‘What is it?’ Harry asked shakily. ‘This? It is called a Pensieve,’ said Dumbledore. ‘I sometimes find, and I am sure you know the feeling, that I simply have too many thoughts and memories crammed into my mind.’ ‘Er,’ said Harry, who couldn’t truthfully say that he had ever felt anything of the sort.
I’ve got 4 days worth of film reviews from the ENH film festival in Wroclaw, but judging by the length of time it took me to write this one it’s going to be a while before I put them up *sigh*
Impressions In Short
Beautiful cinematography, almost no dialogue and hardly any action. Not my cup of tea really.
More About the Film
I think the main selling point of the film is the cinematography. It really is very beautiful. And the film has quite an effective and spooky soundtrack to compliment the visuals.
The acting is strong as well and the performers have extremely striking (and very Scandinavian *grin*) faces.
But on the whole I felt the film was rather blah. I didn’t get involved enough in it and I found the characters relatively uninteresting.
Recommended?
If you’re into this sort of thing (long and beautiful shots, a lot of landscapes, not much action or dialogue) then probably yes. Otherwise no, not really.
Video
A lot of Maddin’s shorts are on youtube. So for your viewing pleasure I’ve chosen two ;) You can see Sissy-Boy-Slap-Party (1995) here and The Heart of the World (2000) is available here. You can actually see how his style evolved in those 5 years between the two films I think :)
Impressions In Short
As a screening this didn’t work so well. Watching so many of Guy Maddin’s shorts one after the other is rather tiring. I mean I totally love Guy Maddin, but he can be a bit exhausting and these shorts were not made with the intention to be watched one after the other like that…
More About the Films
Generally speaking, if you’re familiar with Guy Maddin you’ll probably have a good idea of what his short films might be like. And if you’re not familiar with him then you’re losing out ;-P
Guy Maddin is one of a kind, I actually think it weird that he’s not a better known name. I mean you just won’t see that kind of thing done by anybody else (which of course doesn’t mean you’ll like it ;) but having said that, he is rather popular at the ENH film festival every year - I think it’s why they finally did a full retrospective this year).
Anyway, for those who aren’t familiar with him, he takes very heavily from silent films, especially the German Expressionist era (which is probably why he resonates so strongly with me - it’s my favourite part of silent cinema :) Though I guess his absurd sense of humour helps too). Gradually he started taking it a bit further with the editing. He basically developed his own totally unique editing style which I’ve never seen replicated by anybody else. You can see him talking about it here. Naturally, his editing is not everyone’s cup of tea (if you’re going to be put off him then that’s the most likely reason). Some people find it too fast and difficult to follow. Oddly enough, as much as I don’t like choppy editing (I was complaining about it in the latest Harry Potter film, was I not? ;) ), Maddin’s editing I like. It just kind of makes sense to do it that way. I mean I wouldn’t like all films to go that route ;) But for his films it works IMO.
Recommended?
I’d dissuade people from watching so many of his shorts in one go :] And I think for people who have not seen Maddin before it would be better to try one of his feature length films. For people like me, who are already sold on Maddin, I think his shorts are definitely worth a look :)
Impressions In Short
It’s an original way of looking at the differences between the underdeveloped world, the developing world and the developed world.
More About the Film
The film starts out in Burkina Faso. Brick-making there is a community thing and the skills required for it are null (I could help out with the brick-making myself and would be no worse than anybody else doing it). The whole community in the village seems involved in the work, including children and everyone just looks happy. It’s a very positive atmosphere. Bricks are made on site and the walls of the new building are put up within a few days.
Next up comes India. Here the work is more complex. Machines and tools are used, workers are skilled. The whole process is adjusted for maximum speed. Everyone is concentrated on what they’re doing and not much social interaction seems to take place.
Finally, we end up in Europe (the plants that were filmed were in Germany, Austria and Switzerland). Unlike India, where the plants seem to operate more or less the same way since the 1930s and 40s, the European plants are all very new, having started production in the 2000s or so. People have been almost completely eliminated from the process - everything is mechanised. Only quality-checking requires any people to be around.
The film may not be very thrilling, but it’s a much more interesting way of comparing life in different parts of the world than it seems when you first hear of it. It was also rather refreshing to be left to observe and interpret what’s on screen for myself. I rarely see documentaries that leave quite that much in the hands of the viewer. They’re usually trying to put some kind of point of view across.
Recommended?
Er… possibly. For most people I think this film would probably be too slow and observational to really keep their attention. But I think some would enjoy it.
A young Englishman marries a glamorous American. When he brings her home to meet the parents, she arrives like a blast from the future - blowing their entrenched British stuffiness out the window.
Trailer
The sceptical part of me thinks that…
…it looks like a really blah and average kind of movie.
The excited part of me thinks that…
…well… it does have Colin Firth in it *grin* And the rest of the cast is relatively enticing too…
…except that I haven’t posted the gazillions of publicity clips that appeared in the last month or so ;-P I won’t post all of them (far too many), so it’s more of a selection of what I thought were the best ones.
The Crazy Japanese Fan
If you only pick one clip to watch in this post then go for this one *grin* It’s Rupert Grint meeting a very, very crazy Japanese fan. It’s one of the most hilarious “interviews” I’ve ever seen (”can I touch your eyelashes?”). The same fan goes on to “interview” Daniel Radcliffe as well and it gets just as crazy, but the Radcliffe clip doesn’t have any subs, so at times it’s a bit more difficult to make out. She also met up with Emma Watson, but the meeting was no where near as weird ;) (see it here if you want, but it really looks pretty ordinary in comparison)
While we’re on the topic of Japanese Potter fans, I’ve got a small digression to make - this is a really hilarious clip of Daniel Radcliffe promoting the Order of the Phoenix film in Japan (this was in 2007 or so).
The Big Talk Shows I already posted Emma Watson’s appearance on the Jonathan Ross show - it was a really good interview. She’s generally been delivering very well during the publicity this year. I mean she never was bad at it, but this year she’s really stepped up.
I really recommend her appearance on the Letterman show this year. It was total revenge for how nasty Letterman was to her last year ;) She totally cracked me up with that comment on her “wardrobe malfunction photo”. Daniel Radcliffe did Letterman soon after her and was in his element as usual *grin*
The whole Trio did Regis and Kelly, but personally I’m not that big a fan of how Regis and Kelly conduct their interviews. So I’d only recommend the Daniel Radcliffe one and mainly because of the comments on liking older women and on getting injured - I thought those two were hilarious.
Last, but definitely not least, Rove came to the Harry Potter set to do some interviews. He’s got a real rapport going with Daniel Radcliffe. It’s a lot of fun to see them teasing each other. But I think even more amazingly he got a really good interview out of Rupert Grint *grin*
The Other Stuff
Fans are often the best interviewers, which is why I really recommend the set report done by The Leaky Cauldron :) They got really stuff out of all of the stars. Jessie Cave is hilarious and has done very few interviews besides that, so that one’s really worth checking out. But they also interviewed the Trio, Tom Felton, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright and Mathew Lewis. There’s a link to one with David Yates too, but it’s broken and I haven’t found that one anywhere…
There’s been quite a few interviews with Tom Felton around, but as much as I’m excited to see them (he’s not been featured prominently in Harry Potter publicity before, so I’ve been watching those quite keenly), I’m going to restrain myself as far as linking to them goes… I know this post doesn’t look as if I’m being choosy, but I am - honest! The amount of publicity they did for the film is really overwhelming…
Anyway, my fave Tom Felton one is the one he did for Absolute Radio - very laid back in that. The one that is so weird that it’s sort of worth recommending is the Peter Travers one I think.
And going back to the Trio, MTV did a really fun interview with Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, clips of which you can see here.
And there’s a GMTV interview with Emma Watson and Rupert Grint floating around, which I thought was one of very few interviews in which Rupert turned out well (I think Emma helped a lot in directing him to say the right things lol), so I thought it was worth a mention ;)
As I enjoy video and audio interviews much more, the only magazine interview that I’m going to link to is the one with Daniel Radcliffe for Attitude Magazine. And that’s partly because it amuses me to see Harry Potter being interviewed by a gay magazine and partly because, being a gay magazine, he gets asked questions he usually doesn’t (quite political ones actually).
As Harry Potter begins his 6th year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, he discovers an old book marked mysteriously “This book is the property of the Half-Blood Prince” and begins to learn more about Lord Voldemort’s dark past.
Featurette
Here’s a short clip from a longer featurette (it deals with Draco):
If you want more clips then just see any of my many posts on the subject ;) (there’ll be more coming - there have been loads of other cool clips, interviews and so on released, so hopefully I’ll post them at some point).
Impressions In Short Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban remains by far my favourite of the Harry Potter films, but this one was very enjoyable. It’s fun seeing the young cast maturing as actors and it really makes a huge difference to the films.
Nonetheless, there were plenty of things that annoyed me ;-P
Oh and btw, if you hear that this one is darker than the other Potter films, disregard it - it’s bollocks ;-P It was true when they said it about the 3rd, 4th and 5th film ;) But it is not when they say it about the 6th. When they say this one is funnier than any of the others you can believe them though ;)
The Cast and Characters This section contains spoilers. So if you haven’t already watched the film or read the book, continue only if you don’t care about being spoiled.
I don’t think anybody will be surprised to hear that my favourite part of the movie was Draco ;) The only bit I didn’t like were the shots of Draco crying full on (when it was more restrained it was fine).
Judging by this clip it sounds like the director was pushing Tom Felton to exaggerate more. If Felton’s natural instinct was to play it down then it’s a shame he wasn’t allowed to do that :] But to be honest, there’s not one crying scene in the film that I liked (Emma Watson’s was probably the best one, but I didn’t like hers or Radcliffe’s much either).
Other than that Tom Felton was absolutely top notch - even better than I imagined, which is awesome cause I had pretty high expectations of him *grin* The scene that is haunting me the most is the conversation between Draco and Snape. It’s the only scene in the film when Draco articulates the need to prove himself so directly (”it’s my moment and you’re not going to take it away from me”) and it’s… well it’s just a really intense moment ;) But that is generally true for his whole performance. He kept picking out some really strong feelings out of lines I wouldn’t have found those feelings in ;) I mean like there’s the scene where he tramples Harry and as he leaves he says “that’s for my father” (Harry is the reason Malfoy’s father is now in prison). I probably hear those kind of lines in half of the Hollywood big budget productions I watch :] It’s the classic “revenge line”. But the delivery had no corniness about it whatsoever and it had so much feeling behind it - you can really feel how humiliating and painful having his father in prison must be for Draco.
Snape on the other hand was a big let down in many ways :] I love Alan Rickman and love the casting of him as Snape (well except that he’s too old for it now, he still looked about right 10 years ago when they started out with the films), but IMO he was barely passable in this. Most of the time he seemed to be using cheap tricks like slowing down the delivery of his lines to sound effective and just generally trying to look physically menacing (which he does so much in various films that he doesn’t need to put much effort into that either). Then again, he didn’t have that much to work with. I fail to understand how they could have given him so little character development and screen time in this. I mean Snape is the Half-Blood Prince - he’s in the bloody title!
I understand there’s too much source material to squeeze all of it into the film and I know I’m a bit biased because Snape is my favourite character in the books, but the stuff they left out was key to Harry’s journey. In the 6th book Harry spends his time hating Snape’s guts more than ever before. By the end of it Harry hates Snape as much as he hates Voldemort if not more. In Harry’s head the deaths of Sirius, Harry’s parents and Dumbledore are all the result of Snape’s actions.
If they really couldn’t squeeze in the scene with Trelawney (when Harry finds out it was Snape who told Voldemort about the prophecy, thereby putting a death sentence on Harry’s parents) then they should have taken care to either use some of the many other scenes in the book where the mutual hatred escalates or invent their own. Without that hatred in the film the final showdown between them doesn’t have the intensity it should have because it has no build-up!
Quite apart from the way Harry and Snape’s relationship is treated (which I truly think is one of the biggest let downs of the film), I have other smaller Snape complaints too ;-P I’m not going to bore you with most of them though cause this review will probably be one of the longest I ever write anyway :] But one that particularly annoyed me was Snape’s reaction after Harry casts Sectumsempra - there is absolutely no way Snape would let Harry leave the scene like that after he critically injures a fellow student, especially if that student is Draco. That is just so out of character. For that matter no Hogwarts teacher would let any student off without punishment after something as serious as that.
Amazingly enough, despite all my posts about how much I’m going to hate Dumbledore in this movie, I actually liked Dumbledore in the film lol Michael Gambon was really playing into the humorous parts of Dumbledore’s character (they did pick all the worst Dumbledore lines for the trailers ;) ), which was great. I actually liked the film version better than the book version - the book version has too many wise old man moments while the film keeps those to the minimum. Though one thing that totally didn’t come off was how important Dumbledore is to the wizarding world. When he dies it’s treated very sentimentally (sickeningly so as a matter of fact) - the main thing you feel is that he was much loved and people will miss him. What you don’t get is the “what on Earth is going to happen to the wizarding world now?”. In the film they got the endearing parts of Dumbledore done really well, but this whole other part of him - the one which has huge authority and is a master manipulator doesn’t come through.
Daniel Radcliffe was kind of blah in the film really. I mean he was good enough to enjoy him I guess, but nothing special. IMO if you give him something dramatic and/or angsty to do he’ll put his heart into it and get quite a bit of intensity out of it, but when he does anything else he’s just blah :] This film really wasn’t that dramatic or angsty and he didn’t get much of that kind of stuff to do, so he was blah :] Even his crying scene was sort of disappointing, though I don’t think it was his fault - the scene was idiotic. I mean personally I don’t think Harry would have started crying on Dumbledore’s body in front of the whole school while Ginny hugs him, but then that’s me :] I think some of his best scenes were when he was one on one with Dumbledore, like on the beginning of this clip for example.
I liked Emma Watson a bit better than Radcliffe. Hermione has quite a few vulnerable moments in this film and she was good with those. But I thought her performance was a bit uneven.
Rupert Grint was the best of the three. He’s got a lot of comedy in this and that’s always been his forte. I think his Quidditch scenes in particular were fantastic. They’re rather tricky scenes to do cause they’re so physical, but his body language was just perfect. They released a “pre-Quidditch” scene for publicity purposes, you can see it here. I thought he was great in that one too.
The romance between Ron and Hermione was done really well. Despite all the talk of how awkward and incestuous doing intimate scenes together is, the two of them pull off all of the “something’s happening between them” moments really, really well in this one (actually it’s generally fun seeing any of the Trio together on screen - they just look so comfortable with each other).
The romance between Harry and Ginny is very blah though :] The film version of Harry actually has more chemistry with Hermione than with Ginny. In this film Ginny is pushed into the forefront of many scenes very, very awkwardly. Like even on the “pre-Quidditch” scene I linked to - why is Ginny standing behind Harry whilst everybody else is in front? I don’t mind her being the one who says “Shut It” (that’s actually very in character and Bonny Wright even delivers that line well), but she shouldn’t be standing there like she’s second in command or something. I’ve never liked Bonny Wright as Ginny much, though I suppose the fault may lie in the script. I think she should have more “Shut It” kind of lines. Ginny is a powerful girl!
There’s quite a lot sexual innuendos in the film (though they’re all very much in PG category). I was particularly amused to see some gay innuendo there. I mean it was only as a joke and only very slight, but it was unmistakably there. Both of the gay innuendo moments come when Ron accidentally has some love potion (the first one with Harry you can see here, the second is with Slughorn).
The new additions to the cast were great this year. Jessie Cave was a fantastic Lavender. It’s a shame she had so little screen time, she was hilarious. Freddie Stroma was awesome as McCormac (again a shame he’s on for such a short time) and Georgina Leonidas may only have about one line of dialogue in the film as Katie Bell, but she’s clearly a quality actress (btw, the scene when Katie Bell gets cursed seemed more chilling on the trailer than it did in the film - the sound effects they chose for the trailer were so much better :]). Hero Tiffin-Fiennes was a very chilling 11-year old Voldemort. Jim Broadbent is hardly a new discovery for me, but he’s new to the Harry Potter cast and was a great choice for Slughorn. The only new actor I didn’t like so much, though I kind of get why he’s received a lot of praise (or at least a lot when you take into account that he’s a complete unknown and only has one scene in the movie) is Frank Dillane as the teenage Voldemort. He has a lot of intensity for sure, but I didn’t like all his smirks and eye brow movements :] It was like saying “I’m a villain, have you got that?”. I much preferred Christian Coulson’s teenage Voldemort in the 2nd film *sigh* Coulson didn’t try to play him as a villain so obviously - he played it more as a polite public school boy who has something unpleasant hidden inside. Then again I don’t know how much of what Frank Dillane did was his own and how much was the director’s… He’s an interesting actor to follow for sure - the amount of intensity in that performance is huge and that’s why he’s turned so many heads.
It’s a shame most of the actors get so little screen time cause Harry Potter has probably one of the best casts in modern film history.
Maggie Smith was great even though she only had about 2 or 3 dialogue scenes.
Helena Bonham-Carter has so much fun doing Belatrix and you can really see it lol She got a bit more screen time than in the previous film, which was great, but she’s still a relatively minor character. She should be a lot of fun in the next two films. Recently when they asked Emma Watson which scene from the 7th book she was most looking forward to filming she said being tortured by Helena Bonham-Carter ;) I’m looking forward to seeing that too lol
It’s a shame that they cut out so many of Luna’s scenes (the lines and scenes Evanna Lynch got stuck with were often ones of other characters :]). There were a couple of really hilarious Luna scenes in book 6, but none of them made the cut *sigh* I really love Evanna Lynch as Luna, but she didn’t have much to do in this one. Hope she gets something more to sink her teeth into in the next one.
The “it’s different than in the book” rants and other annoyances This section contains spoilers. So if you haven’t already watched the film or read the book, continue only if you don’t care about being spoiled.
Now that I’ve more or less finished talking about the cast and characters I’ll get to a couple of other rants (when is this review going to finally end? it’s going on far too long, isn’t it? :]).
So… lets get to one of the most debated things in the fandom - the attack on the Burrow scene, a scene that does not exist in the 6th book in any shape or form (you can watch most of the scene here). I’m not saying seeing Helena Bonham-Carter chanting “I killed Sirius Black” isn’t a good thing ;) When I first saw the scene on-line I even thought that maybe I get why they felt they needed it - it’s a good way of reinforcing Harry’s anguish over losing Sirius and establishing how threatening Voldemort has become now that he’s back in full force. The thing is - the scene completely failed at achieving this :] It’s also created a number of problems. Will they still do the attack on the Burrow scene in book 7? Hard not to as it is a major plot point and the circumstances are completely different, so they will have to repeat it. Will that scene still have the emotional impact it should? The Burrow has been Harry’s safety haven until now. Something like that would have been unlikely to happen while Dumbledore was still alive. Will we still understand that from the film?
And the way that scene was just randomly plunked into the middle of the film was so weird… In the end I conclude that it must have been put in as eye candy, I don’t see any other value in it (well other than hearing Helena Bonham-Carter chanting, but if that was the purpose of the scene then I’m sure they could have put that in in different context and it would have worked just as well ;) ).
In fact I feel that one of the biggest shortcomings of the film was that the tension and threat of Voldemort being back in full power was just not there. It was weird cause the scenes which were supposed to provoke those feelings were sort of there, but that tension never really materialized. There is the scene at the beginning (which you can see here) when Rons says his mum didn’t want him going back to Hogwarts for fear of Voldemort, but the feeling the scene evokes is not tension and fear - quite the contrary, it becomes a scene about how Ron, Hermione and Harry get a good laugh and the warmth between them is what really comes through. There are scenes which show Death Eater attacks, but those just feel like eye candy. There is a scene when they’re searching students entering Hogwarts, but that was more of a comedic scene than anything else. There are the two memories - one of the 11 year old Voldemort and the other of the teenage Voldemort and both of those Voldemorts are very chilling, but they’re just memories from years back, they don’t cause any feelings of an ongoing threat. Even when Harry keeps saying “Voldemort” rather than “You-Know-Who” Slughorn hardly freaks out. Everybody at Hogwarts looks happy, carefee and comfortable… well everyone except Draco.
Draco was literally the only person on screen where that ongoing threat was clear. Every time he appears on screen you know he’s up to something and you know he’s taking the task Voldemort set him very seriously. Finally, when he’s up on the tower with Dumbledore, it’s probably the first time in the whole film when somebody actually expresses true fear of Voldemort :] Draco is scared for his life and of what Voldemort will do if he fails to complete the task - it’s the only real fear of Voldemort we see in the movie I think.
Oh and I think their continuity sucks :] How did the diary horcrux end up in Dumbledore’s office? *rolls eyes* We clearly see the diary given back to Lucius Malfoy at the end of film no.2.
Also I disliked the editing. It was so rushed and choppy. A lot of people commented on the 11 year old Voldemort scene they released - that it was too choppy. I assumed that it was a shortened version, but that’s exactly how it appeared in the film. One gets used to the style and more and more Hollywood movies are going for choppy editing nowadays, but I just don’t like it :]
Finally, just like in the 5th film, I find that David Yates tries to make sure the film has all the Hollywood conventions upheld. So you have to have some sort of Hollywood sentimentalism, you have to start with a bang with a lot of special effects and so on… Not my cup of tea at all, that.
The “it’s different than in the books, but I liked it” bits This section contains spoilers. So if you haven’t already watched the film or read the book, continue only if you don’t care about being spoiled.
There were a couple of things I liked better in the film than in the book amazingly enough. The top scene amongst these was the horcrux scene. I always thought the way Jo Rowling wrote it was a little far-fetched. Dumbledore had already guessed that Voldemort had tried to divide his soul into 7 pieces, Slughorn’s memory was just meant to confirm it. The thing was that the modified memory already went quite far in confirming what Dumbledore had guessed at. In the film, when even the word “horcrux” is inaudible in the modified memory it makes a lot more sense that Dumbledore would find it crucial to get access to the memory in its unmodified form.
Another bit of the 6th book I never liked was the cave scene. It always sounded a bit like fan fiction to me - the scene is too sentimental, too many things “just happen” or Dumbledore “just knows” them etc. The film version, though it still has some of those annoying qualities, seems much better than the book version. It probably helps that it’s beautifully shot. The bit that I thought came off particularly well was when Harry has to force-feed the potion to Dumbledore, it felt much more intense to me than the book version.
A scene that was not in the book, but that I really liked was when Snape passes Harry as he goes up to the tower. Part of it was on the trailers - the bit where Snape signals to Harry to stay quiet. It’s the one scene I really liked Alan Rickman in :]
Recommended?
If you like the Harry Potter films you’ll see it and if you don’t you won’t, so I don’t think there’s any point in recommending or not recommending the film :]
Seen: Saturday, 18th July 2009 (cinema) Runtime: 81′ Director:Larry Charles Cast:Sacha Baron Cohen, Gustaf Hammarsten Production House:Everyman Pictures, Four by Two, Media Rights Capital Plot: Brüno is a gay Austrian fashion journalist… or was one until a very embarrassing accident after which the fashion world completely isolates him. It is then that he decides he must go to Los Angeles and become world famous at any price.
Video Publicity
I may be wrong, but it looks like Brüno is such a vulgar character than a lot of talk show hosts freaked out and didn’t invite him :] Relatively few interviews are around and the ones that are up all have very liberal hosts.
Below is Sacha Baron Cohen as Brüno on Rove and it’s a totally hilarious interview :) (Rove is truly one of the most laid back hosts I’ve seen lol)
Sacha Baron Cohen did do Letterman, but it seems that Letterman put his foot down or something and didn’t want to conduct the actual interview with Brüno, so the only part of it that Cohen did in character was the top ten reasons to see Brüno. Can’t find the full interview unfortunately - seems it was taken down by CBS *sigh* There’s a short clip embedded later on in the review though. This is an amusing clip in which Paula Abdul describes what it was like to be conned by Brüno. And here’s the interview on the Conan O’Brian show. In American talk show standards he’s extremely liberal, but I think he got a bit more than he was comfortable with. The second time Brüno says “blow job” he actually reacted a bit sharply (probably because he would get hell from his superiors or something).
Impressions In Short
What Sacha Baron Cohen tried to do was way more interesting than what he actually did do…
More About the Film
As far as I’m concerned, this film has one absolutely gigantic flaw and it’s the editing of it. They basically killed the movie with the editing choices they made.
The most unique and intriguing thing about Sacha Baron Cohen’s brand of comedy is that it crosses the line between documentary and feature film. When you watch his films you never quite know how much of it was staged and how much of it was for real.
In Brüno they chose to go into quick MTV style editing rather than into the home video sort of look (the way Borat was done). IMO awkward silences are critical to Sacha Baron Cohen’s comedy - cutting them out in the editing process is a criminal act ;) I mean they did leave some of the awkward silences in - especially in the latter parts of the film, but some of the film was ruined by the style of editing they chose IMO.
I also think that if the film had been edited more in the home video sort of style it wouldn’t have felt as vulgar (I think I can safely say it’s the most vulgar film I’ve ever seen). I seem to have developed a relatively thick skin as far as vulgarity goes, but this went a bit far even for me. It probably would have been a bit too vulgar for me even if the editing had been different ;) But a lot of the scenes that got to me were in the quick editing kind of style and I did seem to deal with the vulgarity better when all the awkward silences were left in.
The most intriguing thing about Brüno for me was how far Sacha Baron Cohen was willing to go. In fact at a certain point in the film I stopped watching it as a comedy and started watching it as some sort of strange social experiment and that was when I started enjoying it a lot more. For example, apparently he interviewed a real terrorist for the film, check out the clip below:
If you believe he really is crazy enough to do this sort of stuff (and I tend to believe him) then it’s even more annoying that the style of editing plays against it. I think the terrorist interview would have benefited from a more home video style of editing (not that it was that choppy, but still…).
I was also quite shocked to see how far this film went on the sex content. I normally roll my eyes when people start comparing mainstream films to porn, but for once I totally get the accusations levelled at Brüno - it really treads a very fine line. It has some pretty graphic (albeit staged) sex scenes at the beginning. I guess they were sort of funny, but they were so vulgar that I found them a bit much. But there is also a scene later on in the film when the sex, as far as I can tell, is not staged. Funnily enough the scene is much milder and less vulgar than most of the sexual content in the film, so it hasn’t even gotten much attention (I was much more uncomfortable during the sex scenes at the beginning of the film which were very clearly staged). And any body parts that could offend are blacked out (unlike elsewhere in the movie :]). But, as mild as it was, it was still kind of shocking to see that - it’s certainly the first time I’ve seen unsimulated sex in a commercial Hollywood movie! The scene in question is during a swingers party. Bruno tries to change his sexual orientation and develop an interest in women, so he ends up at a party amongst lots of heterosexual couples having sex (his own attempt at sex with a woman doesn’t go very far though).
At the end of the film there’s a scene when I seriously thought he was going to give a blow job to another man in front of thousands of people, but I guess even Sacha Baron Cohen has his limits :] Unsimulated sex in front of the camera is probably more than he’s willing to do at this time… unless he’s saving that for his next film that is ;)
In terms of sexual content I guess I have to mention one more scene (as this one has received a lot of attention) - the full frontal :] I think it’s the first time somebody’s dick has been presented on screen in such a way (it even talks). I watched some interviews with Seth Rogen after seeing Zack and Miri Make a Porno and he said something along the lines of that after seeing the audience reaction to Jason Mewes’ full frontal he can’t help but think that the dick is in as far as comic performances go. I didn’t take him seriously, but now that I’ve seen my second comic dick within a month I think Seth Rogen may have been onto something there :]
Going back to Sacha Baron Cohen I’m getting increasingly intrigued by how good an actor he is. He’s a great character actor - there’s no doubt about it. What many people may doubt is his ability to do drama and more serious kinds of acting. But I’m confident he’d be great in a dramatic part. Both in the case of Borat and Brüno there were scenes of melodrama and drama and he was just as good in them as he is in comedy. And, though this may be a very strange way to compliment an actor, I think the fact that I really thought he might go for the blow job at the end (my mum thought the same btw) says something too ;) That scene really did look like it was going that way (my mum actually asked me whether Sacha Baron Cohen is gay and I think I’d have been wondering too if I hadn’t known he has a fiancée and a kid).
I kind of feel like saying a few words about Lutz - Brüno’s assistant. Gustaf Hammarsten, who played him, was very endearing in his love for Brüno. But I’m not sure the character worked as well comically as Azamat Bagatov did in Borat. On the other hand I’m not sure what kind of character would have been a good sidekick for Brüno, so…
Finally, I wanted to mention one scene that hit me more than any other in the film - not because it was vulgar or bad or whatever, but because it showed a certain attitude that many men have about women. During Brüno’s attempt to change his sexual orientation he goes to some Christian specialists who will guide him in the right direction. The second specialist he visits goes into this speech about women and why men need them and he was basically describing us like a different species. It was freaky to see that cause this guy really meant what he said.
Recommended?
My feelings about the film are mixed… I guess it might be worth it for people who like very vulgar comedy. For everyone else probably not - unless the lengths Sacha Baron Cohen is prepared to go to intrigue you as much as they do me ;)
On their way to a sailing trip, an aging husband and wife invite along an emphatic young hitchhiker out of sheer patronization.
Scene From The Film
Impressions In Short
Amusing :)
More About the Film
This is Polański’s début film and AFAIK it’s the only film he ever made in Polish. It’s quite a classic and has a pretty interesting background story behind it (I loved going through the trivia on imdb).
It has only three actors (there are no extras) and most of the film happens on the boat, so it’s pretty much the same scenery for the whole film. This really works well for it. And even though there’s not much plot, there’s so much happening “in between the lines” that the film is not difficult to get involved in.
I loved the music (it’s by Krzysztof Komeda) - it’s rather unusual to have an 100% jazz soundtrack for a film that doesn’t specifically tell a story that happens in the world of jazz.
And other than that… well it’s just an enjoyable watch (and a rather funny film).
Recommended?
Yes, I think. If you’re interested in Polański or Polish cinema I think you’ll find it worth seeing :)
Trailer
This must be one of the longest trailers ever ;)
Impressions In Short
Yet another weird Nagisa Oshima film with an elusive plot, though this one is elusive for different reasons…
More About the Film
Unlike Nihon shunka-kô and even Gohatto, this film has plot that happens on screen rather than in the imagination of the audience. Despite that it’s still difficult to follow for someone like me because I’m very ignorant about history (though I suspect that since Japanese history isn’t taught much in my part of the world, many of the people who paid attention during history lessons would not know the political and cultural context of the film either). My suspicions seem confirmed by imdb - even though the reviews are positive, only the person who claims to be living in Japan sounds like they understand the context of it (I had some of it explained to me by Kin after the film - I still feel like some of it eluded me though).
The Sakurada clan are very heavily involved with the politics of Japan after WW2 and though the complicated relationships between the family members are the main subject matter of the film, not knowing the context made it a much more difficult film to watch.
Though I guess even if I had known the film’s context, it would have still been a little difficult to watch - it’s a 1971 Oshima film after all ;) It has some great humorous scenes though and some very interesting conflicts between characters. And as usual with Oshima - there’s some sort of forbidden sexual content (this time it’s incest).
Recommended?
Er… maybe… I’m not convinced I should be recommending this though ;) Oshima is a very intriguing director, but he’s difficult and I think there are better films to start with…
Impressions In Short
A very female-centric film - I’ve grown to appreciate these kinds of films a lot, they’re not that common.
I also loved how perceptive the film is. There’s an amazing amount of detail in the portrayal of people. I totally get why it got so many raves abroad.
More About the Film
It’s another of those relatively rare films where the story is told solely by women - the director, novel author, scriptwriter and editor are all female. And it really shows. Not just because of the subject matter (this film deals very much with the world of women), but IMO women see the world differently and this is one of those films where that’s very obvious.
It’s a very perceptive film. The characters and their feelings are portrayed with a huge amount of detail. The camera follows them very closely, a huge amount of the action happens in close-up. The performances of the entire cast are excellent.
I particularly loved Satish Kaushik, who played the husband. It was a very tough role. The character is not exactly an abusive husband, but he’s totally blind to the needs of his wife and daughters and has quite a chauvinist nature. It would be very easy to vilify him, but I ended up having a lot of sympathy for him by the end of the film. The film never judges any of the characters and that’s one of its biggest strengths I think.
It’s generally a very interesting portrayal of the Bangladeshi community in London - Bangladeshis that have assimilated well and Bangladeshis that haven’t, the young and the old, emancipated women and those bound by tradition, the racial hate that many South Asians have to face from white Londoners and there’s even a hint of Muslim extremism portrayed.
Recommended?
Yes I think. Though you should take into account that’s it’s the slow, “lets concentrate on the details of life” sort of film - not everyone’s cup of tea that.
Seen: Thursday, 9th July 2009 (cinema, Lato Filmów festival) Runtime: 103′ Director:Nagisa Oshima Production House:Sozosha Plot: Four male university students have just finished with exams and they’re bored and horny. A teacher gets drunk and starts singing vulgar erotic songs to his students, which fuels the erotic imagination of the four students even more. And then the line between reality and sexual fantasy gets very blurred.
Trailer
Impressions In Short
Compared to this, Gohatto (with which this film shares the director) has a perfectly clear storyline that requires no interpretation whatsoever ;)
More About the Film
The plot in this film is very elusive ;) It’s strongest point is the themes it touches upon. I loved hearing lots of vulgar Japanese folk songs (the English title of the film is A Treatise on Japanese Bawdy Songs). I’m pretty sure every culture must have those, but one very rarely hears them. I found the songs utterly hilarious (as did most of the cinema I think).
The other theme that was really interesting and which I’ve hardly ever seen on screen before is sexual fantasy and how even though you might fantasize about something it doesn’t mean you really want to or even are able to do it.
The four students come up with this gruesome fantasy in which they gang rape a very pretty female student during an exam. They are later challenged to try and make that fantasy a reality. For me this was the part of the plot that was the most interesting and made for some pretty bizarre viewing. The way the rape fantasy was filmed was hilarious. Of course only me, Kin and two guys a few rows behind us were laughing. Though, I’ll admit that this was one of those rare moments when my weird sense of humour surfacing like that made me feel a little uncomfortable. It wasn’t just that it was a rape scene, I think what made me a little uncomfortable about laughing at it was that the girl being raped was treated like an object without feelings and that that was part of the joke. It felt even more uncomfortable to hear the guys laughing behind us because they were… well guys. But I think that just shows you how taboo what the film was trying to do is. I was quite fascinated with my own reaction ;)
Btw, just so this doesn’t get misunderstood - the girl that gets raped in the fantasy isn’t objectified throughout the whole film. Quite the contrary actually… They might treat her like an object in the fantasy and it is clearly part of what amuses them (and therefore the audience), but doing so in real life is much more tricky.
While the film has some excellent food for thought, I didn’t enjoy myself all that much. I had trouble getting properly involved in it since I felt the characters were a bit underdeveloped and the plot was very difficult to follow.
Recommended?
Not particularly, though its subject matter is so rare (especially considering how old this film is!) that I guess you might want to give it a try for that reason.
Scene From the Film
Very short and random, but that’s all I found…
Impressions In Short
A pretty standard art house family drama with one element that really stood out - the cinematography.
More About the Film
It’s the first time I’ve seen cinematography quite like this. It looks a little bit as if the camera was slightly drunk. It moves with this very uneven, but relatively slow tempo, keeps going in circles, rocking up and down and at one point even turns upside down. In fact they managed to get some good comedic moments purely out of the way the camera moved - it was very interesting to see.
Usually when I see cinematography that tries to be this original I find it annoying. But in this case it really was the right visual choice for the film.
Other than the cinematography, however, I found the film to be pretty generic. Quite watchable and relatively well made, but it doesn’t really stand out in any way IMO.
Recommended?
Not particularly, no. Unless you’re really interested in original cinematography that is, in which case the film might be worth a look.
