Tuesday, December 16, 2008
For my first post, I'm going to post some reviews of movies I've watched and books I've read lately:
Review of 'Lantana' NB I can't remember the character names in this movie so have given them all names starting with J....just for the hell of it.....
This is a movie about trust—trust that exists between partners in particular. How much do you trust your partner and what is that trust based on? Do you doubt your partner’s fidelity? If you do, how do you justify those doubts?
The movie revolves around the central character John, played by Anthony Lapaglia. John is experiencing what is sometimes simplistically referred to as a ‘mid-life crisis’. Lantana explores the intricacies of one man’s experiences with it. Jon, a senior policeman is engaged in an affair with Jessica who he met at the dancing classes he attends with his wife. His character is psychologically battling with his actions that he knows are wrong. Through Jon’s inability to cope with his increasingly hollow marriage, and his subsequent angry responses to everyone he encounters, this film does a beautiful job of exploring the complexities of Australian masculinities. There are wonderful contrasts to angry and morose Jon, such as the patient, gentle and adoring Jack (Glenn Robbins), the estranged husband of Jessica; and Jessica’s next-door neighbour, devoted family man James (Vince Collisimo).
In his professional life Jon has to investigate the disappearance of a prominent psychiatrist, who he discovers, to his surprise, was treating his wife Jan, played beautifully by Kerry Armstrong. The psychiatrist, Jill, played by Barbara Hershey is in a marriage held together ‘by grief’ over the murder-death of their daughter two years previously. Jill through therapy sessions with a gay patient whose boyfriend is a married man becomes convinced her husband Jeff (Geoffrey Rush) is the boyfriend. What is clearly neurosis to the viewers is painfully real for Jill who has lost the capacity to trust anyone, including her husband.
This is an extremely powerful movie that starts you thinking about who we trust and why. It’s beautifully acted by most of the cast. Extra points go to Leah Purcell whose peripheral character as Jon’s police partner is very real and entirely lovable.
Review of 'Australia'
Baz Lurhman has taken me to ecstasy once again. Even without the hype (although, how could it have been otherwise?) I would have been one of the first in line to watch this movie. As far as I’m concerned Baz Lurhman is a genius. Moulin Rouge did things to me a movie never had—apart from Strictly Ballroom which I can watch time after time and laugh and cry every time.
I was nevertheless a little apprehensive to see Australia for a few reasons. One was the ridiculous amount of media coverage that had surrounded it for more than a year prior to its release. Another reason was the length—almost three hours. A further reason was of course the negative reviews it had received since its release in Sydney a week ago. I have no idea what movie the reviewers were watching, but it cannot have been the same one I saw.
Yes, it is overdone and even cheesy in some parts. But that’s the beauty of it, and the beauty of all Lurhman’s films. He refuses to take himself too seriously and produces films to first and foremost entertain.
Set in the Northern Territory in 1939 the film switches between the outback and Darwin. Nicole Kidman’s character Sarah has come from England after husband who is running a cattle station in the middle of the Northern Territory outback. They are aristocrats and Sarah is clearly not suited to outback life. She is impeccably groomed and totally unprepared for the dust, dirt, animals and sheer life of the Northern Territory. Without giving away any of the story, a romance between her and ‘Rover’, Hugh Jackman’s character develops as one of the central themes of the film. More central to the movie, however, is the story of Nulla, the Aboriginal child who lives on the cattle station and is eventually ‘adopted’ by Sarah. Nulla is a ‘half-caste’ and is therefore constantly in fear of being taken away by authorities and sent to the mission school—an institutionalised practise of the era that produced what we now call the Stolen Generation.
I was interested before watching the movie to see how ‘race’ issues would be dealt with. At times I was a bit disappointed with the way the fate of the Aborigines was depicted—sometimes I thought they didn’t need to be portrayed as such selfless victims (the scene on the island after the Japanese had bombed is an example). This is certainly no Ten Canoes—it’s a white person’s representation of Australia. But again, I return to my argument that Baz Lurhmann does not take himself too seriously. He makes no historical accuracy claims to the movie and in a 7:30 Report interview said something along the lines of ‘it’s not meant to be history lesson—it’s meant to be a movie the whole family can enjoy.’ The Stolen Generation and the exploitation of the ‘blackfella’ by the ‘whitefella’, is nevertheless a serious issue and I think the movie did a fair enough job handling it. The last scene—the last line in fact, uttered by ‘King George, Nulla’s grandfather and perhaps the ‘spirit of Australia’—I think handled it beautifully when, referring to Australia he pointedly called it ‘my country’.
To the critics who say it is too long—I didn’t even notice the time fly by. To the critics who say it’s cheesy and overdone—so what if it is? If that makes for good entertainment, then more movies should be like that! Movies that are ‘realistic’ are only ok if they are documentaries. Bring on more fantasy, more cheesiness and more indulgence I say.
Review of 'Lars and the Real Girl'
A friend recommended Lars and the Real Girl to me and I had also read some good reviews of it in the newspaper so I began watching it with high hopes. Admittedly the feminist in me was also a bit sceptical about a movie about a man who chooses a doll over a real woman (which is what I assumed the movie was about).
Ryan Gosling plays the main character who is described on the DVD cover as ‘sweet but quirky’. Unfortunately we are not given enough time to get to know him before he gets the doll delivered and is diagnosed by the family GP and psychologist as ‘delusional’. As far as I could tell, he may have been sweet, but neither quirky nor delusional accurately capture his character. In fact, forget character traits, half-way through the film I had to draw the conclusion that he was mentally handicapped. Why else would the WHOLE TOWN bar none go along with his ‘delusion’?
The movie’s premise was a good one—it was a really great idea. Man is lonely and psychologically scarred by his childhood. As a result man has been unable to develop social skills to interact with people, including women. Man buys life-size sex doll, not for sex, but for companionship and man develops the relationship he has been craving for with doll. This sounds like a pretty good idea for a movie, and the doll is a nice metaphor to explore a lot of issues including one of the central themes of ‘becoming a man’. The acting was also very good—the character of the pregnant wife of Ryan Gosling’s brother in particular was excellent and the relationship between her and her husband I thought was beautifully depicted.
It is difficult to put my finger on what it was about this movie that left me ultimately unsatisfied. What I can identify as problematic was that the ‘real’ love interest was not particularly likeable. She had little depth of character and was too beautiful to be real—Lars was apparently not concerned with external beauty so why was his ‘real’ love interest not played by a more ‘average’-looking woman? Lars was likeable but stretching my imagination to regard Lars as someone with emotional scarring rather than a mentally handicapped person was impossible. People humour mentally handicapped people and have patience with them, like the town folk in the movie had for Lars. Someone who had a bad case of psychological trauma would be given guidance and eventually told to ‘snap out of it’.
Review of 'Lantana' NB I can't remember the character names in this movie so have given them all names starting with J....just for the hell of it.....
This is a movie about trust—trust that exists between partners in particular. How much do you trust your partner and what is that trust based on? Do you doubt your partner’s fidelity? If you do, how do you justify those doubts?
The movie revolves around the central character John, played by Anthony Lapaglia. John is experiencing what is sometimes simplistically referred to as a ‘mid-life crisis’. Lantana explores the intricacies of one man’s experiences with it. Jon, a senior policeman is engaged in an affair with Jessica who he met at the dancing classes he attends with his wife. His character is psychologically battling with his actions that he knows are wrong. Through Jon’s inability to cope with his increasingly hollow marriage, and his subsequent angry responses to everyone he encounters, this film does a beautiful job of exploring the complexities of Australian masculinities. There are wonderful contrasts to angry and morose Jon, such as the patient, gentle and adoring Jack (Glenn Robbins), the estranged husband of Jessica; and Jessica’s next-door neighbour, devoted family man James (Vince Collisimo).
In his professional life Jon has to investigate the disappearance of a prominent psychiatrist, who he discovers, to his surprise, was treating his wife Jan, played beautifully by Kerry Armstrong. The psychiatrist, Jill, played by Barbara Hershey is in a marriage held together ‘by grief’ over the murder-death of their daughter two years previously. Jill through therapy sessions with a gay patient whose boyfriend is a married man becomes convinced her husband Jeff (Geoffrey Rush) is the boyfriend. What is clearly neurosis to the viewers is painfully real for Jill who has lost the capacity to trust anyone, including her husband.
This is an extremely powerful movie that starts you thinking about who we trust and why. It’s beautifully acted by most of the cast. Extra points go to Leah Purcell whose peripheral character as Jon’s police partner is very real and entirely lovable.
Review of 'Australia'
Baz Lurhman has taken me to ecstasy once again. Even without the hype (although, how could it have been otherwise?) I would have been one of the first in line to watch this movie. As far as I’m concerned Baz Lurhman is a genius. Moulin Rouge did things to me a movie never had—apart from Strictly Ballroom which I can watch time after time and laugh and cry every time.
I was nevertheless a little apprehensive to see Australia for a few reasons. One was the ridiculous amount of media coverage that had surrounded it for more than a year prior to its release. Another reason was the length—almost three hours. A further reason was of course the negative reviews it had received since its release in Sydney a week ago. I have no idea what movie the reviewers were watching, but it cannot have been the same one I saw.
Yes, it is overdone and even cheesy in some parts. But that’s the beauty of it, and the beauty of all Lurhman’s films. He refuses to take himself too seriously and produces films to first and foremost entertain.
Set in the Northern Territory in 1939 the film switches between the outback and Darwin. Nicole Kidman’s character Sarah has come from England after husband who is running a cattle station in the middle of the Northern Territory outback. They are aristocrats and Sarah is clearly not suited to outback life. She is impeccably groomed and totally unprepared for the dust, dirt, animals and sheer life of the Northern Territory. Without giving away any of the story, a romance between her and ‘Rover’, Hugh Jackman’s character develops as one of the central themes of the film. More central to the movie, however, is the story of Nulla, the Aboriginal child who lives on the cattle station and is eventually ‘adopted’ by Sarah. Nulla is a ‘half-caste’ and is therefore constantly in fear of being taken away by authorities and sent to the mission school—an institutionalised practise of the era that produced what we now call the Stolen Generation.
I was interested before watching the movie to see how ‘race’ issues would be dealt with. At times I was a bit disappointed with the way the fate of the Aborigines was depicted—sometimes I thought they didn’t need to be portrayed as such selfless victims (the scene on the island after the Japanese had bombed is an example). This is certainly no Ten Canoes—it’s a white person’s representation of Australia. But again, I return to my argument that Baz Lurhmann does not take himself too seriously. He makes no historical accuracy claims to the movie and in a 7:30 Report interview said something along the lines of ‘it’s not meant to be history lesson—it’s meant to be a movie the whole family can enjoy.’ The Stolen Generation and the exploitation of the ‘blackfella’ by the ‘whitefella’, is nevertheless a serious issue and I think the movie did a fair enough job handling it. The last scene—the last line in fact, uttered by ‘King George, Nulla’s grandfather and perhaps the ‘spirit of Australia’—I think handled it beautifully when, referring to Australia he pointedly called it ‘my country’.
To the critics who say it is too long—I didn’t even notice the time fly by. To the critics who say it’s cheesy and overdone—so what if it is? If that makes for good entertainment, then more movies should be like that! Movies that are ‘realistic’ are only ok if they are documentaries. Bring on more fantasy, more cheesiness and more indulgence I say.
Review of 'Lars and the Real Girl'
A friend recommended Lars and the Real Girl to me and I had also read some good reviews of it in the newspaper so I began watching it with high hopes. Admittedly the feminist in me was also a bit sceptical about a movie about a man who chooses a doll over a real woman (which is what I assumed the movie was about).
Ryan Gosling plays the main character who is described on the DVD cover as ‘sweet but quirky’. Unfortunately we are not given enough time to get to know him before he gets the doll delivered and is diagnosed by the family GP and psychologist as ‘delusional’. As far as I could tell, he may have been sweet, but neither quirky nor delusional accurately capture his character. In fact, forget character traits, half-way through the film I had to draw the conclusion that he was mentally handicapped. Why else would the WHOLE TOWN bar none go along with his ‘delusion’?
The movie’s premise was a good one—it was a really great idea. Man is lonely and psychologically scarred by his childhood. As a result man has been unable to develop social skills to interact with people, including women. Man buys life-size sex doll, not for sex, but for companionship and man develops the relationship he has been craving for with doll. This sounds like a pretty good idea for a movie, and the doll is a nice metaphor to explore a lot of issues including one of the central themes of ‘becoming a man’. The acting was also very good—the character of the pregnant wife of Ryan Gosling’s brother in particular was excellent and the relationship between her and her husband I thought was beautifully depicted.
It is difficult to put my finger on what it was about this movie that left me ultimately unsatisfied. What I can identify as problematic was that the ‘real’ love interest was not particularly likeable. She had little depth of character and was too beautiful to be real—Lars was apparently not concerned with external beauty so why was his ‘real’ love interest not played by a more ‘average’-looking woman? Lars was likeable but stretching my imagination to regard Lars as someone with emotional scarring rather than a mentally handicapped person was impossible. People humour mentally handicapped people and have patience with them, like the town folk in the movie had for Lars. Someone who had a bad case of psychological trauma would be given guidance and eventually told to ‘snap out of it’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
