Beyond the Hills

Dir: Cristian Mungiu

2012

****

It is quite amazing just how Cristian Mungiu’s 2012 film Beyond the Hills is so subtle but still manages to go for the jugular. The film takes an intelligent swipe at the Romanian Orthodox church and it is interesting to know that the popular musical The Book of Mormon was released around the same time. I find comparing them quite interesting, as they are both worlds apart in structure and tone but they somehow pull off the same trick – one using laughter and the other using tragedy – but both showing the ridiculousness of some religious practices. The story follows two orphaned young women, Voichița and Alina. Alina has come to visit the Romanian Orthodox convent during Lent, where Voichița now lives. Alina had been working in Germany, and it transpires that the two girls were previously roommates at a children's home and had shared a physical relationship. The monastery is led by a 30-year-old Priest who speaks ill of declining faith in Western Europe, citing same-sex marriage, and forbids anyone outside of the faith from entering. He inquires about Alina to Voichița, who tells him Alina irregularly attends church and does not go to confession. They soon urge Alina to begin confessing, especially if she intends to stay. Alina clearly wants to rekindle her relationship with Voichița, but Voichița tells her they must be cautious given it is Lent. Voichița seems tempted, especially when sex is offered but her new way of life has changed her and she makes it her mission to ‘save’ her friend. Both friends try to ‘save’ each other in their own ways but they have grown too far apart. Some time later after Alina has left the convent, Voichița seeks her out, and when she finds her she tells her she is now a nun, that she has chosen to be with God so she will never be alone, and her love of Alina is different from before. Voichița convinces her to return with her to the convent, but Alina asks Voichița that they escape together. Their relationship is clearly deep-rooted and once more they try to save one another. After Voichița refuses, Alina attempts to jump down a well, but is restrained by the nuns and taken to the hospital. There, doctors restrain Alina to prevent her self-harm, after which they send her back to the convent to assist with recovery. There, the nuns read to Alina about sin. Alina begins a ‘Black Fast’, but when the Priest learns of this when Alina is not at the table, they see Alina is attempting to enter the altar to make a wish to the icon they have there. The Priest admits the icon exists, but says entering the altar is a severe sin, and tells the nuns the Devil is in Alina and the convent. Alina is clearly suffering a breakdown as she feels she has lost her friend, partner and lover. Alina remains tied down to a board with chains and towels. The nuns witness a worsening in her condition and take her back to the hospital. There, the hospital staff find Alina is dead on arrival, and observe the wounds on her wrists and ankles from the restraints. The staff tells the nuns this constitutes homicide and threatens to call the police and media. An officer investigates the convent. Seeing the board Alina was tied to, the officer interprets it as a cross. The officer also says forcible restraint leading to death is a homicide. The Priest denies criminal intent, saying the restraints were to prevent self-harm, and invoking the analogy of a parent's right to force children to take medicine, though the officer replies Alina was not a child and the Priest was not her guardian. The nuns also cite Alina's strength as mysterious, but Voichița says Alina studied martial arts. The police take the Priest and the nuns who tied up Alina away, with Voichița choosing to go with them. The screenplay was inspired by two novels by the writer Tatiana Niculescu Bran, documenting the Tanacu exorcism, in which a young member of a monastery in Moldavia died in 2005 after an exorcism ritual. Mungiu was inspired to make the film after seeing the stage version in New York while promoting 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days in 2007. It’s a darker film than Mungiu’s previous work, concentrating on the classic idea of there being two sides to every story. To me this was an atheist film but to someone religious it could mean something else, it basically explores the presence of God and the absence of God, depending on the viewer’s faith. There is a level of ambiguity about it, with all the talk of god, it is really the question of the devil that is at play. I also think that how mental illness is still looked at by many religions is an important subject to explore. The contrast in tone throughout the film is quite unexpected but rather effective. The subjective conclusion was very satisfying, very much a ‘life continues as normal’ outside the happenings of a convent where even the tiniest of events can become exacerbated. Grim and enlightening with a slice of lemon – classic Cristian Mungiu.

Me and You (Io e te)

Dir: Bernardo Bertolucci

2012

***

I found it difficult to watch Me and You and not wonder how this was a film by the same man who bought us such greats such as The Conformist, Last Tango in Paris, 1900 and The Last Emperor. I wasn’t a huge fan of 2003’s The Dreamers either but I had hoped that the last nine years was enough time to give his next project some real thought. I liked the concept, I just think it was totally wasted. It’s a sad looking swansong, that’s for sure. The story is simple: young Lorenzo (Jacopo Olmo Antinori) has difficulties communicating and relating to others – although I don’t think he autistic or anything – he just prefers his own company and his own thoughts. When his class goes to the mountains for a week on a skiing trip, Lorenzo secretly settles in the basement of his apartment building, pocketing the trip’s fee to spend on provisions. However, his happy solitude is interrupted with an unexpected appearance of a strange girl called Olivia (Tea Falco), who turns out to be his half-sister. Olivia, from his father’s first marriage, is nine years older than him and he hasn’t seen in a long time. She asks if his parents are at home, and he pretends not to know, thinking his parents might have asked her to investigate. A short while later he hears someone trying to open the lock to the basement and Olivia enters, looking for something in a box of her old things. She doesn’t find it and leaves in desperation. In the middle of the night she returns, knocking on the window and asking Lorenzo if she can stay the night. At first he refuses categorically, but when she threatens to tell everyone he is there, he backs down. This turns out to be useful, since his mother calls again, more insistent than ever that she needs to speak to a teacher, and he persuades Olivia to pretend to be one. It turns out, though, that Olivia has become a drug addict and is suffering from withdrawal from heroin, and this is why she’s in a desperate situation. She asks him for some sleeping pills. The only place he can think of getting them is from his grandmother (Veronica Lazar) who is dying in hospital. He visits her and finds the pills in her handbag, but ends up spending much longer at the hospital than intended when his grandmother wakes up and asks him to tell her a story. Once back in the basement, Lorenzo finds Olivia passed out, almost dead. During his absence she has rummaged through all the boxes and found and taken some sleeping pills. She sleeps solidly for three days. By the end of the week, the relationship between Lorenzo and Olivia has changed from hostility to complicity, since they both feel rejected by society, both have secrets, and both feel understood, without judgement, by the other. Olivia promises not to use drugs anymore and they both promise to stay in touch. On the last morning Lorenzo awakes to find a note Olivia has left, reminding him of their mutual promise. I don’t want to speak ill of Bernardo Bertolucci, he was a great director and I really admire that he made Me and You so late in his career, especially in relatively bad health, but I don’t think there was enough of him in the story. His greatest films are the ones where he has thrown himself into the picture, this film feels like someone else’s, Niccolò Ammaniti’s. I actually think that the two leads give great performances and the direction itself is adequate, I just don’t think the film worked as a whole. I think I would have preferred more static shots, with the odd contrasting moving sequence. The dialogue was also lacking, indeed, a really good script could have lifted the film no end. I did like the interjection of music and I could really relate to it at times, I just couldn’t connect with the characters. I think it all happened a little too fast and as well performed as Olivia was, I’m not sure I ever truly believed she existed. I think the difference between the original script and what was actually filmed was the biggest let down. I feel that a bold conclusion was softened for a wider audience, a decision that I feel backfired spectacularly. It’s a firework without ignition, it’s all there ready to explode but nothing ends up lighting it and even if a light was found, towards the end the wick becomes far to damp to ignite anyway. I’m being perhaps overly harsh, but this is the great Bernardo Bertolucci, it should have been a masterpiece. Like I said, it’s tragic that this was to be his last film and it’s not without its magic, it just makes me sad on several different levels is all.

Neighboring Sounds

Dir: Kleber Mendonça Filho

2012

*****

Neighboring Sounds is the astounding debut feature from writer/director Kleber Mendonça Filho. It’s a film that doesn’t quite state it’s intentions until the very end, and even then I’m not sure it does. Just as I settled into the story the whole style of it changed and, although subtle, it became one of the most original films of the decade so far. The story has so many hidden layers I’m still not sure I got all of them but this very simple film is an excellent exploration of society, looking at the old ways as well as sounding echos from the future. The fact that it only took six weeks to shoot but over two years to edit shows just how much thought and meaning went into the final production. It is a slice of modern Brazil but the truths relate to everywhere in our modern climate of change. What starts out as a very simple drama following a couple of residents of a Brazilian street, soon turns into an existential journey of fear and paranoia but without descending into horror or cheap thriller territory. The film has a constant sound of dogs barking, the hum of a refrigerator, music blasting from a street vendor’s stereo, the distant noise of a hundred televisions and the vibrations of a dozen early morning vacuum cleaners. It is visually captivating from start to finish, even in the most ordinary of scenes. We flash through the lives of several of the residents but the invisible main character of the film is the ever present feeling of existential anxiety that permeates each and every sub-story. There is a sense of inevitable doom that is so subtle, it’s almost impossible to put one’s finger on. Unlike many typical Brazilian films, Neighboring Sounds is not about life in the favelas or about gangsters or drug gangs, but about the uneasy divide between the growing middle-classes and the working class living side-by-side in a crowded urban setting. Compositions are framed behind fences and closed doors to suggest maximum isolation, a suggestion that in today's Brazilian urban areas, a melting pot is built out of necessity, not out of choice. There is an element of limo to the street where young and old clash regularly with very few mediators. The opening shot shows old photos of workers in a sugarcane plantation who would have lived there originally. This is cut down in contrast as a shot of a young girl on rollerblades glides past a row of brand new apartments. From there on unfold a series of small incidents that convey an atmosphere of encroaching claustrophobia. Bia, a married mother of two, is driven mad by the constant barking and howling of her neighbour’s dog and sets about poisoning it while keeping it secret from her suspecting children, setting the tone of the entire film. João, the closest character the film has to a protagonist, is caught naked in his living room with Sofia by the arriving housemaid Maria who makes light of the incident, engaging in conversation with João and Sofia in the confining space of his kitchen. The block is run by the local "don," Francisco a wealthy landlord with a questionable past. João is Francisco's grandson, a real estate agent for the family who own many of the new buildings in the street. On leaving João’s apartment, Sofia realises that her car has been broken into and her stereo has been stolen. The arrival of a rather pushy independent private security firm the same day as the theft is suspicious but João immediately suspects his cousin Dinho, a lazy petty criminal who lives in the shadow and protection of his grandfather. João hires the security patrol manned by Clodoaldo to oversee the neighborhood's safety. The residents of the block are relatively wealthy, so they feel they need more security but even then, they do not feel safe in a country where there is a large disparity between rich and poor. The security patrol is ostensibly there to ensure the neighbor's safety, but accomplishes the very opposite when their true motives are revealed. All the while João contemplates his role there, after living abroad for many years before. Over time Sofia quietly accompanies him as the sense of anxious dread becomes more apparent. What seems to be disconnected and inconsequential is put together like a jigsaw puzzle that leads brilliantly to the films final scene. It gets a little fantastical towards the end which I absolutely adore but many of the film’s core scenes come from simple lines of dialogue and unique situations. The waterfall scene where it is suggested that Francisco is in fact the devil is wonderful but it doesn’t quite hit the gut as the scene whereby João is trying to sell an apartment of a recently deceased suicide. It transpires that the previous occupant jumped several stories to their death from the beautiful balcony with a view. It is easy to enjoy the visuals and be entertained by the colourful characters but there is no escape from the sense of inevitability, like something negative is being foreshadowed. It’s an absolute masterstroke to achieve this mood from the very ordinary. Those two years of editing were clearly used wisely. It’s not short of a masterpiece.

Thérèse Desqueyroux

Dir: Claude Miller

2012

****

Claude Miller’s final film, Thérèse Desqueyroux, is a fitting film to depart on. Critics have been comparing Miller’s work to that of his mentors François Truffaut, Robert Bresson and Jean-Luc Godard for years but Thérèse Desqueyroux is his and only his. Adapted from François Mauriac’s famous 1927 novel, which itself was inspired by the Henriette Canaby attempted murder case of 1906, the film has a freshness about it that isn’t typical of the genre but gives the overall production a feeling of heightened authenticity. Set in the south-west of France, in the late 1920s, Thérèse Laroque agrees to a marriage of convenience between wealthy families by marrying Bernard Desqueyroux, a bourgeois landowner. They then settle on his family's property, located in a vast area stretching over acres of pine forests. Bernard is a local man with a passion for hunting and defending with conviction the family traditions. However, Thérèse is quickly stifled by the monotony of her married life. She gives birth to a daughter whom they name Marie, but her boredom seems to grow every day. In her own words, she is looking "somewhere else". Bernard suffers from an unspecified condition for which he is prescribed arsenic. Thérèse takes the opportunity to attempt to poison her husband, but in forging a prescription, she is discovered. In addition to being dishonored by her own family, she is disowned by her husband's. She faces justice for the alleged murder attempt until her husband and in-laws, who intend to keep up appearances within their provincial society, make up their own version of what happened. The case is dismissed and Therese is confined to the house. Eventually, after many years, she is allowed to leave and live in Paris on the understanding that she will only return for weddings and funerals. The film is a faithful adaptation but there are differences in the narrative. The book is characterised by some unusual structural devices, including a long internal monologue which often switches perspective, revealing the thoughts of several characters but this is sensibly removed within the film. The vast majority of characters in the book are seen as quite unpleasant people; Thérèse's father is revealed to be a callous sexist more concerned with protecting his political career than looking after his daughter, while Bernard himself is portrayed as an emotionally unavailable man obsessed solely with hunting and serving the needs of the family. However, in the film there are glimmers of kindness and the characters feel far more forgiving than in the novel. As in much of Mauriac's work, physical imperfection signifies moral destitution and most characters have some sort of flaw – phrases such as "hard black nails", "short bow legs" and "fat little Hippolitus" all describe various male characters, just within the first few chapters but again, the film is far more forgiving. In the novel Thérèse is proud of her intelligence and self-perceived wisdom, as she is in the film, but the unrequited crush she has on former childhood friend and sister-in-law Anne isn’t as obvious in the film. It’s a shame really, as these tones are said to match Mauriac's own struggles with sexuality, so they really should have been respected but I also see why they would be toned down/removed. Mauriac once commented back in the early 50s that is novel used some devices that came from the silent films, such as a lack of preparation, the sudden opening, flashbacks. They were methods that were new and surprising at that time but of course wouldn't work in modern film. It is interesting though how a book would copy an old film and be copied, many years later by a film. Miller’s direction is faultless and the performances and chemistry between Audrey Tautou as Thérèse Desqueyroux and Gilles Lellouche as Bernard Desqueyroux is perfect. Tautou’s performances are always good but I’m glad Lellouche was given the right amount of space to develop his contrasting character. When a film is about one persons unhappiness then you have to give the source of that unhappiness just as much attention as the person themselves. While the film is ever so slightly slow in places, it absolutely drips class and just the right amount of pause. It’s a fitting tribute to the source novel and a great film to end a career on.

Starlet

Dir: Sean Baker

2012

****

First and foremost, Sean Baker is a director with a great eye. He makes it look easy, like anyone could just point and shoot. In many respects you can, if you have the talent, because he has also proven that you don’t need a huge budget and everything that comes with a big production, you just need a good idea, a camera and a few great performances. Okay, so you do need more than that, but he has shown that greatness can be achieved from simplicity – and talent. Starlet explores the unlikely friendship between 21-year-old Jane and 85-year-old Sadie, two women whose meet by chance in California's San Fernando Valley. Jane, who also mysteriously introduces herself as Tess, is a young woman who lives in an apartment with her two annoying roommates; Melissa and Melissa's boyfriend Mikey. She also lives with her Chihuahua, Starlet. Jane’s room is small and empty and one morning she asks Melissa if she can paint it but Melissa says the room cannot be changed because Mikey might need it for "shoots". Instead of painting the room, Jane decides to buy new furniture at neighborhood yard sales in order to decorate it. At one such sale she comes across an old woman named Sadie, from whom she buys a thermos. She suggests that it would make a nice vase, which annoys Sadie. Jane is incredibly annoying. She is vacuous, rather stupid and has a care-free attitude that makes me want to break things. She returns home to find Melissa and Mikey arguing, and while cleaning the thermos out for some flowers she’d bough she discovers a stash of money inside. She decides not to announce it to her housemates and hides the money in her room. She spends some of the money on extravagant luxuries for herself, like designer clothes and getting her nails painted ($475 for nails!!!) but then decides to return the rest of the money to Sadie. Sadie, however, dismisses Jane before she can explain. While sitting in her car, not sure what to do next, she sees Sadie take a cab to the grocery store and decides to follow. Jane convinces the waiting cab driver to leave, paying him for his time and telling him that she is a friend who will take Sadie home. Sadie is taken aback by Jane but agrees to a ride home when Jane refuses to back down. Back at Sadie's house, Jane hangs around refusing to leave. My god she’s annoying. In the end she gives her number to a skeptical Sadie and tells her to call her if she needs anything. Jane later surprises Sadie at her local bingo game, having mentioned that she goes every Saturday. Once more paying off Sadie's taxi, she drives her home and asks her about whether she wins at bingo. Sadie responds by spraying Jane with mace, believing that she is trying to con her out of money. The police are called and after speaking to them Jane drives off without any intention of seeing Sadie ever again. Sadie calls Jane the next day to reconcile, much to Jane’s surprise. The pair spend some time together and Jane learns that Sadie, a widow, loves Paris but has never visited the city. She also learns that Sadie is the widow of Frank, a professional gambler, who left her a wealth of money upon his death many years ago. Sadie tells Jane that she doesn’t have any children. The cash in the thermos would have been one of many secret stashes of money Sadie would have been unaware of. Meanwhile, Melissa is fired from her job. It transpires that she and Jane are pornstars who work for the same agency. Jane convinces their boss to suspend Melissa for a month instead of dismissing her, and Jane consequently gets a promotion. While Jane is at work, she leaves Starlet with Sadie, who loses the dog while tending to her garden. Sadie recovers the dog after a desperate and exhausting search. When Jane arrives to retrieve Starlet, Sadie seems troubled and wants to put an end to their friendship, which leaves Jane upset. Melissa finds Jane’s stash of money and tries to manipulate her into spending it on her without letting on that she knows about it. She talks about how friends should care for one another and do nice things for each other. This backfires when Jane decides to buy two first-class tickets to Paris for Sadie and herself. Sadie, however, refuses to go. Jane buys 25 Bingo cards and makes a deal with Sadie that if she wins at bingo, Sadie will go on the trip. Jane loses because Sadie herself wins the game; Sadie ultimately agrees to go on the trip anyway. Back at the apartment, Melissa finds out that Jane has spent all the money on Sadie instead of her. The two engage in a screaming match, and Melissa kicks Jane out and later tells Sadie about the stash of money. Sadie briefly unpacks her suitcase, but then rethinks her action. Later, Jane, ignorant of Sadie's knowledge about the money, picks her up to go to the airport. Sadie asks Jane to stop at the cemetery to leave flowers on the grave of her husband, and Jane notices the nearby grave of Sadie's deceased daughter. She then returns to the car, and they drive away. It’s a touching ending. Dree Hemingway is great as Jane for various different reasons. To come across initially as so incredibly naive and annoying, to then convince the viewer of a moral awakening is rather impressive. She floats about the film quite a lot, switching between concerned friend and flirtatious pornstar quite naturally. Her performance brings nothing but believability to the film, which is what makes it work so well. Besedka Johnson is also wonderful as Sadie. Johnson had wanted to be an actress her whole life and she died just after the film’s completion, her first and last performance. She was clearly a natural. Stella Maeve’s Melissa was great too, and I’d argue that performing that level of annoying is a higher degree of acting. Realism, good story and a visual flare aren’t easy, Sean Baker has talent. That said, he also knows that sex sells and most of his films now feature women in tight underpants/shorts and sexy times. Jane and Melissa really didn’t need to be porn actors but even if they were, the film really didn’t need an actual sex scene to prove it. A porn actress doubled for Dree Hemingway, something that casual viewers might not know, and they really go for it. I’m not sure who this is for, other than the twelve-year old boys who might come across the film on TV late at night who kept watching for all the legs on display. Lucky them I guess but I’d argue that it does nothing for the story or character, other than to provide titillation. It didn’t ruin it for me but it is a little bit of a cheap trick and I’m glad he has since toned down such scenes in his subsequent films. I’ve never enjoyed a film with two such annoying women and an annoying dog so much.

White Elephant (Elefante blanco)

Dir: Pablo Trapero

2012

****

Argentinean director Pablo Trapero’s 2012 drama White Elephant, co-written by Trapero, Alejandro Fadel, Martín Mauregui and Santiago Mitre, is a dark and seemingly hopeless film highlighting the disparity between the rich and the poor and the hypocrisy that comes with it. The story takes place in the slums of Buenos Aires that surround an old hospital building, named the ‘white elephant’ by the locals due to it’s size and colour and because it was built for the people but soon abandoned. It now houses the poverty stricken, gangs and drug users of the favelas, like a cathedral of poverty. We follow its inhabitants through the eyes of two priests. The film opens in the Peruvian jungle where Father Nicolás (Jérémie Renier) witnesses the brutal massacre of his friends and congregation while he alone survives, leaving a profound sense of guilt for not having also died in the catastrophe and not being able to stop it in any way. Father Nicolás's beloved friend and confessor Father Julián (Ricardo Darín) brings Nicolás to the Villa Virgin, a favela like shantytown in the slums of Buenos Aires near an abandoned hospital project known as the White Elephant. Drugs provide the major business in this ghetto and unsurprisingly violence comes with it. Shoot-outs are a regular occurrence and the majority of the residence live in fear. It’s hell on earth. The two priests work tirelessly to help the local people and father Julián uses his political connections to oversee the construction of a new hospital. Nicolás remains deeply troubled from his experience in the jungle, and as his faith weakens he embarks on a sexual relationship with Luciana (Martina Gusman), a young, attractive, atheist social worker. Meanwhile, tension and violence between the slum drug dealing cartels grows, and when work on the hospital is halted by ministerial decree, the faith of the inhabitants of Villa Virgin is tested, and father Nicolás discovers he has been called by father Julián to assume his role of parish priest as Julián is coping with an undiagnosed neurological disease that is terminal. Both men are looked at to help the people and both men are tested, both physically and in faith. The film is a complex look at the test of wills. The performances from the three leading actors, Darin, Renier, and Gusman are superb, I especially believed that Ricardo Darín was a real priest, and the cinematography by Guillermo Nieto is striking and sublime, making even the decrepit of slums look somehow beautiful. The score by Michael Nyman is also brilliant and enhances the film tremendously but the big problem with the film is the melodrama. The action sequences are also a little off at times and perhaps should have been shortened. The real strength is in the idea and the two dominant symbols in the film that represent its major themes - the unfinished hospital that is the white elephant of the title and the murder of priests. The unfinished white building, that was supposed to be a hospital which carried the ambitions of various Argentinian leaders to be the best hospital on the continent, has become the centre of a Buenos Aires slum. On public land outside, building has begun on a project to provide new permanent homes for the slum dwellers, a community centre and a new church at its centre. This building is soon abandoned by the development company after its employees' wages fail to materialise. Who is responsible for paying the wages is not established amidst the bureaucracy. The community's anger when the work ceases boils over into a violent confrontation with the police that ends in fatality. The expression white elephant suggests the evident presence of something ignored or not spoken about. It is a symbol prevalent throughout the film, both in story and in the characters. Other white elephants include the wealth of the Catholic church in contrast with its parishioners. The question of why a priest, as a representative of faith, cannot marry or have sexual relations yet can preach on these matters is also glaring. The criminality of the authorities is also as bad as the crime committed in the slums and perhaps the biggest white elephant of them all is why the elected leaders don’t act on any of it? I think the main theme is a little over complicated by too much happening at once – and the ending is questionable – but at its core the story is effective, emotional and hard-hitting. 

Like Someone in Love

Dir: Abbas Kiarostami

2012

***

In the late 1990s Abbas Kiarostami was driving late at night while on a visit to Tokyo and witnessed a young girl on the side of the street dressed as a bride. In the years following, while visiting Tokyo to promote other films, he realized that he was always looking for that same girl because she had left such an impression but that he would never likely notice her again in real life because she wouldn't be wearing the same dress. He has said in interviews that his experience became the basis for Like Someone in Love. Set in Tokyo, sociology student Akiko (Rin Takanashi) moonlights as a high-end prostitute. Her jealous boyfriend, Noriaki (Ryō Kase) is suspicious, but does not know about her work. One night, she is assigned to Takashi (Tadashi Okuno), an elderly former university professor who is more interested in making her dinner than having sex. The morning after their unconsummated night, Takashi drives Akiko to school for her exams. While waiting in the car for her, he encounters Noriaki, who assumes Takashi is her grandfather and asks permission to marry her. Takashi does not correct Noriaki's assumption and assures him he isn't ready for marriage. After Akiko's test, the three drive toward a bookstore. Noriaki diagnoses a problem with the car, and convinces Takashi to drive it to the garage he owns, where he replaces a fan belt. There they encounter one of Takashi's former students; Akiko worries he will reveal the truth to Noriaki. Takashi drops Akiko at the bookstore and returns home. Soon afterwards, he receives a panicked phone call from Akiko and returns to the bookstore to pick her up. Her mouth is bloodied, but she does not say why. Takashi takes Akiko to his apartment. Noriaki arrives, threatening them over the intercom and banging on the door. Takashi peers out his window to see what Noriaki is doing. An object is thrown through the window and Takashi falls to the floor as the credits roll. Kiarostami takes his time with his characters and their surroundings but decides to leave the story just any action is about to take place. It is somewhat frustrating but the consequences are clearly not the focus of the tale. This leaves me wondering what the focus actually was? It’s a slow drawn-out story, with the opening scene being a static shot over the shoulder of our main character, who is never in view. It take a while to get used to but Kiarostami’s observations soon become hypnotic. The film is essentially just that, an observation with a hint of a larger story. He enter the story after it has begun and leave before it is over. It never tells us anything, offering only oblique hints and reflective mystery. Kiarostami makes it surprisingly easy to follow when all is said and done but this will depend on the audience. Those who observe will have plenty to feed on but those who like to be fed will starve. It is often hard for a westerner to judge the acting abilities of those of a different culture who speak a different language but I suspect Rin Takanashi and Ryo Kase overacted somewhat, while Tadashi Okuno played his part perfectly. I could have honestly just watched him walking around his apartment and would have been satisfied. For all of the stunted scenes of interaction, there are plenty of beautifully reflective moments to enjoy. I loved the long drawn-out taxi journey Akiko takes at the beginning of the film, it wasn’t that important to the already thin plot but it was like icing on a cake. I would say I appreciated the film more than I enjoyed it and it isn’t a film I would ever watch again but at the same time I wish more directors would take their time in their films and reflect on everyday beauty. It also makes a valid point that we don’t need to know why certain things happen or indeed what does happen in the end. When you focus on only the important aspects of a story, a wonderfully ordinary sort of magic can make itself known and that is what Kiarostami achieves here, in what would sadly be his last film. Not a bad place to leave a fascinating career.

Jayne Mansfield's Car

Dir: Billy Bob Thornton

2012

****

Billy Bob Thornton’s 2012 drama is overlong, muddled and unfocused. The structure is very poor and it is never quite clear what the director wants to achieve. I think this is why I liked it so much. There is nothing formulaic about it and I found it rather refreshing. The script is strong, the performances from the impressive cast are great and the cinematography is beautiful. It makes quite a few observations but the film is largely extraneous, or at least it feels that way as the story is never forced. The film is set in 1969 Morrison, Alabama. The Caldwell family includes two World War II veterans – Skip (Billy Bob Thornton) and Carroll (Kevin Bacon) and their fellow brother Jimbo (Robert Patrick) who never saw combat. Their sister Donna (Katherine LaNasa) lives out of town with her loud-mouth husband Neil (Ron White) while the three brothers live with or near their father, the family’s patriarch, Jim Caldwell (Robert Duvall), who is a World War I veteran. The siblings get on but only Jimbo is close to their father and shows similarities, even though war seems to be a big part of the family’s heritage. Skip clearly suffers mental-health problems after serving in the Air Force and Carroll is a hippy anti-war protester, scared that his son is to be drafted soon into the Vietnam war. Jim, the father, is a loud and proud bigot. A phone call from England one evening brings the family together as they learn that the siblings mother – Jim’s ex-wife – has died of cancer. Her new family are flying her body over as her wishes were to be buried near her home town of which she grew up. The Bedfords are made up of Phillip (Ray Stevenson), a World War II veteran and former Prisoner of war, his sister Camilla (Frances O'Connor), and their father Kingsley (John Hurt), also a World War I veteran. Jim has been cursing the name Kingsley ever since his wife left him for him many years ago. The family meet for the first time the day before the funeral and although Carroll and Donna are welcoming, there is hostility in the air. The following day, at the funeral service, Kingsley is overcome by the heat and emotion and collapses. At this point Jim feels sympathy for him and begins to befriend him. There are many sub-plots to the story involving the different characters. The theme of war is ever-present, with the children all having anti-war feelings having been through tough times in war, while the older men feel pride and seem to be pro-war, not having been through that much in battle. The two wars are clearly very different as are the experiences of all five men. The two boys who went to war are desperate for their father’s affection but he only really gives it to the brother that didn’t go to war. The same can be said of the Bedfords, as Kingsley is ashamed of his son for surrendering under order and being held as a POW for most of the war – totally overlooking the horrific experiences he went through. Carroll, the archetype anti-war protester, is shocked and saddened, that his son signs up because he thought the war in Vietnam looks ‘rock ‘n roll’. The title of the film refers to the automobile in which movie star Jayne Mansfield was supposedly decapitated in 1967. When a nearby town has a side show displaying the vehicle, Jim Caldwell takes Kingsley Bedford along to gawk at the grisly artifact – a pay to view show that happened in real life. Indeed, the car is still in a museum for people to look at. Billy Bob Thornton isn’t trying to make sense of anything, in fact, he’s showing the viewer that no matter how you try, most things make no sense, especially people. I read in an interview with Billy Bob Thornton that he probably won’t make another film after this. The film did take a lot of criticism but I’m not sure it was on point. From what I can tell, people’s arguments that it was too slow and too long (when it really wasn’t) but they sort of liked it just suggests that maybe it should have been stretched out as a television series. Indeed, he himself said  “I don’t really make movies that are what’s popular now. There’s too much talking in them, or they’re too long; ten years ago no one said that,” he lamented. The actor/writer/director believes the era of sitting back in a dark room and watching a lavish, epic drama unfold in the cinema is now gone. “You know, you can’t make a three-and-a-half hour movie. That attention span is gone for theaters,” he added. “So what about making ‘Gone with the Wind‘ kind of movies that have intermissions and put them on television? That way, a guy like me, who always gets his ass handed to him by the critics for having a movie that’s too slow and too long…won’t be too slow and too long for television. Pee anytime you want. Make a cheeseburger, anything you want to do.” It’s incredibly sad really, a television series would have been good I’m sure but I adore films like this, they certainly have a place but, thanks to uncreative studios, audiences are becoming more and more like fidgeting children. No phone could ever give you what the cinema gives. It is amazing he made this film after the trouble he had with the studios over All The Pretty Horses. Battling with Miramax/the Weinsteins, Thornton saw his version of the movie cut to ribbons. "They saw the cast, the director, Billy Bob Thornton, and the fact that we spent $50 million, and they never released our movie - though the cut still exists,” said star Matt Damon. “Billy had a heart problem at that time, and it was because his heart fucking broke from fighting for that film. It really fucked him up. It still bothers me to this day.” Jane Mansfield’s Car is about a lot of things but at its core is Thornton seeking the approval and acceptance of older men. He admits that he dwells on his violent Irishman father, who died when he was 18 years old. "There was abuse, both verbally and physically … he was a very intense guy who I don't think I ever had a conversation with." Robert Duvall, has become  his mentor and father figure – Jayne Mansfield's Car is the fifth film they have worked together on and Thornton admitted that "Every moment I wanted him to accept me and approve of me." Like I said, it isn’t perfect but it is perfect in not being perfect and I enjoyed it very much because of it.

Populaire

Dir: Régis Roinsard

2012

****

Named after the famous Japy Populaire typewriter, Régis Roinsard’s 2012 film Populaire is stylish but quirky and balances romance, comedy and drama in a rather upbeat fashion. Set in the late 1950s, the film focuses on Rose Pamphyle (Déborah François), who lives with her widowed father and is destined to marry a son of the local mechanic. Rose travels out of town behind her father’s back and applies for a secretarial job with an insurance agency run by Louis Échard (Romain Duris). Secretarial work was the height of fashion, with every young women believing it to be the gateway to an exciting and adventurous lifestyle. Louis gives Rose the job over the other more qualified interviewees after she desperately types with extraordinary speed using only two fingers. Her first week is a bit of a disaster but Louis tells her to compete in a speed-typing competition if she wants to keep the job. While Rose makes the finals, she ultimately loses her first typing competition. Louis then begins training Rose to become the fastest typist in the world. He makes a bet with his best friend, Bob Taylor - who is married to his old sweetheart, Marie - that Rose can win the regional competition. Louis begins to train Rose at his home, but he sets strict rules to prevent others from knowing that Rose is staying in his boyhood bedroom. He begins to teach her to type with all ten fingers and Louis insists she take piano lessons (taught by Marie) to strengthen her fingers. As she struggles to learn to type with ten fingers, Louis encourages her, colour-coding the keys on her typewriter (matching them with her nail polish) and teaching her better posture. As the seasons change, she excels and Louis and Rose become close. Rose wins her second typing competition, becoming the fastest in her home region of Lower Normandy. It becomes obvious to Louis' friends that Louis and Rose are romantically interested in each other, but Louis insists that a coach mustn't distract his student. They travel together to Paris and the night before the French national competition, Louis and Rose announce their love to one another and have passionate sex. This is where the film changes, as before this scene the film feels like a lighter Coen Brothers offering but the steamy sex scene is like something out of Betty Blue. It’s visually stunning but not at all in keeping with the style or mood of the story to that point. It is where the film revels that it is more than what we first assume and it came as a pleasant surprise. Competing against the current national champion, Rose makes it to the finals, but struggles under the pressure. Before her final match, Louis tells Rose that he had been lying and that he has secretly been recording that her typing speed is regularly faster than her opponent's best record. Angered by his lie, Rose is enraged into winning. Rose is ecstatic at winning and flashes Louis a big smile from on stage. After initially being elated, Louis begins to feel inadequate for somewhat ambiguous reasons. He abandons her and their training sessions. Rose stays in Paris and becomes a French celebrity, endorsed by a major typing firm and begins using their newest typewriter. The film, which went from quaint to passionate suddenly goes full cartoonish Coen Brothers, which isn’t as terrible as it might sound. She never forgets Louis and calls him regularly, although Louis never answers the phone. Louis tries to move on, but is generally depressed and feels inadequate. Rose begins to move on and is soon in New York at the world typing competition. While Rose starts the world competition in New York, Louis struggles with his own feelings. He reaches out to Marie and asks why she chose Bob over him. She says she didn't, he chose to be second place. Louis explains that he could never give Rose the smile and happiness that she had when she won in Paris - the same smile that he saw on Marie on her wedding day to Bob. Marie says, "I was smiling because I felt loved." Louis realises he needs to overcome his own feelings of inadequacy and flies to New York to support Rose in the international typing competition. He arrives just before the second round of the finals ends. As the judges announce the results, Rose is behind and struggling. She runs back stage to fetch her old typewriter that her father had sent her in the post as a sign of support, and Louis confronts her and professes his love. They kiss as the international contestants surround them and in tern say ‘I love you’ in each of their languages. Rose goes on stage for the last round - seemingly energised by love. She races ahead in the final match. About half way in, her typewriter jams. She is too fast for the typewriter. She quickly recovers and races ahead again, winning the competition to be the World's Fastest Typist. Louis walks on stage and kisses her, ending the film on the two holding hands and the audience cheering. We then see that Louis goes on to great success with a new kind of typewriter that can keep up with typists of Rose’s speed. Déborah François is delectable as Rose and Romain Duris is impressive in a role that is unlike anything he’d done in his career before. The film looks glorious with wonderful set-pieces and amazing costumes but it is never over-done. It is a film you could see the Coen Brothers make but probably wouldn’t have the same charm. It is impressive how Roinsard switches from romance to comedy to drama so precisely. The switching themes keeps the film fresh and on its toes, elements are perhaps predictable but overall it took me by pleasant surprise. It is so lazy to compare the film with Amelie – which is exactly what every non-French film critic does with every French female-lead romantic movie. It’s its own movie, an individual quirk that is dripping with style and is full of charm.

Swimmer
Dir: Lynne Ramsay
2012
****

The year after Lynne Ramsay directed the critically acclaimed We Need To Talk About Kevin, she was co-commissioned by BBC Films, Film4 and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. It was one of four unique short film co-commissions for the event and it ended up being nominated for the British Independent Film Awards in the category for Best Short Film. It won a BAFTA Award for Best Short Film at the 66th British Academy Film Awards in 2013. It is unlike any of her previous features or short films and maybe closer to the music video she made for the band Doves called Black and White Town. While the visuals of the film were more in keeping with the rest of Doves album artwork, Lynne Ramsay’s video was very much focused on people and behaviour. All her work is focused on people and behaviour to some degree but the difference here was the silence (apart from the music of course). Swimmer is filmed in glorious contrasting black and white and is without script. Audio is heard but it is all from archived recordings. The Swimmer (Tom Litten) is literally swimming and also ‘swimming’ through his thoughts and memories. It’s a personal journey that I believe reflects the personal journeys those competing at the Olympic and Paralympic Games were going through but also the journey it took for the games to be held in London. I interpret with confirmation as little is written about the film. There is a fantasy element to the film also which is interesting (and a little confusing) and, once again, I would hazard a guess that this reflects on the fact that competing in the games may feel as a fantasy to many. I think Ramsay is expressing the importance of dreams when it comes to fulfilling ambition. The rough and the smooth make us who we are and mold our character, the swimmer in the film is reliving the moments, dreams and memories that got him where he is and that keep him going forward. He is at times submerged but he always manages to swim on, eventually propelling forward at speed in calm waters. It’s incredibly symbolic. I believe it is as much for the Olympians as it is reflective of Ramsay’s own feelings. I might be completely wrong on all counts but it is a beautiful and thought-provoking short that deserved the praise it received. It’s a rather expressionist piece compared to her previous short films but it is every bit as brilliant – just with a fancier camera.

Hope Springs

Dir: David Frankel

2012

***

I had very little enthusiasm for a David Frankel film that dealt with middle-age marriage guidance counselling but I watched because I love Meryl Streep, Steve Carell and Tommy Lee Jones - who I was intrigued to see in what I thought was a run of the mill light-hearted comedy romance. I was pleasantly surprised. Early clichés came thick and fast and I thought to myself 'Streep, what are you doing' but persevered, but soon I was wondering to myself 'Jones, what have you done', until a rather surprising turn of events calmed me down somewhat and I began to actually enjoy it. The first chunk of the film actually feeds the audiences unexpectedness, the clichés are intentional so the viewer is thrown off course and it is quite effective. Neither Meryl Streep nor Tommy Lee Jones break character even though they change dramatically, which is quite profound really and says a lot for their acting abilities and the film's script. There are one or two scenes that I think were thrown in for laughs that just didn't work and I'm pretty sure no one wants to see Meryl Streep giving oral sex, not now not ever, but it's doesn't quite get as bad as it could have. Steve Carell's casting is somewhat peculiar, he's very convincing as a marriage guidance counsellor but you kind of expect something else from him, given the comedy that he's famous for. The film is one big trick and a slight of hand but it's forgivable because a. It's nowhere near as bad as most of David Frankel's films and b. there is a really tender, believable and heart-warming love story going on. Streep is around 64 here and Jones was approximately 67 and both kiss passionately on screen. Call me an old romantic but I loved that, seeing an older couple kissing on screen isn't something you see ever, and for me that is real romance. I now it's Meryl Streep and I know it's Tommy Lee Jones but I was still totally convinced by their 40+ year relationship and I found the exploration of their marriage to be quite sad but very uplifting at the same time. The project was first announced back in 2010 and Jeff Bridges was in talks as the male lead. I can't see that working now I've seen Tommy Lee Jones in the role, after Bridges left James Gandolfini and Philip Seymour Hoffman were attached - which would have been great but a very different film, especially as Mike Nichols was the original director. I'm not sure it would have been the best swansong for either film maker but it turned out just fine.

Chasing Mavericks

Dir: Curtis Hanson, Michael Apted

2012

**

Chasing Mavericks is a biopic of a celebrated surfer called Jay Moriarity, who I'm afraid I knew nothing about before watching. After a little further research, I believe Moriarity's story to be rather touching, compelling and something to aspire to, you just wouldn't think it after watching the 2012 film of his life. The production had some issues, the original director Curtis Hanson feel ill within a few days of shooting after having heart surgery a few months before filming began, Michael Apted took over but it would be the last film Hanson would ever work on. Both directors were well suited to a film such as this but the film is unquestionably disjointed due to a conflict of direction styles. It must have been quite tough on the cast and crew also, especially on such a gruelling shoot. That said, Chasing Mavericks still looks amazing, the surf footage being as good as any I've seen in similarly themed movies, the real problem for me was the acting. Jay and his mentor Frosty Hesson were said to have been close but I never felt that watching actors Jonny Weston and Gerard Butler interact. The chemistry between the two just isn't there and it is a huge distraction. I have no idea what the story behind Jay's personal life was like but the bullying story-line was poorly handled and the romance between he and his childhood sweet-heart Kim (who he married in real life) was terribly unconvincing. Elisabeth Shue was cast as Jay's mother, she's an amazing actor, one of my favourites, but she was given absolutely nothing to do and barely ten lines in the whole film. Certain aspects of Jay's life were touched upon but never really explored, even though it was made clear that they were important in his development. Absolutely nothing about the film felt believable or true, I don't think Jonny Weston did a particularly great job in portraying Jay and Gerard Butler seemed somewhat uninspired for the duration of the story. The less said about his awful accent the better. The film is largely underwhelming, with only the final surf scene being suitably impressive. That said, it was the boats going over the maverick waves that was more exciting than the surfers themselves. Another thing that annoyed me was an early scene set in 1994 (the first scene said it was 1987, the scene in question said seven years later, making it 1994) where Jay is working in a Pizza restaurant. Everything appears like it is 1994 until 1997's Brimful of Asha comes on the radio. It is an unimportant mistake but you do have to wonder what other detail they might have got wrong. It's a pet hate of mine. It is a generally forgettable film and something of a poor tribute to a guy who has clearly been an inspiration to many.

Passion

Dir: Brian De Palma

2012

*

I love Brian De Palma, I really do, but at this point in time it had been almost twenty years since he'd directed a truly great film (Carlito's Way), although I still enjoyed the rather silly Snake Eyes and Mission to Mars. It had been nearly six years since his last film and the synopsis of Passion really did sound like he was going back to doing what he did best. Unfortunately, this film feels like it was made by someone who had the intention of parodying a Brian De Palma thriller, rather than looking like the real deal. My goodness it's awful. Every scene, no matter where it was set, was lit with striped shadows, as if sunlight was constantly coming through open blinds, like that's enough for it to have been a noir thriller. It really is a case of Fisher Price attempting Giallo and even though the hard-core De Palma fan declared it was something only his truest of fans would understand, I think even the rosiest of rose-tinted glasses can't overlook just how amateur the whole thing is. Unless of course I have misunderstood films of his such as Dressed to Kill and Body Double as being cheesy tongue-in-cheek sex comedies? I am well aware, I think, of De Palma's uniquely abstract and oblique shifts in tone that made him so popular in the first place but this is an older director failing to match his previous work, I know how cruel that sounds, and I do love De Palma, but I'm afraid it's the truth. 2006's The Black Dahlia had De Palma written all over it but even then, he limped out a just below average noir-thriller that was all looks and no substance. He has a cult following, I get why people like him, I like him, but there is nothing of merit to this film, not aesthetically, not in performance and certainly not in script. Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace are good actors but you wouldn't know it from their performances here but then they don't have much to work with. I realize the film is an adaptation/remake of Alain Corneau's 2010 French thriller Love Crime but I can't help but think something has been lost in translation and the different ending certainly isn't an improvement, in that it makes no sense at all. It's contrived, ridiculous, unconvincing, dated, laughable and god-awful in every way possible. It's like a Mills & Boon romantic thriller brought to life but a million times worse than it sounds.

Nativity! 2: Danger in the Manger

Dir: Debbie Isitt

2012

**

I wasn't a huge fan of Debbie Isitt's 2009 comedy Nativity! to say the least, so I've shocked myself by sitting down to watch her 2012 sequel but I’m pleased and shocked to report that it is slightly better than awful and marginally better than the first. Once again quality writing is absent (as is Martin Freeman who is replaced by David Tennant who like Freeman, should have known better), it's really not funny, the editing is of a shockingly poor quality and Marc Wootten remains the most annoying (and unfunny) man on the planet. The film is largely ad libbed by people who aren't very good at ad libbing, breaking the golden rule of ad libbing that is 'If you're going to ad lib, make sure you are not just good but brilliant at it'. The story is absurd but is silly enough to rise a smile now and again. Everything I hated about the first film is in this film, so why have I given it two stars rather than just one? Simple. The kids make it good. I think the kids were also given full rein to ad lib. While I'm sure plenty of footage didn't make the final cut (or did it?) the scenes that Isitt did leave in are a little bit irresistible. The kids are all pretty cute already but watching them audition for a song contests, giving them full freedom to change lyrics and dance about is rather lovely. Indeed, my favourite scene was actually one of the outtakes shown during the end credits whereby a little girl sings 'Jingle Bells Batman Smells, Robin ran away.....Santa got stuck in the chimney and....erm, his willy fell off'. That's comedy gold, unscripted, innocent and hilarious. Christmas films are usually awful affairs with Kids doing and saying all the sort of things kids never do or never say. It's quite refreshing seeing kids being kids and being all ordinary. Maybe from now on, get rid of Marc Wootten all just show the kids, or even better, get the kids to direct, write, edit and make the damn movie. Watch it for the sweet and funny kids, just try your best to ignore the stupid adults attempting (and failing miserably) to be funny.

100 Bloody Acres

Dir: Cameron Cairnes, Colin Cairnes

2012

*

The Brothers' Cairnes bring very little to abduction-horror genre, other than another missed opportunity. The film begins with three young persons hitch-hiking their way to a music festival in the south Australian countryside. All three are immediately irritating and each fit into an overused character trait. They are picked up by Reg, who along with his brother Lindsay, own a small blood and bone fertilizer business. No points in guessing where the story goes from there. The sub-genre, particularly in Australia, has been covered time and again and has been done much better. The film is advertised as both a comedy and a horror, which I'm afraid is woefully inaccurate. The few gory scenes aside, it is barely a horror, certainly not the great horror film I think it could have been. It doesn't come close to being funny, so it's certainly not a comedy. The script is what really lets the film down. There aren't any great performances either but I believe at least a couple of the cast members could have done more, had their lines and characters been written a little better. Lindsay, the film's main bad guy, falls very short of what the viewer is led to expect from him. The story could have gone any number of different ways, it was quite astonishing - especially for an independent film with a clearly higher than average budget - when it plodded along the exact route you thought, but hoped it wouldn't go down. If they wanted to do comedy they should have gone full Coen Brothers (maybe they thought they were) or they should have cut the attempts at humour and gone full creepy horror. Either one would have far better than what they ended up with. I honestly can't think of any redeeming feature this film has, other than all the characters I disliked died. Australian horror is much better than this.