I had read an article in the SMH suggesting that viewers in India, where the film is set, might not enjoy the movie because it depicts the terrible Western idealisation of ‘happy’ slum-life. Western ideas about ‘happiness’ and the way that we seem to be constantly in pursuit of it but rarely attaining it run rampant in weekend papers. There is always some article chiding us to look to poor underdeveloped countries such as Bhutan where ‘life is simple’ and people are happy. These articles are patronising and, frankly, hypocritical. If the writer truly believes that life in a place like Bhutan would make us happy, why does s/he not go and live there? Therefore I was quite apprehensive going to see this movie because I cannot stand Hollywood films that depict poverty as a ‘simple but happy life’.
I think Slumdog Millionaire managed to avoid this cliché reasonably well. In fact, life in a slum look decidedly horrific in many, many scenes—in particular the one where the whole (Muslim) slum area is attacked by a pack of violent men intent on killing any person of the Muslim faith in their path.
The main character is Jamal. We meet him when he is a young man competing on “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?’. With each question he is led back into his past and this is how the story of his childhood and love for Latika is related to us. It is a brilliant framework for telling a story and we find ourselves shifting comfortably between the past and the present television studio until the end when the two collide.
The first question takes us back to Jamal and his older brother Salim as small children trying to make a living and go to school in a slum in Bombay. After the religious attack on his slum during which he witnesses the killing of his mother, he and his brother become street children and are joined by Latika, a little girl also orphaned after the attack. They become the ‘Three Musketeers’ until they are kidnapped and forced into the begging trade by a man so evil it makes your stomach turn.
Latika becomes separated from them but Jamal does not forget her. The middle of the movie follows the two brothers trying to make ends meet—riding from train to train, eating and stealing whatever they can. Theirs is a nomadic and hand-to-mouth survival existence. They eventually make their way back to Bombay because Jamal wants to find Latika. Salim, who has always had a nasty streak in him turns against his brother and becomes a gun-toting gang member. The climax of the story is suspenseful and very Bollywood-esque.
Overall the movie is a combination of Bollywood and art-house Hollywood. The romance between Jamal and Latika was unbelievable, mainly because they were children when they separated. The acting by the adult characters was exaggerated too—I don’t watch Bollywood movies, but I guess this is a characteristic of the Bollywood genre. Unfortunately I did not like Jamal—the older he got the more macho and exaggerated his behaviour became.
Despite its minimal shortcomings, I recommend it for its entertainment value.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Brokeback Mountain
Spanning approximately twenty years beginning in 1967, this is a story of the forbidden love between two ‘cowboys’ in Wyoming. Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis (Heath Ledger) meet when they are both posted to a sheep minding job on Brokeback Mountain. The job that lasts for several months involves one of them sleeping with the sheep looking after them, and the other minding the camp (located a two hour horse ride away) and doing the cooking—keeping house essentially. Severe isolation and a helping hand from Jack leads Ennis into Jack’s arms one night (actually, the scene wasn’t nearly that romantic—it was rough and very macho). And so begins an exquisitely beautiful and deeply tragic romance between the two men.
Both men return once the season is over to ‘normal lives’ of marriage, fatherhood and providing for their families. After a four year absence, they meet again and rekindle their relationship in secret—something they decide to continue two or three times a year. Jack wants more. He is a romantic and believes they can make it work if they just ‘get a ranch together’. Ennis is more practical. He feels society’s eyes on him and fears the consequences if they are ever discovered. It is the classic Hollywood love story in that it explores that ‘will they ever be together?’ tension. Clearly Ang Lee decided to make the gay lovers ‘cowboys’—you could not think of a more macho occupation, particularly in that era—to intensify the difficulties the lovers would encounter.
The storyline was relatively original; the scenery was stunning and the music was perfectly suited. I think, however, that it was the superb acting from both lead characters that made this an extraordinarily powerful movie experience. The unbearable angst felt by Innys as he attempts to resolve his actions with everything he has learnt about ‘being a man’ would have been frustrating to watch if it were not for Heath Ledger’s tenderness. Even more unbearable was Jack Twist’s broken heart. The depth of feeling that Gyllenhaal conveyed as a suffocated and oppressed young man overflowing with love and hungry for it to be reciprocated was painful to watch because he made me feel his sadness and heartbreak.
Both men return once the season is over to ‘normal lives’ of marriage, fatherhood and providing for their families. After a four year absence, they meet again and rekindle their relationship in secret—something they decide to continue two or three times a year. Jack wants more. He is a romantic and believes they can make it work if they just ‘get a ranch together’. Ennis is more practical. He feels society’s eyes on him and fears the consequences if they are ever discovered. It is the classic Hollywood love story in that it explores that ‘will they ever be together?’ tension. Clearly Ang Lee decided to make the gay lovers ‘cowboys’—you could not think of a more macho occupation, particularly in that era—to intensify the difficulties the lovers would encounter.
The storyline was relatively original; the scenery was stunning and the music was perfectly suited. I think, however, that it was the superb acting from both lead characters that made this an extraordinarily powerful movie experience. The unbearable angst felt by Innys as he attempts to resolve his actions with everything he has learnt about ‘being a man’ would have been frustrating to watch if it were not for Heath Ledger’s tenderness. Even more unbearable was Jack Twist’s broken heart. The depth of feeling that Gyllenhaal conveyed as a suffocated and oppressed young man overflowing with love and hungry for it to be reciprocated was painful to watch because he made me feel his sadness and heartbreak.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
This movie is based on a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald which was in turn influenced by an idea of Mark Twain’s. Twain’s idea was that a man’s life should be the other way around because he is at his best at the beginning of it and at his worst at the end. The movie’s premise is that timing is everything and that age will always catch up with us – it even caught up with Benjamin Button who aged in reverse.
Benjamin is born as an old man in New Orleans in the early 1900s. Doctors are at a loss to explain aging symptoms, such as arthritis, similar to those of men in their eighties. As the years pass he becomes younger. People around him, including his mother and biological father, die one after the other, just as they probably would have if was aging normally. He finds love with Daisy, played by Cate Blanchett, who he has known since she was a small child (and he an old man). Theirs is the classic Hollywood romance of star-crossed lovers destined to be together one day, but destined also for a rough ride getting there. It is not until Daisy is in her 30s that they become lovers and it is perfect timing as Benjamin is now in the prime of his life. Blanchett does a wonderful job of demonstrating the narcissisms of youth and the beauty of aging. Her younger character was indeed completely self-absorbed and a strong contrast to the more likeable woman she becomes. As she tells Benjamin one day, “I’m so glad we didn’t get together when I was 26—I was so young”.
Daisy and Benjamin ‘meet in the middle’ at around 42 around about the time Daisy falls pregnant. After the birth of their daughter, Benjamin decides to leave Daisy because he thinks he can’t be a good father to a child if he only continues to get younger. Furthermore he does not want to become another child for Daisy to look after. I was very disappointed with this turn of events and thought that the love story could have been so much deeper and stronger had he remained with Daisy. After all, a committed and loving couple don’t just separate when the going gets tough—regardless of what happens they look after each other. Furthermore, I couldn’t think of a better father for a child. A man who gets younger as his daughter gets older—perfect! Instead, Benjamin goes to India. Images of him washing in the Ganges, riding a motorbike and being a ‘solitary male’ follow. What a cliché!
Apart from this disappointing turn of events, the movie was a success overall. The acting was very good—Brad Pitt is absolutely brilliant as a curious old man and again as a thoughtful and sensitive young man. I wish Cate Blanchett had aged a bit more—she was absolutely stunning until she was over 60. Maybe I’m just jealous!
The moral of the story was clearly to grab hold of life because time waits for no-one. I certainly emerged from the 3 hour film with the reinforced idea that because time catches up with us no matter what we do, we ought to make the most of every day.
Benjamin is born as an old man in New Orleans in the early 1900s. Doctors are at a loss to explain aging symptoms, such as arthritis, similar to those of men in their eighties. As the years pass he becomes younger. People around him, including his mother and biological father, die one after the other, just as they probably would have if was aging normally. He finds love with Daisy, played by Cate Blanchett, who he has known since she was a small child (and he an old man). Theirs is the classic Hollywood romance of star-crossed lovers destined to be together one day, but destined also for a rough ride getting there. It is not until Daisy is in her 30s that they become lovers and it is perfect timing as Benjamin is now in the prime of his life. Blanchett does a wonderful job of demonstrating the narcissisms of youth and the beauty of aging. Her younger character was indeed completely self-absorbed and a strong contrast to the more likeable woman she becomes. As she tells Benjamin one day, “I’m so glad we didn’t get together when I was 26—I was so young”.
Daisy and Benjamin ‘meet in the middle’ at around 42 around about the time Daisy falls pregnant. After the birth of their daughter, Benjamin decides to leave Daisy because he thinks he can’t be a good father to a child if he only continues to get younger. Furthermore he does not want to become another child for Daisy to look after. I was very disappointed with this turn of events and thought that the love story could have been so much deeper and stronger had he remained with Daisy. After all, a committed and loving couple don’t just separate when the going gets tough—regardless of what happens they look after each other. Furthermore, I couldn’t think of a better father for a child. A man who gets younger as his daughter gets older—perfect! Instead, Benjamin goes to India. Images of him washing in the Ganges, riding a motorbike and being a ‘solitary male’ follow. What a cliché!
Apart from this disappointing turn of events, the movie was a success overall. The acting was very good—Brad Pitt is absolutely brilliant as a curious old man and again as a thoughtful and sensitive young man. I wish Cate Blanchett had aged a bit more—she was absolutely stunning until she was over 60. Maybe I’m just jealous!
The moral of the story was clearly to grab hold of life because time waits for no-one. I certainly emerged from the 3 hour film with the reinforced idea that because time catches up with us no matter what we do, we ought to make the most of every day.
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)
