sick! The locations portray the affluent water-side of Vancouver in a way that reinforces the illusion of success that those who live there must surely enjoy. In a nutshell that's what the film is all about - trying to work out what is real and what is illusory. The ending was not what I was expecting and for that I commend Director Carl Bessai, but it came far too quickly and at a pace that was out of kilter with the rest of the film.

To be honest, you are much better off watching the two films mentioned above. They do this kind of thing much much better. It is good to see Carrie-Anne Moss playing a role that allows her to demonstrate her considerable skills, but there is little else to commend this film. I'll give it 5/10.

New resources

I've added the text of a couple of papers I delivered recently. They are accessible from the 'pages' tab below and to the right.

The first was part of a spirituality day I was asked to lead using film as a medium for exploring our relationship with God. It seemed to me that metaphor is a powerful thing and that this is a tool that is frequently used by film makers to visualise things that are hard to explain, difficult to portray or are by their nature invitational - i.e. "if there is a God, how might we encounter Him/Her?".

The second paper explores how themes of 'apocalypse' are portrayed in film. It only scratches the surface, but I only had just over an hour to deliver this! I began with the opening sequence from the film Apocalypse Now which seemed to set the tone.

How To Train your Dragon

Here we have a DreamWorks animation which is a wonderful advertisement for the high state that CGI has achieved. The rendering and colours, shading, shadows, highlights and movement are all excellent. The story is a very familiar one which you will have read and seen a thousand times before. All the best stories are like that. What makes this one rather good is the original setting and visualisation that DreamWorks bring to the screen, On IMDb it scores 8.2/10 and on RottenTomatoes it score 7.9/10 - they are two impressive scores.

The story is set in a Viking village on a remote northern island. So remote that the lead character Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) describes it like this:

"This is Berk. It's twelve days north of Hopeless and a few degrees south of Freezing to Death. It's located solidly on the Meridian of Misery. My village. In a word? Sturdy. It's been here for seven generations, but every single building is new. We have fishing, hunting, and a charming view of the sunsets. The only problems are the pests. You see, most places have mice or mosquitoes... We have..."

All the vikings have weird names - except the beautiful Astrid (America Ferrera) who provides the love interest for Hiccup. However, most have Scots accents and some have a American accents - truly weird as Vikings were neither, although they did reach and colonise both countries - but the accents do reflect the cast. Apparently the author of the story on which it is loosely based, Cressida Cowell, set the story in the Inner Hebrides, so perhaps it is artistic licence.

The story is the archetypal misfit who cannot live up to his father's expectations finding a different way to win popularity, a different way to enable his people to live with the dragons and a different way to get his girl. It's a story about integrity in the midst of those coming-of-age years. You know Hiccup is going to triumph, bring peace and prosperity to the village and get Astrid, but the 94 minute journey to deliver is thoughtful, well-paced and a visual treat.

This a wonderful Father's day present from my youngest and I enjoyed watching it with her. I'll give 7.5/10 as I found the accents annoying! Well worth the watch. Enjoy.

Man of Steel

Using British actors to reboot a super-hero franchise sees Henry Cavill, joining Christian Bale (Batman) and Andrew Garfield (Spiderman) as Superman is the latest comic book character to get re-invented. In this latest offering, Director Zack Snyder unleashes his trade mark passion for lots of CGI and action to deliver a movie that is both over-long and over-busy.

Christopher Nolan has been involved in scripting this film and it shows in the added depth and interest the characters possess. We know the story back to front and that's the challenge for the screenplay, Director and cast. Of all the Superman incarnations this one spends much longer setting the context and establishing the back story of planet Krypton and General Zod's enmity with Jor-El (Superman's biological father).

Another significant difference is that Cavill's Superman is shown to be someone who is unsure, conflicted and vulnerable - almost too human. His adoptive earthly parents do a brilliant job in raising their son and do their best to instill the qualities that build self-confidence and the ability to balance differing views. Throughout his childhood, we are shown in flash-back, how the young Clark Kent was bullied at school and struggled not to unleash his super-power on those provoking him. But inevitably he did use his powers from time to time which reinforced his differences and helped to further distance him from his peers. In search of his true identity, he leaves the family farm on the Kansas prairie and heads out as an itinerant worker hitch hiking his was through a succession of jobs.

Eventually his past catches up with him and General Zod tracks him down to earth and so the battle commences. For half the film the puny weaponry of earth is deployed against the superior alien technology of the Kryptonites. The evolutionary process on Krypton had led the race to a point where for centuries they had genetically engineered every baby for the specific role that society required them to carry out for the greater good of the people - all very utilitarian. Superman, or Kal-El as he was named at birth, was the first naturally born baby in hundreds of years and as Krypton self-destructs due to over -harvesting of the planet's power, Jor-El encodes the entire Kryptonite DNA record into Kal-El's cells. General Zod, who was genetically engineered to live a life that sought to protect the Kryptonite race and help it to survive is hell-bent on extracting the DNA record from Superman - with or without his co-operation. Jor-El's spirit keeps reappearing holographically to encourage his son not to give in and so for the second half of the film there is an epic battle as Superman fights off Zod and his lieutenants.

The film invites the viewer to reflect on the perils of genetic engineering and where going down that road may lead us. It also serves as a stark warning about harvesting the resources of the planet in an unrestrained way that does not allow them to be naturally replenished. At the heart of the story is a moral struggle. Zod's utilitarian drive to preserve the Kryptonites at all costs against Superman's Judeo-Christian humanist ethic which pushed him to do 'the right thing'.

It is all very spectacular as the familiar story is retold with creativity and a visual flourish. The characters are believable and the acting good. Russel Crowe is well cast to play Jor-El and Amy Adams offers her usual attractive self to play Lois Lane who comes through the whole ordeal without so much as a hair out of place. One to look out for is the German actress Antje Traue who plays Zod's deputy Faora-Ul - those icy blue eyes are natural - not lenses! For me, as with so many films these days, the action and fighting sequences were just too long. Every now and again the film appeared to pay visual homage to other sci-fi giants (The Matrix and Spiderman 3?) and borrow design concepts that came through with little or no modification. It produced a bit of a visual pastiche.

However, all of that aside, this was a refreshing and re-energised retelling of a familiar story with strong acting, great CGI, special effects and visual design. I am sure that Henry Cavill's next decade or so is now sorted out as we brace ourselves for the unfolding adventures of this incarnation of everybody's favourite super-hero. Go and see it for good escapist fun and cutting edge cinema. I'll give it 7.5/10.

Apocalypse Now

Harbour Lights were screening this on a one-off showing today and I decided to bite the bullet and see it for the first time on the big screen. Amazing in so many ways. I grew up with reports of the Vietnam war on daily evening news and have charted the films about the war over the past 40 plus years. There is an interesting list of someone's top 30 here on iMDB. This ranks alongside Platoon and The Deer Hunter.

This film ably shows the absurdity of war - and in particular the absurd way America fought this war. On one hand I'd like to say that the leader of every nation should watch it before they commit their people to war - but I guess those who have fought to get to the top of the political ladder won't be swayed by the affective response this film must inevitably invoke in any person who is wired in a normal sort of way.

I'm not sure the US psyche has yet resolved its demons in relation to the guilt and regret that surrounds the collective memory of Vietnam. Right at the beginning the central character, Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) tells us in narration "There is no way to tell his story without telling my own. And if his story really is a confession, then so is mine.". The Confessional still sees plenty of business as a result of this war - and rightly so. Hollywood still tries to provide a cathartic and penitential experience by administering salve on the wounds of the after-effects of Vietnam and increasingly Iraq and Afghanistan. Absolution can be an elusive thing to nail down.

This film has left a massive and enduring legacy. It won two Oscars, the Palme D'Or at Cannes, three Golden Globes and two Baftas along with a host of other awards. The film was also considered to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and was chosen for preservation by the US National Film Registry in 2000. It regularly appears at or near the top of many movie polls - check out the wikipedia article for the references.

This film was made pre-CGI and the special effects are consistently amazing. The film starts at an okay pace and then quickens - and never lets up for the entire 2.5 hour ride. The cast is an amazing group of top names led by Michael Sheen in the lead role. He plays a Special Forces Captain who is sent deep into enemy territory and then into Cambodia to terminate (with "extreme prejudice") a US Colonel whom the hierarchy deem to have gone insane and who is operating outside the normal command and control channels of the military. Three quarters of the film is about the journey to get there, the last part explores deep and dark themes about the insanity of war and what it does to people. The story doesn't end neatly - it leaves the viewer having to analyse what they have just witnessed and what they are going to do with it.

There would be many ways of exploring this film and many fine words have been written about it over the past nearly 35 years. The film is littered with literary references but for me, one of the most insightful ways would be thorough the poetry of T.S. Eliot that plays such an important part. Willard's target is Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who spouts philosophical and literary riddles as he talks almost exclusively in metaphors:

     Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?

     Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.

     Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?

     Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

     Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?

     Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

     Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?

     Willard: I'm a soldier.

     Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill


Clearly Director Francis Ford Coppola has a message for the viewer and it is one that will make him/her very uncomfortable. After some digging around I found out that the film is based on the novello Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. In poetry books Eliot's poem The Waste Land is preceded by a quotation from Heart of Darkness: "Mistah Kurtz – he dead".  So here we have Colonel Kurtz quoting Eliot and saying as his final words 'Did he live his life again in every detail of desire, temptation, and surrender during that supreme moment of complete knowledge? He cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision, – he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath – "The horror! The horror!"'  This can be seen as a commentary on what waging war had done to Kurtz - the agony and emotion etched on the face of Willard as he fulfils his orders. On Kurtz's desk we see a copy of From Ritual to Romance by Jessie Weston and The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer - the two texts which Eliot says inspired his poem The Waste Land.

There are many memorable passages in this film that have gone down in cinematic history - and rightly so. This is an intelligent, creative and courageous piece of cinema which seeks not to offer an analysis but to recreate through it's dialogue and characters an opportunity for the modern-day voyeur to catch the faintest of glimpses of what the horror of war can lead people to - good people - when ideologies clash. The action is so intense and immediate, and the soundtrack so rich and detailed, that you can you almost smell the napalm - even if it's not the morning!

I have no choice other than to give this film 9/10. Great cinema.

Stats

I don't if you are interested in what films people search for most often on this site - it's something which fascinates me. I am grateful for (most) comments that folk leave and I'm always up for a conversation - and very happy for people to see things differently.

If you are interested in what people are looking at, here are the viewing stats as of today. Thanks for your interest.

As you can see Spirited Away is out in the lead but given that Sound of My Voice was only posted a year ago, it is catching up quickly. One film that ranks quite highly but is not in the top 10 is Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs! Why?

Populaire

I wasn't quite sure what to expect from this film - but I found it to be thoroughly enchanting. An out-and-out rom-com, Populaire brings a refreshing burst of colour and vivacity which combine to deliver a film that has a predictable trajectory, but nevertheless is thoroughly enjoyable.

The way the film was designed (set in 1958), the use of costumes and music and centring the story on speed typing competitions all combine to deliver a good old dose of nostalgia. Add to that strong performances from the leading actors and we have another helping of French cinema at its best. It would be fair to say that some parts of the story get a bit lumpy and maybe too syrupy and so make for an uneven pace but all of that for me was easily forgotten in the wake of Déborah François' performace as Rose Pamphyl - she simply steals the show with a performance that evokes the Elvin charm of Audrey Hepburn and the witty comedy of Doris Day - both at their peak when the film was set.

PLOT SPOILERS

The story is the familiar little girl from the sticks gets propelled onto a world stage whilst the one doing the propelling is unable to allow himself to fall in love while everyone around can see it's what's meant to be. Rose escapes the drudgery of life in her domineering widower father's village store and her impending marriage to the son of the local mechanic to take up a post as secretary to an Insurance Agent in the local town of Lisieux. Rose is far from ideal for the job - she is clumsy, inexperienced and has no formal qualifications for the post - but she can type very quickly - with just two fingers.

The Insurance Agent Louis Échard  is played by Romain Duris who delivers a surly yet vulnerable dapper man-about-town performance. As with all of us, Louis has a past which is some ways is similar to Rose's - a domineering father and founder of the family Insurance business now run by Louis.. Whereas Rose's father never lifted his eyes above the horizon and expected the same from his daughter, Louis' father demanded success and victory - being number one is the only thing that matters. In his earlier years Louis had been a champion athlete excelling at many sports - he knew what it was to be driven by the need to win. So both characters are trying to escape the baggage of their upbringing - but Loius has more baggage than most. During the war, he was leader of a local resistance group and because of one incident with the group his psyche is wounded and he is unable to commit.

So Loius hires Rose with the express intention of training her to become a champion typist. She begins in regional Normandie contest, works her way up to win the national contest and then goes for a world type-off in new York. As the story unfolds, Loius is constantly drawn to his first love Marie (Bérénice Bejo [The Artist]) the wife of his best friend and the woman he cannot have. Meanwhile Rose is always right in front of him and she is the very woman he will not allow himself to have. The tension of this love-triangle maintains the 'will he, won't he' tension very well for nearly all of the story.

In the end this is a simple tale with fine acting and a strong evocation of 1950's Hollywood movies and French chic (one scene is lifted directly from Vertigo). The warmth that Rose radiates touches all that she encounters, but her journey is not straightforward as she battles to establish her own identity on a pathway that she will choose - nouvelle femme! Louis generates from viewers a feeling of sympathy which made me want to shake him by the shoulders to bring him to his senses on more than one occasion.

As you may have gathered I rather liked this film and simply loved François' Rose. This is a heart-warming film that does far more good than ill. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, it offers an opportunity to reflect on our own sense of self and how our baggage contributes to the making of the relationships that we are in. It's also a simple love story and we all need to reconnect with those! Do go and see it. I'll give it 8/10.