The Wind Will Carry Us

This is my first encounter with Iranian Director Kiarostami. This is not a movie in any conventional understanding of the term. There is no plot or story as such. It's more reality TV than Hollywood blockbuster, it has no international stars and no identifiable outcome - and that is the master-stroke. Rather than presenting a narrative, this film presents life and invites you to develop your own story.

Set in a remote Kurdish village in Western Iran, this film is a mystery. Those within it are a mystery. The motive of the visitors from Tehran is a mystery. What happens to them while they are in the village is a mystery. The outcome is a mystery. What each viewer takes from this film is a mystery that needs to undergo gestation in the privacy of individual reflection. The film is an invitation to examine matters of life and death, the rhythm of life, what is important and who is important. It also invites you to slow down and readjust your perspective. The film offers a gift - an opportunity for healing, celebration and a re-evaluation of priorities.

Descending on this remote settlement the visitors are received with customary hospitality. Their mission being to film the ancient and obscure mourning ritual of this people. Connected to the wider world by only a mobile phone through which daily requests for progress reports come, 'The Engineer' and his colleagues (who we never see) wait and wait - interested only in the health of the village Matriarch who is thought to be close to death - but she is only ill. The irony is that to receive a signal for the phone, 'The Engineer' has to drive out of the village to the hill-top cemetery where a local is digging a grave - possibly for the old lady.

As the waiting goes on, so the rhythm of village life proceeds unabated. The visitors never really integrating, the hospitality of the villagers able to be welcoming whilst maintaining a distance. Gradually it dawns on 'The Engineer' that there of things of greater value here than the assignment that brought them to this village. He recites poems - one to a suggestively beautiful girl who refuses to show her face as she milks the cow for him. Iranian culture has a proud and lively heritage of poetry that remains current, drawing on work from Omar Khayyám and Forough Farrokhzad to name but two. 'The Engineer' experiences moments of enlightenment through encounters with a Tortoise, a Dung Beetle and the local Doctor!

At the end of watching this film I was left asking 'what was all that about?'. The more I have reflected on it and discussed it with my ever-insightful significant other, the more I am beginning to see this as a film about what it is to be human and connected to the environment lived in. It is a film about life, about what matters and ultimately about death. As the words of the poets reach out to us down through the centuries, we are reminded that our existence can transcend our three score years and ten.

It is interesting to note that it falls within the Arts & Faith top 100 spiritual films - at number 57.

When you want to be challengingly engaged - watch this film. I'll give it 7.5/10

The Girl Who Played With Fire

The second in the Steig Larson Millennium Trilogy arrived in cinemas this weekend. The book sales may still be extremely healthy - have you travelled on London's underground lately? - but the critics seem to have been sharpening their claws in anticipation. Despite that, this film has had a juggernaut of publicity pushing it into the public consciousness and with a 15 certificate is more likely to reach a wider audience.

Critics and to some extent the movie-going public seem to demand more of a second film in a trilogy than the first delivered - particularly so when the first film breaks important ground in some cinematographic way - like The Matrix trilogy for example. It is true that a lot of the intrigue aroused by the first film centred on the character of Lisbeth Salander played by Noomi Rapace. The question then is how do you develop the character in a meaningful way whilst having a plot that makes sense and gives continuity with the first film? The answer is to begin unpeeling some of the layers that encase the complex character that is Salander. Why was she such a striking and troubled person in the first film? What gave her cause to hate men - Women who hate men being the Swedish title of the first film?

The story is about abuse of power - expressed in sexual activity. This film manges to present five sex scenes - two of them mutually consensual, three of them involving masochistic bondage and abuse - what is it with Swedish men - or are they archetypes? This film has a different director whose style is in stark contrast to the first film - that makes it visually a very different proposition. This film is shot much more in close-up using steady-cams and whilst some plot devices are telegraphed - like seeing the name on a wheelie bin outside a house to show us who owns it, others are completely absent like how did Blomquist know where in Malmo to look for Salander?

There is certainly plenty of action in this film. Too much violence and more than enough blood. This time, these features are an over-indulgence. This does detract from the viewing experience. Too many plot devices are borrowed from James Bond movies - this too exhibits a lack of originality. However, overall the film is still excellent and I am already looking forward to The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest!

For me the story is about how a young girl who dares to take on her abusive father who enjoys immunity from Swedish law and as a result is herself abusively institutionalised, comes to terms with that as an adult. Salander is intellectually sharp. She is blessed, or cursed, with a photographic memory which perhaps too often triggers vivid flashbacks. Her computer hacking and investigative skills are again to the fore. The story in this second instalment of the trilogy is all about explaining how Lisbeth Salander got to be the person we were introduced to in the first film. It tells this story very well and sets things up well for the finale.

I am told by those who have read the books that the transition to film is very faithful - perhaps that's why this is another long film? If you can stomach blood and physical violence - go and see it. That is easier to watch than the violation of the young Lisbeth Salander and its consequences.

I give this 7.5/10.

Wall-e

The Disney Pixar stable is currently producing films that are engaging, well scripted and visually stunning. Wall-e is no exception.

Set in the 2700 century, earth has been ravished by junk and Wall-e is a robot tasked with clearing up the place ready for the return of the giant spaceship Axiom carrying thousands of people ready to repopulate the earth when life is once again viable. Periodically the Axiom sends out a probe and when one named Eve discovers a plant Wall-E found growing in a fridge, it not only sparks a relationship between the two robots (!), but also eventually leads to the return of the Axiom and the recolonisation of the planet. In the meantime, the passengers on board the axiom have all become grossly obese and unable to move under their own power.

So what's the film about? It's about the potential to abuse our planet. It's about 'unnatural love'. It's about obesity and excess. It's also about the dangers of AI taking over and making wrong crucial decisions on behalf of humanity. It's about the Axiom being seen as an Ark in the style of Noah.

The joy of this film is not the individual component story lines but how they are all scripted together and then presented in vibrant and dynamic animation. The film also openly plays homage to a number of sci-fi films and series - 2001 where Sigourney Weaver supplies the voice for the equivalent of HAL, Wall-e's journey to the Axiom mirrors the opening Titles of Star Trek Voyager - I could go on, but that would spoil your fun.

Yes it's also about paradise lost - paradise found. It's about the rediscovery of what it is to be human, It's about love, power, fear and hope - primal emotions that will connect with anyone. This film has universal appeal as well as a U Certificate! I found it deeply engaging, well made and entertaining - and in this department it refreshingly avoided clichés and used comic timing to offer something different that still made me laugh.

Well worth it. I'll give it 7.5/10.

Camera Buff

Filip and Irenka are expecting their first child. They've recently moved into a new flat, they are happily married, Filip has a good job and then the baby arrives. At the age of 30 Filip has it all - he's even bought a Russian made 8mm film camera to film his new daughter growing up. The film is set in a small Polish town in 1979 in the communist era. The buildings, pavements, mud, sky and cars are all shades of anonymous grey. Colour is brought by the lives of the characters.

Filip's bosses discover he has a camera and ask him to film the 25th Jubilee celebrations as a record for the factory. Filip's initial attempts are clumsy and he is always in the way. However, he has a nose for what makes good cinema and follows his instinct which brings into conflict with the factory's Director. This conflict is ongoing as Filip develops his own creative documentary style peppered with flashes of creative interludes. Such is the paucity of film making in Poland that Filip is invited to enter the film in a national film festival where he wins third prize. This inflames his addiction to film making and he forms a film making club with his colleagues.

Filip's new-found celebrity and increasing addiction begin to force a wedge between him and Irenka who is struggling after the birth of their daughter. He films their daughter as she has her nappy changed  and Irenka chastises Filip for filming the new baby in its nakedness. Filip engages in new projects, flirts with a national film celebrity who is well-connected and eventually lands a commission from national TV. All of these serve to unwillingly push him and Irenka further apart. Filip does not want this but as with any addiction is powerless to stop it. Eventually his wife leaves him to go and stay with her mother.

Filip's film making style is documentary - he wants to portray things as they are. He uses the camera to expose what he considers to be institutional corruption when he films behind the façade of the town's buildings to reveal the decay and squalor the towns folk actually live in. This film brings great acclaim and Filip embarks on filming workers from the local brick works who have not been producing bricks for some months because of a shortage of supplies - instead they have been sent around the town to tidy it up. This brings him into a direct conflict with his work's Director again - a suitably rotund and comparatively well-dressed man in a stereotypical portrayal of the communist anomaly that some are more equal than others. He explains to Filip that funds given to the town to improve its buildings were diverted into projects for a much needed hospital and nursery and that Filip is not presenting the true reality because people in his position don't understand full picture. Central authorities become unhappy with Filip's portrayal of ordinary life and cut off funding to the town. Some of Filip's colleagues are made redundant as a consequence of his activities.

Filip experiences an epiphany and races to the station to recover the brick works film before it goes off to the TV company. Dramatically he opens the canister and throws the spool down the street unwinding the undeveloped negative and exposing it to the light thereby ruining it. This mirrors his own conscience and understanding having been exposed but his friend cannot understand his actions - that Filip has learned the responsibility that accompanies using a lens to provide an interpretation of what the camera sees. He has learnt the power of story - it's power to inspire, to represent and misrepresent, to engage in a moral crusade the unintended consequences of which bring greater harm on others and his community.

This film is semi auto-biographical of its director Krzysztof Kieslowski. It is a powerful film that sets out the responsibilities film makers - and creators of art - have. His addiction to tell the truth in a creative way cost him his marriage, his colleagues their jobs, his town its redevelopment. It is little wonder that Kieslowski was always wary of institutional authority and that this is a recurring theme in his films. This film was his first feature length drama and it established him on the main stage of film making. As with all Kieslowski films it explores the moral and emotional dynamics of the characters. It is possible to say that in following his new-found vocation as a film maker, Filip lost his vocation as a husband, father and resposnsible colleague.

The power to be creative is gripping and can become all-consuming. We are after-all made in the image of God who is the Great Creator. The film invites us to reflect on commitment, morality, vocation and self-sacrifice. Is it right that 'art' can drive all of these things from us and turn us into something new? What happens when we find fulfilment in these things but lose everything else? The film ends in a way as it began. Filip turns the camera on himself and we see his face reflected in the lens - he is alone, naked, now he is the subject of scrutiny by the camera - just like his little daughter was.

A first class film. I'll give 8.5/10.

The Savages

This is a brave film that deals with the subject of dementia head-on. The sleeve notes describe this film as 'hysterically funny and irreverent', I found it to be neither. It is realistic, gritty and it recognises that there are no perfect solutions when dealing with a messy subject like this. The story explores obligation, guilt and a host of other emotions as it seeks an understanding of what is meaningful and what is not.

Lennie Savage lives with his 'girlfriend' of 20 years in Sun City, Arizona. His behaviour is getting more extreme and the carer who comes in to look after his partner provokes an incident that sets in train a series of events. The first one being that Lennie's partner dies whilst having a manicure in a Beauty Parlour. Her children cite a legal agreement made by the seniors that neither would have any call on each others possessions at any stage in the future and they 'evict' Lenny so that they can sell the house. Even at this point in the film it is worth reflecting on the image of retirement that sun City presents - manicured and synthetic.

Lenny's children - both around the 40 year-old mark are then brought into the picture. Jon is a College Professor living in Buffalo, up-state New York. He is in a relationship with a Polish girl but her visa has expired and she has to return to Poland. He cannot commit to marriage and muddles on through this messy and dysfunctional relationship. Wendy is also single. She lives in a grubby apartment in New York City and works as a temp to sustain her real passion as a playwright. Wendy is in what appears to be a long-term affair with a married man who is facing his own mid-life crisis. She craves attention and intimacy, he craves sex. Another dysfunctional relationship.

Jon, the elder of the two, always takes the lead and is presented as the rational, logical sibling. Wendy is always portrayed as the one rooted in the fantasy dream-world of possibilities, unable to deal with hard realities confronting her. The two siblings, clearly struggling to develop their own fulfilling relationship with one another, battle the emotional and mental wounds inflicted in their childhood at the hands of Lenny and the absent Mom to fulfil their sense of obligation towards their now confused and ageing father.

There are a number of small moments when the curtain is pulled back and light floods in. When Wendy is mechanically having sex with her lover and instead of concentrating on the moment - or her lover - she reaches out to his ailing Labrador for a sign of affection. Jon, delivering a class on Bertolt Brecht encounters the distinctions he is outlining in his lecture played out in his life as he receives a phone call. Or when Wendy is taken seriously by Jimmy, a carer in Lenny's Nursing Home, her only means of responding is to grab him and kiss him passionately. There are many more.

The film invites you to make parallels with your own situation - your childhood, family dys/functionality and outlook for your parents. I am an only child so I missed out on squabbling sibling rivalry - something I've always regretted. Both my parents are long dead and so I was never faced with the spectre of dementia - although through my work I have encountered it many times. What I could readily tap into were the feelings of obligation and guilt that being a member of a family automatically engender. The story also invites you to side with either Jon or Wendy - the realist or dreamer. Perhaps my characterisation of them betrays whose side I am on!

The film raises wider questions of how dysfunctional families who are geographically dispersed and who are unable to create and sustain new and meaningful relationships for themselves should function when circumstances throw them back into a tight-knit situation. It would have been easy for Jon and Wendy to say we've not seen Dad in 20 years and Mom in longer - let welfare take care of him. But they didn't. They did what they could and Jon's pragmatism recognised that Lenny needed specialist care - care beyond their ability to deliver. The compromise wasn't perfect - but it gave them more than they had before. Is this a realistic and best hoped-for-outcome?

Much of the story is brought into focus as Jon views a rehearsal of one of Wendy's plays. It's subversive auto-biographical angle sheds light on how the Savages got to be where they are.

Life is messy.

Excellent acting from Philip Seymour-Hoffman and Laura Linney. A film to get under your skin - whatever your age. If it prompts you to make preparations now while all stake-holders can own the outcome we can receive it as gift. If this is too much to ask for, we can enjoy it as a gentle comedy that peels the veneer off living with dementia.

Go watch it - you'll be rewarded. I'm giving it 8/10.

Book of Eli

A story of pilgrimage, hope and faith in the midst of a post-apocalyptic USA. Thirty years after the end of the war the USA is a wasteland with gangs of armed marauders ready to bush-whack anyone they encounter to steal their shoes, water or even just for the fun of it. Eli has been heading West for 30 years. He heard a voice that led him to a book and which then told him to take it to the West - to a receptive community. He only seeks a peaceful passage as he continues on his pilgrimage but if anyone stands in his way he is prepared to kill - not to save his own life, but to preserve the book and ensure it reaches it's final destination.

Okay, so the film is largely a pretext for Denzel Washington to engage in lots of armed combat against impossible odds. There are a number of cool fight scenes - with some wonderful Matrix-type camera work on one or two of them.

The narrative offers the opportunity to explore what the rules are in a rule-less world. The invitation is declined and the bloodfest continues. Given the nature of the book Eli is transporting, this has to be a wasted opportunity.

The narrative is also unable to resist pairing the hero up with a female - although nothing romantically comes of it. However, Solara does manage to mysteriously escape from a cave she is locked in and she does show initiative and guile in helping speed Eli on his journey making it end all too quickly - seeing that it took him 30 years to get that far!

I won't spoil it by saying where they end up, but the fact that it is a 'secure and isolated' community begs lots of questions about the freedom the book is supposedly meant to offer. The movie might prompt questions about the nature of calling, (blind) faith and pilgrimage if the viewer is sensitive to them but for me these were played too softly. Solara's mother is blind and where/how/why did Eli learn the language of the book?

Whilst the combat scenes are visually gratifying, I found little else to commend this film - it played everything that could be engaging way too soft. Too much of Eli's back story is missing so there is no meaningful context to the journey he is on.

I'll give it 5/10.

Strangers on a Train

It starts with a shriek of a train whistle...and ends with shrieking excitement. The marketing tag-line from 60 years ago. They don't make them like this any more!

It's good to interweave some classics in between the newer block-busters. Last night we watched this Hitchcock thriller. It kept us on the edge of our seats right until the very end. The skill of the film is not only in the its story-telling but also in its characterisation and how those characters draw you in. The film begs you to make judgements and ally yourself with the one or more of the characters. The opening sequence shows two men arriving at a Railway Station by taxi. All we see is their luggage and their feet as they walk to the train. We follow their feet down the carriage. One man clad in black and white brogues reminiscent of the Gatsby era, the other in smart plain, but quality shoes. This passage of the film forces you to construct your profile of who the shoes, legs and luggage belong to. Before you even see them in the film, you've fabricated a sketch of the two men in your mind. The whole film is a mind-job which explores hate, love, the need to escape the bonds of relationship, guilt, psychosis and the most laid back and patient Police force in the USA! It prompts the question - 'what would you have done?".

It is not until the two pairs of feet sit opposite one another and one accidentally kicks the other as he crosses his legs and so has cause to speak, that we are allowed to see the two men in full. Both are dressed smartly in suit and tie. Both appear to be in their 20's or early 30's at most. One quiet, a man who prefers to keep himself to himself and read. The other talkative, over-familiar, invasive, controlling and domineering.

The ostentatious gabler (Anthony) - the one with the two-tone brogues - recognises the quiet man (Haines) as a leading tennis player. As he himself is a socialite, he is aware of Haines marital situation. Haines' wife Miriam has been playing loose while her husband has been on the tennis circuit. Subsequently he has hooked up with Anne, the daughter of a Senator, whom he plans to marry once the divorce from Miriam comes through.

Anthony lives under the shadow of his father who is constantly disappointed by his son. As Anthony sees it, both he and Haines have motive to murder to escape from their respective relational prisons. The only problem is that both would be found out. But as they have had a chance encounter on a train why not commit each other's murder and so both be set free without fear of implication! Anthony makes the proposition in terms of prefixing each sentence with 'just suppose ...' whilst Haines thinks he is simply accommodating a nutty and imaginative nuisance. They part.

Few of the characters in the film are neutral - you are forced to make judgements and to like them or not. Miriam is a nasty piece of work. A good-time gal, pregnant with someone else's baby, she threatens to withdraw from the divorce, and live with Haines in Washington bringing the baby up as his child. It could be argued that with Haines enjoying the tennis circuit, he should have made better provision for his wife. Instead of going to see her attorney to finalise the divorce, they argue and Miriam threatens Haines with no divorce.

Anthony, who is shown to be psychotic, considers that an agreement was reached and so he plots to kill Miriam. This he does by strangulation on an island in the tunnel of love boat ride in an amusement park. That evening he confronts Haines, hands over Miriam's broken glasses as proof and demands his quid-pro-quo. Despite Haines' best efforts to fob Anthony off, Anthony's persistence proves troublesome - particularly as the Police are trailing Haines 24/7 as they suspect him of complicity in his wife's murder. The situation isn't helped when it transpires that Anthony moves in similar social circles to Haines' intended Anne and so they keep encountering one another. Anne becomes suspicious and the story takes on an even more sinister twist when Anthony sees Miriam in the face of Anne's sister Barbara (played by Hitchcock's daughter Pat) at a party just when he is demonstrating the ease of strangling someone on an older party-goer whom he nearly kills as he goes into a trance.

The film is brilliantly paced. It is 96 minutes long. Miriam is murdered after 30 minutes. Haines seeks to bring about a conclusion on 60 minutes and the final death occurs on 90 minutes. I won't spoil it by saying how it ends - but the end is pure Hitckcock. You will never see a merry-go-round in quite the same way ever again!

This is a really excellent film. It maintains suspense and momentum throughout through great Direction and very good acting. The way in which the viewer is forced to adopt sides, make character judgements and think 'what would I do?" all serve to demonstrate how effectively the film draws you in and engages. Sixty years on, this black and white masterpiece can hold it's head high against the biggest 3D CGI blockbuster.

I'll give it 8/10.

Valkyrie

A story that needed to be told - and needs to be retold, often.

Based on a true story, this film rightly has an all-star cast led by Tom Cruise (Von Staufenberg)in a performance that is every bit a good as A Few Good Men. Tom Hollander who is currently starring in BBC TV's Rev gives a good performance as does Eddie Izzard who plays a Nazi General! Bill Nighy, also playing a General, inhabits a role he has made his own in countless TV dramas and movies - indecisive, lacking in confidence, a wimp of a man whose greyness is only outdone by his lack of conviction. Carice van Houten also turns in a worthy performance as Cruise's wife.

The story opens with the sound of hundreds of soldiers taking the oath of absolute allegiance to Hitler. It then switches to North Africa with Von Stuafenberg making an entry in a personal diary where he decries the scale of the loss of life and the blindness of those leading his country. Shortly afterwards his unit comes under British fighter attack and he is wounded resulting in the loss of an eye, a hand and two fingers. He is reassigned to Berlin and a desk job.

His views about the Nazi leadership being known, he quickly falls in with a group plotting to overthrow Hitler and negotiate an immediate cease-fire with the advancing allies. Together they plot to blow up Hitler in his bunker and trigger Operation Valkyrie. Valkyrie is a standing order to mobilise the German reserve army to defend the homeland. There are turns and twists along the way, so I won't spoil the story or the outcome. The narrative is largely believable and suspense is well maintained throughout.

The story and context raise all kinds of questions about 'just war' and how those opposed to their national leaders should act. It is hard to ask whether those involved in this plot could or should have done more. For me their odds of surviving such an attempt were always low so would a more direct suicide mission have improved the chance of a successful outcome? It's so easy to ask that of someone else. What would I have done - what would you have done?

Hindsight always gives us 20-20 vision. At the time with the real and present pressures, not really knowing who could be trusted and who might betray you, not many would have had the courage to follow their convictions. The film fittingly ends with the inscription from the resistance memorial in Berlin.

A good story of heroism and courage that is well told. I'll give it 7/10.

Inception

'Buckle your seat belt Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is is going bye-bye.'

Wow! Inception is a stylised collision of Bourne meeting the The Matrix.

Cobb is on top of his game - the best there is. In becoming the best he has journeyed to places no-one wants to see and feelings of guilt, remorse and his need of redemption are the emotions that drive this story. Written and directed by Christopher Nolan this was never going to be a straight forward walk-in-the-park kind of film. The ensemble cast perform very well together - DiCaprio inhabits a rich vein of performing talent at the moment and his character (Cobb) drives the narrative. Ellen Page (Ariadne) and Tom Hardy (Eames) are also particularly impressive. The story conceptualisation is worthy of award nomination as is the consistent application of CGI which unifies the five dimensions or worlds the story simultaneously unravels through.

Cobb is a thief. His area of expertise is applying a form of military intelligence gathering come interrogation technology to the world of corporate espionage. The technology links people connected to a machine who are able to share a dream together. The dreamer is the architect of the dream which is populated by manifestations of the dreamers sub-concious over which of course they have no control. Encounters within this dream world are used to delve deep into co-dreamers minds to extract secrets, plant lies and whatever else the pay-master desires - inception. The trick is to render the 'target' unconscious in the real world - sometimes enhanced by sedatives for a deeper dreaming experience - and then hook them up  to the machine. 

In a dream an hour in real-world time lasts 10 hours in the dream enabling much to accomplished. Unless the target is trained or has anti-dream counter-measures in place, on waking they feel as though it was just a dream - but by then the damage has been done. Each dreamer fashions a totem that they always carry with them and can use to determine whether or not they are awake or dreaming.

Cobb once went too far with his wife (Mal) who through Cobb's accidental auto-suggestion lost the ability to distinguish between dream states and the real world locking her totem in a safe. She is stuck in Limbo - the deepest dream state with no clear prospect of escape. Cobb struggles to limit the intrusion of Mal from his sub-conscious into any dream that he is in but she always breaks through and wrecks his plans. Accused of her murder back home, Cobb is a global fugitive with many trying to track him down.

Cobb receives an invitation for one last final job of corporate espionage - the pay-off for him would be a wiping of the slate with the US authorities and the chance for him to return home to his two children - a lure too attractive to resist. I'm not going to describe how the story plays out but I will include a PLOT SPOILER about the end so only read on from here if you're happy with that.

Cobb travels the world to assemble a team for this ultimate job. Together they plot and determine that they need a dream that goes to a third level of dreaming - so deep it's just before the limbo state, a dream within a dream, within a dream. All of their planning can never anticipate the interventions that Mal brings to any dream that Cobb is in because she is such a strong part of Cobb's sub-conscious. Following the story is difficult enough without wild cards being played all the time! Suffice it to say that in the end Cobb needs to enter limbo to bring about the successful conclusion of the mission the team is on and to exorcise his own personal demons relating to Mal.

 PLOT SPOILER 

The film ends with Cobb returning to the USA and the family home. As he arrives in the kitchen he spins a brass top - Mel's totem . If it eventually stops spinning Cobb is in the real world, it doesn't, it's a dream. The children see him and run to him for an emotional reunion. As that the hugs and kisses continue, the camera pulls back to the spinning top. It hiccups and the screen goes black and the credits roll. Was it about to topple or was it simply a hiccup and it continues for ever? You decide - but I think the answer will come in the sequel that is now nicely set up.

Any story that forces us into the sub-conscious is an invitation to delve deeper than we would perhaps choose to do. What lurks in your sub-conscious? What regrets and fears do we carry with us every day? How do they manifest themselves when they invade the conscious world of our experience? How do you cope with that? If you could enter your sub-conscious and expunge your demons, would you? What price would you be willing to pay? What would be the consequences and would you be any less the person you were before or would be more integrated and so more of the true person you feel yourself to be? Films like this are invitations to screw with your inner workings. If you really want to do that, go and see a therapist.

A great film - well conceptualised, scripted, acted and shot. Go and see it - but take your totem with you!

I'll give it 9/10!

Miller's Crossing

I need to declare up front that I am a fan of the Coen brothers and the way they make films. This did not disappoint. It is a barn-stormer of a film in almost any way you wish to look at it. It may be 20 years old, but because it is set in a composite mythical world constructed from everyone's view of what 1930's gangster run prohibition USA was like, it connects in a way that refuses to let it age. The gentle browns of the colour palette and lighting espouse an almost sepia-toned reverence for a nostalgic golden age when men were men and women were there to do their bidding - and nothing more.

It is not a good film for a positive portrayal of gender roles. This is a very masculine film. There is only one female character and all other women are depicted as either floozies or servile receptionists. Verna is depicted as being as strong as any of the male characters and she is certainly as sharp as anyone in keeping up with the 'who is on which side' evolution of the story.

The iconic moment of the opening sequence pictures Tom's hat blowing to the ground where it rests momentarily before being blowing along a path in the woods at Miller's Crossing - a place at which pivotal events take place. It is reminiscent of the bag spiralling in the wind in American Beauty. It is also an image that haunts Tom - the central character. This is played on to good effect to heighten tension and suspense later on in the film.

The story is set in a an anonymous town enjoying the prosperity and technological advances of the age - trams, street lighting, telephones. The town is run by Leo - a Jewish gangster - who has the Mayor and Chief of Police in his pocket. Nothing happens in the town that doesn't make Leo money and it seems that everything in the town is centred on betting, drinking and maintaining Leo's position as top dog. All is well with the fraternity of Jewish, Italian and Irish mobsters in the town. That is until one of them feels he is being 'unfairly' cheated on.

That introduces the narrative's central theme of honour. As the Italian character Johnny Caspar repeats his mantra throughout the film, 'it's about ethics', we are taken on a grand tour that explores loyalty coming into conflict with the need to control, exert power, display trust and be entranced by love. Caspar has a beef with one of Leo's underlings that he feels isn't playing by the rules. That sets him on collision course with Leo and Tom advises Leo on how best to resolve the impasse to allow business to continue as usual. Leo chooses not to follow Tom's advice and sets up a series of confrontations that spark a mob war. As this unfolds, there are further plot twists revolving around Tom who has ongoing 'business' with Lazarre and Bernbaum - Verna's brother. Further fuel is added to this incendiary mix by the fact that both Leo and Tom are in a relationship with Verna and Leo wants to marry her.

Tom takes things into his own hands in an attempt to resolve things and restore a kind of peace - but it seems that he doesn't have a detailed plan as events repeatedly cause him to improvise and play one mobster off against the other on the fly. This means that Tom is out on his own and everyone feels they have a legitimate grievance against him. Does he set himself up as a crusading saviour seeking to restore equilibrium to a community in conflict and turmoil?

A striking feature of the film is the in-your-face technicolour comic book violence that owes more to the Batman TV series of the 60's and the A-Team of the 70's than reality - a hall mark of the Coen brothers. However, Tom chooses not to engage in physical violence and takes several beatings that if inflicted in the real world would have ruptured many internal organs. (He does once use a chair to defend himself.)

Non-violence in a violent world. Tom chooses to be violent in thought, intent and through provoking others to enact violence on one another. It is as though his inner world of scheming and plotting presents a reality which detaches him from the exterior - a world within a world. Perhaps this is a mirror of the film's central plot - that in a world of illicit gambling and drinking another world exists where the rules are clear, a morality understood and followed and where loyalty is the highest prize. A portrayal of purity in the midst of impurity. What this serves to underline are the dangers of a morality that is relativistic and which fails to acknowledge an exterior source of grace and wisdom. It is totally self-serving and ultimately becomes self-defeating.

The film is dense. By that I mean that it moves at an even pace and absolutely nothing is wasted - it demands complete attention. The acting is superb, the lighting and sets powerfully evocative of something that probably never existed - a simulacrum. The dialogue is pure Coen brothers - no wasted words and much meaning communicated in and through the spaces created by the Director and characters - especially Tom. Additional interest is added through the gay relationship between Dane and Mink which is presented in an open and matter-of-fact way.

I found this film gripping, excellent, convincing, repulsive and at the same time attractive with all the strength of an inescapable addiction. It communicated. Tom is a strong character but we know nothing of him except what we see him do - the same goes for all the characters, there is no back-story, no context. There is one scene where Tom chooses to exercise mercy and compassion. Are these things that inform his normal thought processes? For me it made Tom an even more believable and likeable character. It presented a glimpse of something that could transcend the moral ambiguity and bankruptcy of the narrative - it gave hope.

As a man I could understand and inhabit the world the film presented. It was like a favourite and warmly familiar overcoat that kept you warm. If this is the world as women encounter it, we are in deep doo doo and I am sorry for my complicity in it. Was Verna the only character with a consistent and life-giving morality? I wish to reassure you that I have no intentions of opening an illegal gambling and drinking den or of obtaining a Tommy gun and bumping off people who disagree with me, or playing by a relativist morality that is controlling and exploitative. There is much in this film to repulse the viewer - but this viewer would happily watch it again today - and possibly tomorrow too!

Well worth the investment of time - it will engage you. I'll give it 8.5/10.

Film Club

I have just finished reading the book Film Club by David Gilmour. A couple of years ago a colleague gave me a cutting from a Sunday Newspaper which was the story of a teenage boy who didn't do school. His Father made a bargain with him - he could live at home, rent free as long as long as he didn't do drugs and he agreed to watch 3 movies a week with his Father. This book charts those five years - it is autobiographical for David and his son Jesse.

The book operates in two spheres. Set in Toronto, the author works in TV and has a passion for film having once been Film Critic for CBS. He decides to use his knowledge of film, calling on reviews, books, interviews (sometimes his own) to enrol his son in a kind of Université de Cinéma and give him the education he wasn't getting in school.


The choices of films and his introductory sketches and retrospective analyses are all very apt. The story covers a huge range of genres citing 121 different titles. The insights the films give into Jesse's roller coaster of a life are at times helpful and at other times I felt lacking in sensitivity and positively unhelpful. I'm sure I would have done a worse job! Gilmour covers a breath-taking breadth by putting the spotlight on Directors, then on Actors, the way a film is shot, lighting. He highlights individual lines of dialogue and scenes that he feels resonate with Jesse's predicament. From James Dean's defiant swish of the rope in Giant to Patricia Arquette's motivational 'You're so cool' in True Romance, Gilmour tries to impute the self-confidence, la joie de vivre and lack of ambition his son's unfocused life lacks. I think he tries too hard.


The second sphere is the advice Gilmour gives his son about how to cope with broken romance - a pain that is an integral part of the human condition. The wrong assumption Gilmour makes is that together with the films, his previous romantic and sexual encounters provide all the data necessary to enable him to dispense the words he feels his son needs to hear. Naivete. Stuck in a seemingly endless loop of mismatch of communication ability, Gilmour's verbosity is inversely mirrored by Jesse's inability to articulate or express himself in any meaningful way. Eventually, Jesse does find an avenue to give expression to his hurts and feelings - and maybe even his fears. This confirms to the Father that the son has the greater talent. Jesse discovers the ability to be creative in way that communicates. I strongly feel that this one of the most basic human drives - stemming from the Trinity.


This is an interesting and well written book that tells an important story. My own passion for films and narrative as means of reflecting on daily life is, I hope, well documented on this blog. The book's ability to compel people to develop their own catalogue of films to educate people through is perhaps its lasting and most endearing legacy. What films would you choose - which have instructed you? How would use them? What would your hoped for outcome be? the question go on in the Université de Cinéma.


This is a good read - get yourself a copy.

Reel Issues

I have just completed work for The Bible Society on a study of Invictus. It will be published soon on the their Reel Issues site in the 'Epic' series - check it out.

Water

What's this all about then? Not as the title suggests 'water' - but that is an ever present theme uniting the different strands of the narrative. On one level it could be viewed as a docu-drama. Set in India in 1938 it could be seen as a record of how Hindu society treats widows - even when they are only 8 years old and their marriage hasn't been consummated. It could be seen as an Indian Romeo and Juliet - complete with balcony scene. It's also an interesting piece of social history as Gandhi's mantra is gaining popularity in the last days of the Raj. The film has very few sets, but those it uses it exploits to the full - particularly the waterfront shots in Varanasi. The film is beautifully lit and the camera work is stunning but at times it's very hard to decipher what is being said.

Chuyia is widowed at the age of 8 and in following custom she has her head shaven and is dressed in white. Her family arrange to take her to an Ashram on the banks of the Ganges where she will live out the rest of her life - widows will be cursed if they remarry. Her arrival has a big impact on the community and her feisty behaviour soon sets her against the leading widow Madhumati. To supplement the Ashram's income Madhumati lets the younger more beautiful widows out to sleep with local Brahmans whose attentions are considered a blessing. One of these widows is Kalyani.

Water is always present and the source is nearly always the Ganges (the well in the Ashram presumably shares the same water table). Whether it be for drinking, cooking, ritual cleansing, clothes washing or taking the dead away, bodily or in ashen form, water is the link.

 As the story follows life in the Ashram with all its ups and downs, which include Madhumati's drug taking and the death of an old widow, so we see a chance encounter between Kalyani and newly qualified idealistic lawyer Narayan, who has bought into Gandhi's philosophy. There is an immediate spark between Kalyani and Narayan and situations are engineered to ensure further encounters between the two sometimes using Chuyia as a go-between.

The story paints a stark contrast throughout by setting the traditions of the Ashram and Hindu society over and against the liberalising call of Gandhi and his followers who want to see India develop and move forward. This tension is personified in the developing love between Kalyani and Narayan. Eventually a decision is made and the film heads towards a climax - but there is a twist.

As I indicated earlier, you can watch this film on a number levels. It is a love story. It is social commentary and also an exploration of tradition being overturned by a liberalising trend. What stood out for me?

It is always very difficult to engage with a narrative that is set within and follows the values of a different culture. I have had the privilege of travelling to India many times and I love the country and her people. Time after time I would return home to asked 'what was it like?'. That is the hardest question to answer because the response begs for comparisons to be made. Making comparisons is all well and good when there is what anthropologists call a 'dynamic equivalent' - that is something that acts as a vehicle to allow understanding in one culture to be transferred, with meaning intact, to another culture. India is such a different kind of place that there are few dynamic equivalents - you simply cannot always describe things in India that make any kind of sense in the West. The cultures are too alien.

Therefore it would be all too easy to get hung up on the Hindu tradition of widows being segregated in Ashrams which in liberal Western eyes would be seen as a denial of the widow's human rights. In India religious tradition is deemed to be of higher value than an individual's rights in this case. From our Western perspective the whole notion of arranged child-bride marriages is hard to understand and few would condone it. Yet it is not so long ago in Europe that Children married and were given in marriage.

I would say for me one of the redeeming features of the story was the evident sense of community and interdependence the Ashram demonstrated. These are very Christian values (perhaps human too,) and life in the Ashram would in many ways mirror life in a Monastery or Convent - but we don't admit 8 year olds to religious communities! The denial of potential is for me the saddest thing about this film.

As with all institutions - and especially with religious ones - the story also highlights ever present hypocrisy. As the film opens we are shown words from the Hindu scriptures which teach that a widow who lies with a man will be re-born in the womb of a Jackal. Yet, Madhumati pimps out the girls to enjoy a blessing with local Brahmans. I guess the blessing out-weighs the 'sin'- a theology of convenience.

I was also struck by the treatment of the pain of a challenge to long-established traditions. Each successive generation seems to be more liberal than their predecessors and wants to push back the boundaries and redefine things held dear for centuries. The process of change of tradition can be a slow and painful process. How different societies manage this process and the success of the outcome varies with what is trying to be changed and the culture in which it is valued. If I look back over 30 years of my adult life, it seems that tradition is always under threat of erosion - but I'm sure that new ones are also being established - it's just that we haven't got the benefit of time to give us a long perspective yet.

Finally, I was also struck by the classic love story that lies at the centre of this film. It appeared very Western - as I said, almost Romeo and Juliet like. Perhaps love is the universal experience that has a dynamic equivalent in every culture and the whole film was simply very Indian.

Well worth a watch - 8/10.

Reading books, sadly not watching movies!

I have been away for a while recently and being on the road affords little opportunity to catch a movie. I have however been reading and would commend these titles:

Kieslowski on Kieslowski

As you know I have been working my way through his creative output. This book is very helpful as it gives a lot of biographical data and explains why Kieslowski chooses to place the emphasis where he does when he is telling a story. It's an easy read and well worth the investment of time. I want to revisit all his films now - but especially Red from Three Colours as he explains what the story is about and I didn't pick it up first time.

I know I'm the new kid on the block, but I've just discovered the BFI Modern Classics series. I have read the one on Three Colours and it is both extremely well written and very helpful in exploring plot development and the context of the stories.

I also read in the same series:

which remains my favourite film (or trilogy) of all-time. I found this book to be so full of attempts to engage in academic points scoring that I barely got to the end. This book is definitely a case of style triumphing over substance. I did however read this:

which was first-class, so much better than the BFI offering. It is a very engaging and critical exploration of the main themes of the first film in the trilogy. I highly recommend it.

I have bought, but not yet read the BFI Modern Classic on Blade Runner  which I hope will restore my faith in the series of books - I'll let you know how I get on.

Don't give up hope!

A very busy week and now off on holiday! No films  :(

Don't give up hope. While I'm away I'll be working on a Reel Issues Epic Study of Invictus.

A Challenge!

I've been challenged to say a little more of what I actually think about the films I watch. A reasonable thing to ask. Let me comment further on the two most recent viewings.

It seems that every German city has a Turkish population. I stay with friends in Wiesbaden fairly regularly and they live near the Turkish district - you walk through it on the way into town. This made the film very real for me as I could imagine the scenes from Bremen happening in Wiesbaden. I have been to Istanbul and also to Azerbaijan and the city scenes and country landscapes reminded me of places I had visited in a generic sense. I could feel the heat of Istanbul and the wind on the ferries as they crossed from Asia to Europe. As I said it felt very real and in that sense familiar.

What was unfamiliar to me was the complex web of relationships that drew the six central characters together. I am grateful for that. Loneliness, passion, the need to make a difference, the desire for a quiet life, an openness to help. All of these are emotions and desires that are commonplace and everyday.

Every story is a journey. It seems a little extreme and tragic that so much pain has to be suffered before Nejat was able to seek reconciliation with Ali. Was Lotte kind or simply naive? Was her death something waiting to happen or a terrible coincidence? Did the forgiveness of Suzanne towards Ayten really motivate her to repent and leave prison a de-radicalised person? Would Yeter have been better off staying in the brothel? This film leaves me with many unresolved and possibly unresolvable questions. I am happy with that as I watch films to be stimulated, to have lots of little thoughts set running. Some of these lead nowhere, others get stuck for a bit and then out of the blue weeks down the road off they go again. That is the power of story. A power to enthral, to make you one with the story, to transport you, to raise questions, to show you things you've never even thought of before. When we watch with others, we travel together. Although our destinations may be different we have companions and that is precious.

I greatly appreciated the way in which this story was told. It was clever and non-linear. You had to concentrate and work hard to make the connections. I wonder how many I missed? I guess at the end I felt numb and disappointed. So much pain and hurt for what? But sometimes isn't life like that?

Doubt similarly left me with the same kind of feelings. The central question is 'did he or didn't he?' How you answer that determines how you feel about Father Flynn and in a sense Sister Aloysius. Given the current coverage of priests abusing children, this film has an immediacy that lifts it from the 1960s and plants it firmly in the here and now. This is not simply a story about liberalisation of education, the church and desegregation. It's a story about trust. Of all the people within a community, it is the religious leaders that we should be able to turn to without first having to run their morality over some kind of metric.

In the film, did father Flynn do anything inappropriate with Donald Miller? I was totally prepared to believe Father Flynn's story until he resigned on account of Sister Aloysius' bluff about checking with his previous church and school. Why resign if you are in the clear? Was it simply that he wanted to spare Donald from the publicity that would result? Were the hierarchy complicit in turning a blind eye to abuse? That seed of doubt has been planted and my fertile mind all too readily propagates it and nurtures it to become something much larger, more menacing and destructive than it was to begin with. Is this right?

What are we to make of the battle-axe who is Sister Aloysius? Do two wrongs make a right? Were her good intentions for the welfare of the boy sufficient on their own for her to pursue a witch hunt? What about her disregard for authority and following protocol? What about the state of fear she induced in the community - is that what community is really all about?

As a model for priestly ministry, Father Flynn has much to commend him - and I write as one charged with the formational oversight of priests as they train! His manner was very pastoral. He was unafraid to challenge when it was necessary. His highly contextual and narrative style of preaching had much to commend it. A perfect role model?

The film succeeds in raising doubts about a whole heap of things. I guess it achieved what it set out to do.

I hope that helps. Leave a comment to let me know.

Doubt

This film's title is not only descriptive of what it's central theme is, it is also what you're left with after watching it. Subtitled 'There are no simple truths', this film attracted five Oscar nominations with heavy-weight performances from Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis.

Father Flynn preachers a sermon on doubt - which of course everyone feels is directed uniquely at them. This irritates Sister Aloysius, the school Principal and a member of the Sisters of Charity. Set in the Bronx 1964, the film is dimly lit and monochromatic which reflects the world as the puritanical Sister Aloysius sees it. The wind of change from Vatican II and the aftermath of the death of Kennedy are blowing through the Catholic Church and the USA. The priest is trying to usher in a more progressive and humanist (liberal) approach. Sister Aloysius still relies on the old way (conservative) of doing school - by instilling the fear of Sister Aloysius into pupils - and staff!

Suspicions are raised about Father Flynn's behaviour with the only black student in the school. Sister Aloysius dislikes Father Flynn immensely - not only for his preaching but also for the fact that he uses a ball-point pen, takes three sugars in his tea and likes Frosty the Snowman! Having built a hatred based on irrationality, it is impossible to determine if Sister Aloysius' feelings are a true reading of character or simply more prejudice.

In the power struggle that ensues, there are no winners - only losers. I'm keeping this short so that I don't give too much away. This is an intellectually stimulating film that deals with real issues that very topical, with fine acting and an uncertain outcome. Excellent cinema.

I wish I could preach like Father Flynn.

I'll give this 7/10.

The Edge of heaven

Well! Where to start with this one?

The English name of the film has no correlation to the German name 'On the Other Side'. Perhaps it's random. The story appears to be, but it is actually extremely cleverly put together and told in a compelling way that draws you in. This is a German/Turkish film set in those two countries. The principle locations being Bremen and Istanbul.

The opening scene is of a car pulling into a dusty petrol station in a remote corner of Turkey. The driver gets his tank filled and buys lunch for the road. The music playing in the station is by a local celebrity who died a couple of years earlier from cancer which the owner blames on Chernobyl. The owner says to the driver 'he was young - like you. The driver pauses momentarily to reflect.

Ali is a retired Turkish immigrant living in Bremen who has long been a widower. He seeks comfort in the services of a prostitute, Yeter. He makes return visits to enjoy the services she offers and eventually offers to pay her the same amount of money she currently earns if she will live with him and provide her services when asked - nothing more.

Ali's son is Nejat is a Professor of German Literature and as a second generation Turk in Germany is able to move fluently between the two cultures. Before he is able to get his head around Yeter's arrival in the family home Ali suffers a heart attack. On release from hospital, Ali suspects Nejat and Yeter of being lovers and as he argues with Yeter in his drunkenness he pushes her and she falls hitting her head on the bed-frame and dies. Ali ends up in prison.

Nejat is appalled by his fathers actions and goes to Turkey to look for Yeter's 27 year-old daughter Ayten with whom she had lost contact. However Ayten who is a political activist in Turkey flees the country when the radical cell she is a part of is raided by the police. She flees to Germany on an illegal passport and is already in Hamburg looking for her mother when she dies. At one point Ayten is riding in a car next to tram in which her mother is riding - they don't see each other. As Nejat arrives at Istanbul airport we see Yeter's coffin being offloaded form a plane. Nejat enlists the aid of his family and puts up posters all around the city with a picture of Yeter on it in the hope of finding her daughter - who is in Germany.

Ayten strikes up a friendship with university student Lottie who invites her home to stay - much to the dislike of her mother Susanne. Ayten and Lottie become lovers. Eventually the law catches up with Ayten and she is deported. On arrival in Turkey she is arrested because of her political activity. Distressed Lottie flies out to Istanbul to try and seek her release. It takes her several months simply to get a permit to visit Ayton. Lottie ends up being shot by some kids high on solvents. We then see Lotties coffin being loaded onto a plane in Istanbul.

As Ali arrives back at Istanbul airport, he is taken away by immigration officials who presumably want to check on why he has been deported. At the next immigration booth is Susanne. The story is filled with these coincidences, parallel stories and near-misses that embrace the six central characters. From a camera high up in the corner of her hotel room, we see Susanne plumbing the depths of grief for her daughter. She eventually calms down and meets with Nejat who has bought a shop selling German books. Susanne wants to see where Lottie was staying - she had rented a room from Nejat who, had no idea that Lottie was looking for the daughter of Yeter too. Susanne ends up staying in the same room. After reading her daughter's diary she decides to take up Ayten's cause and visits her in prison offering forgiveness. This in turn encourages Ayten to exercise her right of repentance and she is released from prison.

Nejat and Susanne see crowds of people flocking to the mosque to observe Bayram - a Muslim observation of Abraham's obedience in his attempted sacrifice of Isaac. The sacrifice of children hold a place of special significance for both Susanne and Nejat. This is a central theme of the narrative.

Nejat asks Susanne to look after his shop as he heads East in search of his father near Trabzon on the Black Sea coast. It is Nejat who stopped at the petrol station at the opening of the film and that segment is now repeated in its correct place. When he arrives in the village, Ali is already out fishing, Nejat sits on the beach awaiting his father's return and the reconciliation that it will bring.

End of film.

My ramblings here have not done the story and the way it is told justice. The acting is very good and the locations have an earthy reality about them. I strongly urge you to see this film, you won't be disappointed. I'm going to give it 8/10.

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Is this film really 21 years old? I still rate this as the best Woody Allen film I've seen - which isn't many as I'm not really a fan. But that aside - this is good. The film was nominated for three Oscars. I saw this again on Friday evening with a group of curates as part of a training weekend exploring the question 'what is the worth of a human'. It proved to be a good choice which set up the weekend well and provide rich material for reflection around our theme.

Set in New York the film is, as all Allen's films usually are, auto-biographical. Allen stars as Cliff, a small-time movie maker who's short on work and high on ideals. He has been shooting a documentary about the views of a Jewish Philosophy Professor, Dr Levy. Levy's outlook on life seems to be a blend of common-sense pragmatism with an acknowledgement that humanity needs a moral code and something in which to believe. Essentially he preaches a secular message of hope. Cliff is locked into a life-less marriage and his self-absorption is clearfly driving a wedge between him and his wife.

Judah is the other central character. A successful ophthalmologist who is a respected pillar of New York's Jewish elite and a generous benefactor to a range of projects. He lives with Miriam, his wife of 25 years, who enjoys the trappings of comfort and success and their luxury home well outside the city.

Cliff's brother-in-law is Lester who is a highly successful and critically acclaimed producer who is full of himself and repeatedly dictates reminders about possible projects into a pocket dictaphone - much to everyone's, and especially Cliff's, annoyance. Cliff hates Lester's success and so hates Lester and a series of penetrating one-liners are thrown his way such as "Lester - he's an American phenomenon" to which Cliff responds "so is acid rain!". Ouch.

Ben is a Rabbi who is losing his sight and a patient of Judah. The loss of Ben's physical sight and the clarity of his spiritual and moral sight provide a powerful metaphor that underpins the story. So much of the plot is about what might be seen, what has been seem and what is plain to see.

Judah has been having an affair with Dolores, an airline attendant after a chance encounter on a flight to Boston. For two years he has been living a double life spending weekends away with Dolores when ostensibly he was attending a conference. Dolores has become neurotic and her need-to-be-needed has taken control. She threatens to tell Miriam of the affair unless Judah leaves Miriam to be with her. Judah cannot allow his world to be torn down by Dolores who refuses to listen to reason and becomes increasingly unstable and erratic. Dolores also threatens to blow the whistle on Judah's financial impropriety which would further ruin his standing in society. In desperation Judah turns to his brother Jack who is clearly a man with under-world connections. Jack's advice is that Miriam is taken out - he sees no other solution that would satisfy Judah's demands.

Meanwhile. Judah confides in Ben during a consultation and Ben suggests a range of things that spring from his hopeful optimistic view of life. Ben says "sometimes when there is true love, there can be forgiveness" and "Give the people you've hurt the chance to forgive you." After the encounter Judah is thrown into deep moral dilemma and remarks that "God is a luxury I can't afford" and "I will not be destroyed by this neurotic woman!".

Meanwhile, out of pity for cliff and as a favour to his sister, Lester invites Cliff to make a documentary about him and his take on comedy. Cliff reluctantly accepts and says he will use the money to complete the documentary he is making on Dr Levy. One of Lester's entourage is a producer Halley who Cliff immediately falls for. He takes her to the cinema and also shows her some of the Dr Levy footage which she says would make a great episode in the show she is producing. The relationship grows - but unfortunately for the hapless Cliff, not romantically.

Desperate, Judah calls Jack and tells him to go ahead. Later that evening when Jack calls to report that the deed has been done and it will look like a simple burglary, Judah's moral compass begins rotating and spinning wildly. He experiences flash backs to his childhood where the family sitting around the table sharing a seder meal. Judah's father, a man of deep faith and regular synagogue worshipper, says that he will always choose God over truth and that God's eyes see everything. He tells jack 'may God have mercy on us" and reiterates that the eyes of God see everything.

Judah then visits the scene of the crime to remove incriminating articles. Seeing Dolores dead, her big dark eyes now life-less and empty plunges him into inner turmoil and waves of guilt relentlessly sweep over him. The next day he turns up at the childhood home and the owner invites him inside. In his mind he is taken back to the Seder in which he is present as both his present and his younger self. This encounter only adds to his guilt. he takes to the bottle and becomes withdrawn and depressed.

Lots of other things are ongoing within the web of relationships that the film weaves. Cliff enjoys a very close and familiar relationship with his niece Jenny. Given the timing of the film, it is worth asking the question if tyhis portrayal is a mirror of what was going on with his real-life adopted daughter  Soon-Yi Previn whom he later married!

The outcomes leave Cliff living a downward spiral of self-fulfilling doom and gloom whilst Lester's stock continues to rise. In the end he captures Halley just to drive home Cliff's feelings of inadequacy. Ben loses his sight but appears to be reconciled to it and there is a lovely intimate dance with his daughter on her wedding day. Judah decides he can live with the knowledge of the murder he commissioned safe in knowing that his reputation and marriage are once again safe.

The film has so much in it about the worth of a human. Go watch and see what you see in it.

I'll give it 7.5/10.

Black Hawk Down

I was visiting a Theological College on Monday and walked into the Common Room to find a group of guys settling down to watch this. I joined them.

I thought that The Hurt Locker was enough blood-spattered modern warfare for the time being. In watching Black hawk Down I was in for a drenching in blood and assorted body parts! The story is set in Somalia in 1993 when the Americans enacted a mission to capture two lieutenants of the Somali war lord Mohamed Farah Aidid. The raid was successful but in withdrawing a Black Hawk helicopter was shot down and when another went in to rescue the occupants, it too was shot down by RPG. A task force of 100 US Rangers and special forces troops were despatched to recover all personnel and destroy what remained of the helicopters.

They encountered much stiffer opposition than they anticipated and the operation turned into a 15 hour fire-fight with much close quarter combat. The General commanding the operation was forced into committing an ever increasing number of resources to mount a recovery operation. Ridley Scott captures the visual reality of modern warfare where high-powered bullets shatter limbs and RPGs cut bodies in half or pierce torsos without detonating. It is bloody, gruesome and in-your-face. Not for the faint-hearted.

It ends with the Americans withdrawing all their men except a captured pilot - Durant. The movie ends with "1000 Somalis died and 19 Americans lost their lives in the conflict (the 19 soldiers and officers who died are then listed by name and rank). Mike Durant was released after 11 days of captivity. On August 2, 1996, warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was killed in Mogadishu. General Garrison retired the following day."

What the film fails to do is portray the real reasons the Americans were there (a unilateral UN?) and to show the Somali's as little more than mindless violent and bloodthirsty thugs. Why do Americans elicit that response where ever they intervene abroad? Some of those involved in the production were critical of the final version as it played down any understanding of the complex relationships between the Somali militia and played up the heroic exploits of the US military. As cited in Wikipedia: In a radio interview, Brendan Sexton, an actor in the movie, said that the version of the film which made it onto theater screens was significantly different from the one recounted in the original script. According to him, many scenes asking hard questions of the U.S. troops with regard to the violent realities of war, the true purpose of their mission in Somalia, etc., were cut out^. Sexton wrote an article in 2002 where he maintained that Black Hawk Down failed to explain the reasons behind the Somali population's opposition to the U.S. military presence in their country: 'The Somalis are portrayed as if they don't know what's going on, as if they're trying to kill the Americans because they — like all other "evildoers" — will do anything to bite the hand that feeds them. But the Somalis aren't a stupid people. In fact, many were upset because the U.S. military presence propped up people tied to the old, corrupt Barre regime.'

Gripping, dirty, as realistic as I want to see and probably way short of the actual horror of war. I'll give it 7/10 as a movie and 3/10 for a selective retelling of history from the perspective of the winner.

Spirited Away

This formed a members free screening double-bill (with Ponyo) at Harbour Lights on Sunday - great value. If you live anywhere near Southampton do check it out and join!

I had seen this a couple of times before, but watching on the big screen presented the narrative and images in a very different way - more engaging, and again I was drawn in. Spirited Away is Japan's biggest grossing film at the cinema of all time. This is important as it underlines the resonance of the themes dealt with in the film. I am largely ignorant of Japanese culture and the prevailing Shinto religion, but it was clear to me that the motifs portrayed in the film represent a blending of present and past, of spirit and reality, of traditional values and contemporary revisions to them. I urge caution in being too interpretive when I know so little of the culture the narrative speaks from and to. At just over 2 hours long, it is perhaps a little too long - but obviously not for a Japanese audience. This is clearly a 'coming-of-age' story as Chihiro battles with the uncertainty of moving from the familiar to the unknown.

Chihiro is a spoilt 10 year-old girl travelling by car with her parents to their new home. Her father takes a wrong turn and tries a short-cut through a forest. They end up at what looks like an abandoned Theme Park. On exploring the park - which gives Chihiro the creeps - they discover a stall of freshly cooked food. The parents tuck in enthusiastically while Chihiro refuses to eat and goes off to explore. She meets a boy named Haku who seems disturbingly familiar. He advises her to leave with her parents immediately - before darkness comes and the spirits who inhabit this world come to life. Chihiro returns to her parents who have eaten the entire stall's-worth of food and have transmogrified into pigs! Chihiro tries to escape but the way back to the car has been transformed into a huge river that now blocks her path. Haku offers to help her.

Haku leads her to the bathhouse for the gods and tells her to go to the boiler room and ask for work from the six-armed boiler man Kamaji. Her persistence pays off and she is helped by Lin an older girl working in the bathhouse who helps her meet Yubaba who runs the bathhouse. Yubaba eventually gives her a job but takes her name and renames her Sen to ensure eternal slavery.

Haku, who was originally a spirit dragon is similarly enslaved by Yubaba. He is sent on a mission to steal a magic seal from Yubaba's twin sister Zeniba. The seal causes Haku to become ill and as Sen forces him to cough it up, Haku also coughs up a little black slug thing which she squishes under-foot. It turns out that this was the embodiment of a spell Yubaba had put on Haku to ensure she retained control of him.

Sen, accompanied by No-Face, a spirit she has befriended form the bathhouse, Boh, Yubaba's gigantic baby son now turned into a rat and Yubab's pet raven, now a fly, journey's to Zeniba in a bid to gain freedom and end the dominance of Yubaba. Zeniba is a lot friendlier than might have been anticipated and tells Sen that her love for Haku has broken the spell that kept Haku captive. Zeniba and Sen's friends make Sen a special hair band to show her that her friends are with her, as well as for protection. Haku arrives to take Sen back to the bathhouse. No-Face is offered the chance of staying with Zeniba which he accepts. Haku explains that Yubaba will set Sen and her parents free in exchange for Boh.

As Sen, the rat and the fly ride on Haku the dragon, Sen realizes that Haku is the same river spirit that saved her as a small child when she fell into the Kohaku River, and the realization helps to break Yubaba's control on Haku completely. Sen is set a further test by Yubaba to get her parents back which she passes. Haku accompanies her back to the entrance to the spirit world and tells her that her parents are waiting on the other side. She is told not to look back or else the deal is off. Sen, now restored as Chihiro rejoins her parents who walk back to the car covered in dust and foliage to indicate the passing of time. Chihiro still has her hair band in place which indicates that it wasn't a dream as her Alice-in-Wonderland type experience remains real in the real world.

I won't pretend I know enough to try an unpick what the film alludes to in Japanese tradition and understanding of the spirit world. There is an interesting piece in Wikipedia that's worth a look.

Ponyo

Watching Ponyo took me back to my childhood and TV series such as Marine Boy and Astroboy. The animation and conceptualisation draw directly from the genre these represent. It says something when a 101 minute film which essentially tells a children's story captivated and drew in this adult!

Ponyo is a goldfish. She lives in an an undersea aquarium, the daughter of a former human turned undersea sorcerer Fujimoto and Granmamare a sea goddess identified in the story as the goddess of mercy. Ponyo yearns to explore and break free from the constraints of home and ends up in a rock pool where she is discovered by Sosuke - a five year-old boy. As he rescues her, he cuts his finger and Ponyo licks the wound, tastes human blood and Sosuke is healed. Sosuke declares that he will love and protect Ponyo forever - whatever it takes.  Fujimoto sends his sea spirits to recover Ponyo whom he thinks has been taken prisoner by humans. Having tasted human blood, Ponyo now possess the capability to transform herself into a human.

Once back in Fujimoto's clutches, Ponyo uses his sorcery to escape and also to transform herself into a human.  Ponyo's dabbling with marine magic upsets the balance of the sea and the natural world, even drawing the moon closer to the earth and so upsetting the tides. In the ensuing storm Ponyo escapes and is reunited with Sosuke. Separated from his mother by the storm, Sosuke and Ponyo go in search of her only to find her and the retirement community with whom she works, under the sea in a protective bubble with Fujimoto. Fujimoto summons Granmamare who comes to him and Ponyo. The only ways for the equilibrium of creation to be restored is either for Ponyo to revert to being a fish or for Sosuke to declare his undying love for her. I'll leave you to guess how it works out!

The animation and story-telling are first class from Studio Ghibli. The American dubbing of the voices boasts an all-star cast. This really is an excellent film well presented, well paced and interesting as well as enjoyable. It is complete fantasy and myth that collides with and impacts our reality. Out on DVD on 7 June - you can pre-order now.

I'll give it 8/10.

The Hurt Locker

This is an engaging, depressing but gripping movie. It is almost a docudrama with its use of hand-held cameras throughout, its tight-cropped head shots and reeling shots as a reaction to explosions. It is tight, well-paced, well acted and portrays a realism that is too real for the senses to comprehend. It is an excellent film.

The story is simple. The film follows a group of three American soldiers on deployment in Baghdad. Two are regular infantrymen, the third is an explosives expert who disarms IEDs. He is excellent at his job but he is a maverick and his lust for taking things one step too far endangers not only his own safety but also the safety of his colleagues time and time again. After one particularly heroic/cavalier disarming, he is visited by a General who congratulates him on his good work and his attitude. The conversation reveals he has defused more than 880 bombs. He is hooked and lives between the chase to defuse and feelings of guilt over not being there for his young son back home.

The story counts down day-by-day as the end of their deployment approaches. Will they survive? A chance encounter in the desert with an SAS unit hunting down war criminals provides a welcome respite from the chaos of Baghdad - but also a gruesome and unwelcome insight into the clinical effectiveness of long range sniping.

Reminiscent in some ways of The Deer Hunter and countless other Vietnam movies where the would-be liberator becomes the entrapped and addicted victim. War is a terrible thing and nations should enter into it only after all other avenues have been exhausted. It seems that with WWII, Korea, Vietnam and now the Gulf and Afghanistan that successive generations of Americans are forced to live with the unseen but very real consequences of warfare. As fighting wars becomes increasingly 'virtualised', where will that take our children's generation? I guess Halo, Gears of War and Modern Warfare 2 have already given us a glimpse!

As hard as this film is to stomach, it is a must-see as we are all culpable for the atrocities each side inflicts on the other in the name of justice and freedom. How you choose to define justice and freedom depends on which side of the battle you are on!

I'll give this 8.5/10.