Monika’s Pensieve

Saw My Name is Khan on Monday and I seem to be having a Shahrukh relapse ;-P But hey, it’s been a while, so I’m kind of glad - I was starting to miss my Shahrukh fixation ;)

So anyway, something I had meant to post ages ago was the Jonathan Ross interview, which he did in February. So here’s part one, part two and an extra segment with a very strange exercise machine.
The interview itself is quite weird. I’d always wondered how SRK would do on a big Western talk show. Jonathan Ross seemed a little intimidated and unsure of what kind of questions and jokes were appropriate (he honestly shouldn’t have worried - Shahrukh’s sense of humour is notorious with good reason, that one show was all it took to cause a large controversy in the British media ;-P). I thought the set of questions that Ross asked was excellent though - great for a Western audience I think. SRK looked a bit stressed out over the whole Shiv Sena issue. But they both kind of eased into the interview towards the end :)

I also came across an excellent and very casual interview with SRK & Kajol, conducted in a New York taxi. Check this bit out:

Shah Rukh Khan & Kajol in the Backseat: My Name Is Khan
Shah Rukh Khan

If you like it then check out the whole thing *grin*

There’s also a good CNN interview with SRK in his slightly more serious mode (part one & part two). He was asked a lot about Islam and his New York detention in this one.

I also came across an interview from August 2009 (part one & part two), which is particularly interesting in the second half because he talks at great length about his reasons for not doing Slumdog Millionaire as well as why he doesn’t kiss in movies. Have never heard him talk so much about those two things and have always been curious about them ;-P

{FILM DIARY}

The Ghost Writer (France/Germany/UK, 2010)

Seen: Monday, 1st March 2010 (cinema)
Runtime: 128′
Director: Roman Polański
Cast: Ewan McGregor, Kim Cattrall, Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Williams, Tom Wilkinson
Production House: RP Films, France 2 Cinéma, Elfte Babelsberg Film, Runteam, Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg
Plot: (from imdb)

A ghostwriter hired to complete the memoirs of a former British prime minister uncovers secrets that put his own life in jeopardy.

Trailer

Rating: +1 (Liked it)

Impressions In Short
IMO the best thing about this film is the sarcasm. Well that and Ewan McGregor (who delivers most of the sarcasm ;)). I got a lot of laughs out of it and for once most of the cinema seemed to get the joke too *grin*

More About the Film
In some ways it’s a slightly dated film. The way it’s narrated, shot and put together has a very classic sort of feel. It’s different to how today’s films are made. And even the way modern technology was used in it… While google, mobile phones and GPS systems play quite a big part in the film, I felt the treatment of today’s technology was somehow different - less natural than in most films one watches nowadays.
But aside from that, it’s beautifully made with a lot of attention to detail.
When it comes to acting, I always feel that Polański style suits some actors perfectly, but not others. Ewan McGregor is clearly one of those who thrive under his direction. It’s a great performance and he’s a large part of why the film works so well. There’s a warmth about him which pulls you in and keeps you involved in what happens to his character. On the other hand, for those who completely don’t get Ewan’s charm, this film might be tough going - if you’re not involved in what happens to the main protagonist then the whole thriller aspect of the film goes out of the window.
In a way this film is Polański’s personal vendetta against the US. While I’m not usually into conspiracy theories, I’m actually wondering whether Polański’s recent house arrest is in any way connected to the film. It really does criticize US policy very sharply.
There’s a scene in Ghost Writer in which the ex-prime minister is advised to stay within the USA because the USA has not ratified the Rome Statute and therefore as long as he stays within its borders he cannot by prosecuted for war crimes by the International Crime Court. The ex-prime minister then asks what other countries have not ratified the statute. The lawyers start listing them with obvious consternation - North Korea, Sudan, Iraq, China… *grin* The scene got quite a loud snort of laughter from the audience. It was one of many sarcastic jabs at the US.

Recommended?
Yes, I think. In particular it’s a great film for Ewan McGregor fans.
However, if you’re not into sarcasm and don’t like Ewan McGregor then a lot of the film’s appeal will probably be lost on you. Obviously, political preferences may come into play too - if you’re not comfortable with criticism of US (and British) policies then you’re unlikely to enjoy it.

I’m attempting to put the rating system into practice… We’ll see how that goes :) It’s a little difficult when I’m applying it so far back (I’m still about 2 months behind with my reviews *blush*).

{FILM DIARY}

Tan Lines (Australia, 2006)

Seen: Thursday, 25th February 2010 (cinema, LGBT retrospective)
Runtime: 96′
Director: Ed Aldridge
Cast: Jack Baxter, Jed Clarke, Daniel O’Leary, Lucy Minter
Plot: Midget Hollows is a teenager living in a small Australian town. One summer a romance starts between him and his best friend’s older brother. Midget’s sexual awakening begins.

Scene From the Film

Rating: +1 (Liked it)

Impressions In Short
Best dialogue ever :)

More About the Film
It’s a very small, independent kind of film and clearly a lot of the people working on it were amateurs (as we were warned by the man making the film’s introduction ;)). But I felt there was something very genuine about it and also it’s downright hilarious if you share my sense of humour ;-P (as usual not everyone in the cinema did ;-P But my mum speculated that it may have been because the subtitles were poor).
The best part of it, however, was the dialogue. Seriously, this is probably my favourite dialogue ever. It hit total levels of absurdity and yet felt quite realistic at the same time. I loved it.

Recommended?
Yes. It’s not a film for everybody - it’s clearly very low budget and all of that. But anyone who is not easily put off by that and has my sense of humour will probably enjoy it.

I want to introduce a film rating system on my blog at some point in the future and was hoping for input :) I struggle with conventional film rating systems - they seem a bit meaningless. Rating a film out of 10 or 5 just doesn’t tell you all that much about what is meant by the mark.

For starters, there’s the question of whether you’re rating the film or your enjoyment of it. Most of the time I suppose this doesn’t make that big a difference (although I have come across people who will for example rate commercial films a bit lower than art films regardless of the enjoyment factor). But sometimes, for me at least, not having a clear division between one and the other makes a film very difficult to rate.
For example in my case there’s Hunger. It’s a film I found very frustrating and I didn’t enjoy it on any level really. But if you ask me if it’s good or bad I’ll say good. I totally get why it turned so many heads. It’s just that, personally, I had no enjoyment whatsoever in watching it and I sincerely hope never to watch it again ;-P Rating it on a conventional rating system would be very difficult for me without establishing if I’m rating the enjoyment factor or the “how good the film is” factor.

I’ve also seen attempts at more detailed rating systems. For example filmaster.com lets users rate not just the film as a whole, but it also allows separate marks for direction, screenplay, acting, special effects, editing, music, cinematography and innovativeness. I find such detailed marks tough to apply too though.
I mean there’s the obvious problem - if you’re watching an art film then you’re unlikely to have any special effects to rate and if you’re watching a documentary then you’re not going to rate the acting in it. But there’s also questions like what is good cinematography or good editing? People tend to give high ratings to stuff that’s flashy. But what if there’s a film which would feel fake if it didn’t have natural lighting and hand-held camera? Does that mean the cinematography in it should be rated lower even though it worked very well in the film? How do you compare it with beautifully lighted tracking shots in another film?

So with all this in mind I’m trying to design an easy to use and clear film rating system ;-P I’m doing it primarily for myself at this point, but I’d prefer it if other people found it easy to use and understand as well, which is why I’d like input :) In the future I might want to introduce a feature where my readers can rate a film (so that I can compare my rating to that of my readers) and/or I might want to use this rating system on a different site all together.

Because of all that I’ve mentioned, I think the only way to keep it simple is if the system deals specifically with the enjoyment factor. I don’t think anyone can objectively rate how good a film is by giving it a number anyway.
So far I’ve come up with six marks:

How do you feel about these marks? Are they clear? Would you find them easy to use yourself or have I personalized them too much?

Apparently, it was copyright’s 300th birthday 10 days ago! I thought this was a pretty cool article about the history of copyright and how different its original intentions were.
Also, there’s been an interesting development in the fight against piracy recently. The US government has admitted that most piracy studies are complete nonsense. More about this here.

I discovered by accident that Kellan Lutz (Emmett in Twilight) is a rather amusing interviewee. Plus he has a very cool surname (for those who don’t know, a lutz is one of the jumps in figure skating :)). So in celebration of that, here’s Kellan Lutz on Ellen (he does some amazing push-ups ;)), but I think he’s even better on the Jimmy Kimmel show (part one, part two).

This is quite simply one of the most hilarious interviews ever ;) I don’t even want to say anything for fear of spoiling the joke ;)

It’s been almost a year since I spotted Cherrybomb and yet only now is it getting a release date in the UK. Still practically no news whatsoever about release dates elsewhere in the world.
On the positive side, a UK release date means a little bit of publicity, so at least there’s that ;-P

Clips
There’s a new theatrical trailer, which IMO is looking better than the previous one.
Then there’s a new scene released. It should appeal to Rupert Grint fans as he’s looking really sweet in it :)

Interviews
I came across some really funny clips from the press junket with Rupert Grint and Robert Sheehan. You can check them out here, here and here.
Edited to Add: Three more clips from the same press junket - here, here (Robert Sheehan has got the top reason to see Cherrybomb spot on lol) and here.

{FILM DIARY}

Savage Grace (Spain/USA/France, 2007)

Seen: Thursday, 25th February 2010 (cinema)
Runtime: 97′
Director: Tom Kalin
Cast: Julianne Moore, Stephen Dillane, Eddie Redmayne
Production House: 120dB Films
Plot: (from imdb)

The true story of the beautiful and charismatic Barbara Daly, who married above her class to Brooks Baekeland, heir to the Bakelite plastics fortune. Their only child is a failure in his father’s eyes, and as he matures and becomes increasingly close to his lonely mother, the seeds for tragedy are sown.

Trailer

Impressions In Short
It was amusing enough. I enjoyed it mainly for some of the laughs and awkwardness (my weird sense of humour again, though actually me and Kin were not the only people laughing this time round ;)).

More About the Film
Julianne Moore put in a very good performance and I suppose it’s that and my stupid sense of humour that made this film quite enjoyable. On the whole though, I found it a bit chaotic and generic.
I’m surprised people over on filmweb were so shocked and disgusted with this. Yes, it features incest, but that’s about it. I don’t get why portraying incest in a film is so shocking in this day and age. In terms of the actual sex scenes it was mild - all of them were quite tastefully shot. They were pretty short and mainly done in close-up. If the director had wanted to shock then he could have gone way further.

Recommended?
If you enjoy art house films with weird sexual themes then this might be worth a look. Julianne Moore fans will probably enjoy her in this. Other than that I suppose you can give this film a miss.

{FILM DIARY}

Amelia (USA/Canada, 2009)

Seen: Tuesday, 23rd February 2010 (cinema)
Runtime: 111′
Director: Mira Nair
Cast: Hilary Swank, Richard Gere, Ewan McGregor, Christopher Eccleston
Production House: Fox Searchlight Pictures, Avalon Pictures
Plot: (from imdb)

A look at the life of legendary American pilot Amelia Earhart, who disappeared while flying over the Pacific Ocean in 1937 in an attempt to make a flight around the world.

Trailer

Impressions In Short
It’s a great story and it’s worth watching for that. I don’t think the film is as good as the story though.

More About the Film
Mira Nair usually takes a very classic kind of approach to filmmaking and this film is no exception. I suppose that’s why “as a film” it does not appeal to me that much. I like when films have some stylistic quirks. The kind of shots and narration she uses are very classic and obvious.
But to me the film also has another major weakness. The central character of the story is of course Amelia, but there are three men in her life that influence the story quite a bit and two of those three male characters just didn’t work in the film. To really flesh out the character of Amelia, you have to show what a total weirdo she was in the context of that world and reality. Hilary Swank did an awesome job, but when it came to her scenes with Richard Gere and Ewan McGregor, it just didn’t work. I totally didn’t grasp Amelia’s relationships with George and Gene.
How did she fall in love with George? The way it’s written, it’s very abrupt and sudden. All of a sudden he hits on her and she immediately responds. There’s no build-up. What was the attraction between them? I suppose George must have been a very modern-thinking man to have wanted to marry a woman like Amelia. And yet I don’t get how he fitted into that whole world and reality. Was he a weirdo who saw women differently than other men did? Or was it just Amelia? How difficult was she to adjust to? There are few answers to this in the script and even fewer in Richard Gere’s performance.
The attraction between Amelia and Gene is even vaguer to me. Just like with George it happens rather out of the blue in the script. And neither the script nor McGregor’s performance offers up any answers.
I felt that Gere and McGregor were basically expressing their own value system in their performances. Obviously, the fact that they’re interested in a project like this shows that they find crazy women like Amelia very interesting and value that sort of independence in a woman. But should those values translate so directly into their performances as George and Gene? What Amelia did in the context of that reality was much, much weirder than it is in the context of today and I just felt that adjustment wasn’t there in their performances.
In a way it was Christopher Eccleston, who saved the film for me. It was he (and not Hilary Swank - even though she was great), who made the character of Amelia come alive for me. He doesn’t appear until very late in the film, but he totally changed the tone of it. You can feel precisely on what levels Frank and Amelia connect and communicate. Theirs is not a romantic relationship - perhaps that’s part of what made a difference. I loved the way he reacts to her. Some of the repartee between them is awesome. You can immediately see which parts of her are difficult to accept and why he accepts them anyway. In a way they are both outsiders whose skills can be discredited. Hers because she’s a woman and his because he’s an alcoholic. But despite some initial uneasiness, they both see past that and they relate to each other on a very practical and professional level. There’s a nice build-up to their relationship as well. Their final scenes together are amazing. Near the end we get a scene where Frank finally does get drunk and the conversation between them (he hits on her) is quite something. That’s like the only time when a guy hits on her in the film and I understand exactly what he’s hoping to get out of it ;) And then the final scenes on the plane are completely nerve-wracking. I don’t think they would have worked so well without Christopher Eccleston. It wasn’t until Christopher Eccleston appeared in the film that I got a full sense of how dangerous what Amelia was trying to do actually was.
On a final note, something that really appealed to me about the story was how it showed that women have big dreams in the same way that men have them. There have always been women who have not been cut out to be house wives. Amelia is very conscious of this and has no insecurities about it. There’s a great scene between Amelia and George where she states the conditions on which she’s willing to enter the marriage. She’s basically explaining how important independence is to her and how just settling down into a conventional marriage would totally kill her. I think that to this day women have problems explaining things so bluntly and plainly. We all have different aspirations and different comfort zones. For every woman who is comfortable entering a conventional sort of marriage, there is a woman who is not. It would be so much easier if women were secure enough to be able to explain their boundaries.

Recommended?
Yes for the story which is amazing (especially if you like films which have a very strong and central female character), yes for Hilary Swank and definitely yes for Christopher Eccleston (they both give absolutely top notch performances). But if none of these hold any appeal for you then it might not be your kind of movie.