About Elly

Last night I went to see this rather good Iranian film.

Incidentally, with that little phrase I am excited to possibly announce the beginning of a new era of good international cinema, which should usher out the strange urges I've had to see American toss recently.

I don't think I would have plumped for it had I not seen the trailer a coupe of weeks earlier, and observed that it looked like a pretty interesting thriller. I've been telling myself to check out some Iranian cinema for a while, and this seemed like a good starting point.

The below review may contain some plot spoilers, although nothing will be revealed that you can't already gauge from the trailer, and I won't reveal the end, of course.

At the time of writing, no UK distributor has picked it up, so any UK readers may well forget anything I reveal by the time it comes out on DVD.

So the story begins with a large group of couples (4, I think), plus some small children, arriving at a remote beach cottage where they plan to spend the weekend. Aside from the couples, there are 2 single people there - the rather dishy Ahmad, and Elly, the tutor of key character Sepideh's children. It turns out that following Ahmad's divorce, Sepideh is keen to set them up.

Everything is going well until the following day Elly confirms that she was only able to stay one night and needs to leave. But Sepideh implores her to stay. Before Elly's proposed departure, she is asked to keep an eye on the children for a little while. Suddenly one child runs over to the parents, very distressed, and shouting her brother's name. He is in the sea and in danger. Thus ensues a mad dash to rescue him. As soon as they have pulled him out of the water they realise that Elly was supposed to be watching the children, and she too is missing. The rest of the film revolves around trying to figure out what happened to Elly - is she in the water or could she have left without telling anyone? A web of intrigue ensues.

It's a fairly classic thriller narrative but I really enjoyed watching it play out in unfamiliar territory. I've never really seen Iran on screen, except in the news. It interested me to see that while some features were unexpectedly western (our key characters are all very pleasing to the eye), and others more predictably Iranian, they didn't shy away from some uncomfortable situations and, dare I say it, stereotypes - for example, two of the women are at different points humiliated by their husbands (indeed, the likeable Sepideh is physically attacked) in front of their friends. I might have expected that a film with international ambitions would attempt to dispel this myth about a husband's dominance over his wife in Iran. Furthermore, Sepideh's abusive husband looks considerably older than her which raises some eyebrows about how on earth she may have ended up with him.

All in all I really enjoyed the film - for the first time in a while I didn't feel the 2 hours drag - and I'm recommending it. A deserved winner of the Silver Bear at Berlin this year - I hope it can translate festival success into a healthy international audience (hmm).

Les Regrets

I had been secretly looking forward to this film for a while: I'd enjoyed Yvan Attal in 'Ma femme est une actrice' and Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi in '5x2' and I don't mind a decent romantic drama from time to time. So I ended up going to see it with a friend last night, the opening night.

In French there is the perfect word to describe this film - 'bof'. It's an expression of indifference - a bit like saying 'whatever', but not quite.

So the gist is Mathieu (Attal) spots Maya (Bruni-T) from across the street one day. Evidently they know each other. She sees him, doesn't speak to him but ends up inviting him over for a glass of wine. And so, predictably, despite them both being married, begins their affair.

But at every critical turn of the relationship, we have a nice cliched 'volte-face'('about face') where the character leaves the other one and you think it's all over, then halfway down the road they turn around and go back for a passionate clinch.

Lots of sex, as you'd expect from the director of L'Ennui which I saw a while back.

One of the most interesting things about this film was the way it dealt with modern communication - namely, text messages. There was some very classic and European about this film - by which I'm referring to the way that such films are often hard to date, as if they are removed from a time frame. Yet so often contemporary films fail to acknowledge the role of modern communication in our lives: pretty much everyone texts, and emails, and yet we rarely see it on screen. Texts particularly can be so instrumental in the development of a liaison or reltaionship, and yet we just seem to be ignoring them! Maybe LCD screens just aren't sexy enough?

Anyway in this film I was pleasantly startled to see that when the recipient was reading his/her text, we heard a voiceover from the sender. It was a really small thing, but it really stood out, and I liked it. Indeed we did view a screen from time to time, but the voiceover helps to mix it up.

It's very European-naturalistic - very little make-up, lots of tortured faces - both the lead actors look about 10 years older than in the films I mentioned in the first paragraph. But even the direction continues the naturalism with lots of those scenes that are redundant narratively, but help to set the scene. We also avoid confrontation scenes, like the one between Mathieu and his wife which we feel we are building up to. But i like that. Not giving us exactly what we want and expect.

There's nothing remarlable in the plot. I think the title pretty much give it all away. It was an entertaining little ride, but I'm not going to be shouting about it from the rooftops. Perhaps it's for the best that it doesn't look like it's going to make it to anglophone shores any time soon.

Unlimited cinema

About 3 weeks ago now, I finally invested in the unlimited UGC card. For a one-off fee of 30euros, then 19.80 per month, I can now see as many films as I like at UGC/MK2 (chain) cinemas and a selection of independent cinemas in France (and even abroad, where there is a UGC chain) with no restrictions whatsoever. 19.80 is practially nothing for someone like me who can go to the cinema 2 times a week with ease. I don't know how many other countries this exists in, but it doesn't surprise me that France makes the effort to make as much cinema accessible to as many as possible.

But typically, as soon as I get it, I survey the cinematic landscape and realise that there is practially bugger-all interesting on at the moment. I'm hoping tha tit's going to pick up soon though.

In the interest of making this blog more visual, here is a UGC card.

J'attendrai le suivant

I'm obsessed with this short film at the moment:

The Hangover

I indulged in a little guilty pleasure the other night and went to see ‘The Hangover’. (Incidentally they’ve ‘translated’ this title into French as ‘Very Bad Trip’). Seeing this kind of film is typically associated with feelings of guilt that I’m actively choosing to rot my brain and support Hollywood’s retardization of the masses, but actually I felt pretty good when I left. I actually only ended up seeing it because ‘Whatever Works’ was sold out, but I had been intrigued by stories of how this relatively low-budget film had absolutely cleaned up at the box office. I always love a cinematic underdog. Shamefully, my inner-ogler had also cried out that it needed feeding with some Bradley Cooper.

Overall ‘The Hangover’ is a thoroughly entertaining ride. The story centres on 4 guys – one a groom-to-be – who go on their stag night in Vegas, and wake up the next morning with no recollection of what happened. Their few clues include the fact that the groom is missing, there is a tiger in the bathroom, a baby in a cupboard and their hotel suite is turned upside down. We piece the night back together with them, including the theft of a police car, a Vegas marriage (between the most serious guy and a prostitute), a run-in at the hospital and a disastrous spell in the casino.

I might have concluded it entirely harmless if it were not for the jaw-dropping Chinese caricature in the shape of Ken Jeong as Mr Chow. His impossibly exaggerated gay mafia character provides a number of really wince-worthy moments. These are complemented by the grey area that concerns whether one of the party, Alan, is actually mentally retarded. It’s never quite established, but it doesn’t stop us enjoying some jokes at his expense, as well as wondering whether we’re allowed to laugh at some of Alan’s own jokes, such as when he gestures to make it look like the baby they’ve found is masturbating.

I’m starting to wonder where Heather Graham ends and her washed-up prostitute act begins. I once read that her parents haven’t spoken to her for some time as they don’t agree with the roles she chooses to play. Indeed, one of her most famous earlier roles was as the risqué Rollergirl in the fantastic Boogie Nights, a film about the porn industry where she played once of its ditzy stars. But since then we’ve rarely seen her in a role that hasn’t played out to a male fantasy in some respect – be it Felicity Shagwell in Austin Powers (yes I know it’s tongue in cheek), or the gross-out scatology-fest Baby on Board. Here she plays a beyond-dumb stripper/prostitute (she explain with wide eyes that stripping helps her to get the clients) whose shining moment comes when she gets her boobs out to breastfeed her baby. She’s 39 now and I’m wondering whether she needs to think about changing this act. I don’t even want to get into the significance of the fact that the guy who marries the stripper has a long-term nagging girlfriend at home, who he eventually humiliates at a wedding before dumping her, by which point he has already arranged to see Graham’s character (who he has accidentally married) again – ballbreaker/prostitute, bitch/ditz?

A relatively low-budget surprise success (cost $35m, gross as of 30/08/09 $417m) I’m wondering if this film slipped quietly past the censors as the photos of the stag night which are interspersed with the credits at the end are really pretty shocking – funny, but shocking – including such treasures as one of the party getting a blow job. They are very lo-fi and certainly reveal the film’s low budget, but as you watch them you realise how much of a blast the crew must have had making this, and as long as we’ve enjoyed watching it, then everything’s OK.

Pro or Anti-Christ?

Last weekend I popped back to England, where the prep for Antichrist's release (today) was in full force. It's interesting that more than one publication seems to have decided that they're not sure if they can rely on their own critic's judgement, and have hence consulted an array of diverse 'consultants' from across the arts to have their say (Guardian, Time Out).

A notable exception to this trend is the famous Daily Mail, whose criticism of the film nearly had me laugh out loud. For anyone outside of the UK, this newspaper, in my opinion, is our most abhorrent publication - a national embarrassment which is more deplorable than any of the red top press purely because of its hypocrisy. The DM pretend to be a bastion of middle class morality, while at the same time being so surreptitiously right wing, misogynistic, xenophobic (I stopped short of racist), self-righteous and outrageously antagonistic that it makes my blood boil. The worst thing is that a large section of the middle class are oblivious to this, and see it as a nice middle of the road paper somewhere between the broadsheet and the tabloid.

Anyway, the point of the matter is that their self-proclaimed 'liberal' film critic Christopher Hart has proposed a new genre of film criticism where you review a film without having seen it. Quote:

I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.

Maybe more critics should take note of this great time saver - why bother seeing any source material when you can just judge a piece of art from reading about it?

However, it looks like Hart may have risen to the bait as proffered by Artificial Eye's PR company who seem to be plumbing new depths of promotion tactics with their lowest common denominator press release.

I feel a bit sad that an independent distributor who prides itself on offering films of quality would then market such a film in such an unashamedly populist way. It goes without saying that I want as many people to see great cinema as possible, but this kind of marketing is surely only going to attract the wrong crowd. Antichrist isn't a gory, voyeuristic thriller - it's an art film that is surely going to disappoint a large number of people who are attracted purely by the controversy.

Anyway if it wins some converts to the goodness of European cinema, I'm all for it. I just wish the means didn't leave such a bad taste in my mouth.

Lethargy

I've not posted for a while because frankly I haven't seen anything good. I was beginning to worry that I was slipping back into my literature phase - I used to have a steady cycle of about 3 months heavily into cinema, 3 months heavily into books, quite organically, although I've been entrenched in cinema for an extended period now. Let's have a quick rundown of what produced this state of mind:

Jeux d'enfants - I should have known better but in the interests of immersing myself in my new homeland's culture, I decided to try and understand the fuss about Guillaume Canet. A little part of me was also intrigued about seeing the chemistry between Marion Cotillard and Canet, who met during the making of this film. I lasted about 20 minutes, and would have lasted even less if I hadn't been watching it with someone who looked like he was enjoying it. It was a very sugary production, whose target market I couldn't quite identify. It felt like a kids' film (lots of toys and saturation), yet had an adult edge. It was frankly tedious.

Lost in Translation - This was my second viewing, prompted after reading one too many posts on the Auteurs about its greatness. My first viewing had left me a bit emotionless, but I put this down to seeing it after the hype had spun out of control. However, on a second viewing, I didn't really connect with it any further, which is a shame because the eloquence and simplicity of its simple story and emphasis on human relationships should have pushed all the right buttons with me. Instead I couldn't stop thinking the following:
-The 'husband' was just a massive caricature whose scenes really interrupted the flow of the movie, removing it from any realism she'd established elsewhere.
-Murray's character's incessant irony and sarcasm threatened to drive me up the wall. I also felt that it made a real insensitive mockery of the Japanese, portraying them as rather stupid, which irritated me. Not that I have any special sympathies with them, but I just thought that for a film about human understanding, this aspect really jarred.
- The dumb blonde friend character (allegedly based on Cameron Diaz due to Coppola's irritation at then partner Jonze's friendship with her) is too caricatured to deserve a mention really, but again, she really spoiled the rhythm and helped to make the two main characters seem just a little too smug and self-satisfied in their condescension of her.

I want to like Sofia Coppola's work - but I fear that Marie Antoinette might finish me off, although I may revisit The Virgin Suicides which charmed me the first time.

Kramer vs Kramer - This is not a bad film, but I felt like I'd seen it 100 times before. That is not the fault of the film - I think it's been copied 100 times since, and obviously at the time, when divorce was starting to become more common, it would have been very reflective of the era. Although even now, the idea of a woman leaving her child is still a bit taboo, which still gives it relevance. Everyone involved gives good performances, I guess I just wanted more from the plot. The idea of the father surprsingly bonding with the son just feels a bit hackneyed now.

On another note, I couldn't believe how much a young Meryl Streep resembles Jewel Kilcher.

Dazed and Confused - Had this down to watch for a while. Linklater's Before Sunrise/set are two of my favourite films ever, but I struggle to engage with much of his other work. He is very diverse, but I sometimes feel that, for however much Sunrise/set spoke to me, much of his work is targeted at teenage boys. Dazed and Confused frankly bored me. I don't mind the odd good high school movie - Mean Girls, Heathers, Ferris Bueller etc - but this film just never seemed to get going. I've read about how the strength of the ensemble cast in this film really caries it, yet hardly any of the characters were memorable for me. The only one of note was Pink, whose cheating kiss towards the end of the film seemed to run contrary to the idea that he was our good guy. There were some entertaining moments, but there just seemed to be a distinct lack of depth - of character and plot - and I found myself tapping my feet waiting for the end. Quite entertaining to see the early work of a few famous faces, not least Matthew McConaughey. Rumour has it that Linklater is plotting a sequel, and McConaughey is among those interested in reprising their roles.



Abre los Ojos - Again another one that had been gathering dust on my shelf. This is the famous supposed 'better' original version of Vanilla Sky. In fairness I've only watched half of it, and I will go back and finish it at some point, but so far it's not doing much for me.

Baise-moi - What was I thinking? For a good few years I lumped this together with 'Irreversible' - I'd seen neither but knew they were big French violent-sex-shock fests. I watched the latter about 3 years back and actually found it very interesting. But Baise-moi?! How did this ever get a release? The quality of the video is diabolical (it was clearly shot on video), before we get anywhere near the narrative, script and acting. I actually only lasted about 20 minutes before I jumped through and watched 5 minutes every 30 minutes or so until I just gave up. Everything about this is bad bad bad, the word that best describes this is a French one and it's 'pourri'.

28 Days Later - This film just reminded me of how much I don't like sci-fi and zombie movies. It reminded me of Children of Men which bored me. I was willing the end on far too early. But I know I'm not immune to the effects of sci-fi, as proved when I watched Minority Report the other day, followed it all the way through (I even surprised myself) and properly got into it.

Sorry I feel like this post is compete devoid of energy - it's just the reactions that these films inspire in me. I will be back with some good energised commentary soon.