Monika’s Pensieve

This is a nice two part interview in which he talks about his whole career.

Also, I found some good spoofs. One is a spoof of H2O (a two part production for HBO which starred and was also written by Paul Gross). But there is also a beautiful Due South spoof *grin*

What totally gets me, though, is that I’ve stopped looking for Paul Gross content with gay innuendo, but I keep coming across it anyway! The Due South spoof thing is mild, but how about the end of this interview ;)
You know, I’m surprised (and disappointed ;-P) he’s not done any gay roles yet AFAIK (he has done films with gay themes, but nobody seems to want to actually cast him as gay - what a shame ;-P).

I like the new film review format better than the old one, so I’m going to continue using it for now. However, I’m not going to include the “General Comments” section on everything. Sometimes I just don’t have that much to say and so there’s no point in rambling on.

{FILM DIARY}

The Men Who Stare at Goats (USA/UK, 2009)

Seen: Wednesday, 2nd June 2010 (cinema)
Runtime: 94′
Director: Grant Heslov
Cast: George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey, Stephen Lang
Production House: BBC Films, Smoke House, Westgate Film Services, Winchester Capital Partners

Trailer

Rating: +0 (Liked It)

Themes: Conspiracy, Army, CIA, Paranormal Powers, Cold War, War on Terror, Iraq, Goats

Plot: A journalist discovers that the USA has attempted to train soldiers to fight using paranormal powers rather than conventional weapons.

Driven By:
- Action/Plot
It relies primarily on the absurd sequence of events and the situational humour.

Style: Standard, nothing particularly quirky.

Memorable Moments:
- The crazy stuff
There are plenty of really hilarious and crazy moments - from staring at goats to the CIA explaining that the US has to get into paranormal research because that’s what Russia thinks they’re doing.
- The Jedi references
Ewan was largely cast because of his association with the Star Wars trilogy. The paranormal soldiers are referred to as Jedi warriors and they really use Ewan’s presence to make loads of jokes on that level.
- The journalist feeling trapped
There are plenty of scenes where Ewan’s character feels very helpless and frustrated. They really stood out for me. Amongst these were the flashbacks of him getting dumped by his girlfriend and the scenes where Lyn and him get kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents. Not that the film puts much emphasis on his feelings in those scenes (mostly it’s the comedy that gets emphasized), but I really liked Ewan in those. He felt very genuine.

Films watched: 17 (of which 16 were new to me)
Average rating:* +0.29
*+0 = 0.1 and -0 = -0.1 when calculating the average

+2 (Adored It)
Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (India 2006)
A Single Man (USA, 2009)
Eastwick [season one] (USA, 2009-2010)

+1 (Loved It)
The Red Chapel (Denmark, 2009)
Wilby Wonderful (Canada, 2003)
I Love You Phillip Morris (France/USA, 2009)

+0 (Liked It)
A Blooming business (Netherlands, 2009)
The Miscreants of Taliwood (Australia/Pakistan, 2009)
Born Into Brothels: Calcutta?s Red Light Kids (USA, 2004)
The Oath (USA, 2010)

-0 (Ok)
Shanghaj Space (Denmark, 2009)
Mumbai disconnected (Denmark, 2009)
The Monastery: Mr. Vig and the Nun (Denmark, 2006)
Nenette (France, 2010)
GITMO (Sweden, 2005)

-1 (Disliked It)
Podziemne Państwo Kobiet (Poland, 2010)
The Witches of Eastwick (USA, 1987)

-2 (Detested It)
Crazy Heart (USA, 2009)

Lately, my film reviews seem to be getting much too rambling… It’s time for change :)
I’m trying a slightly different review format this time. Most things should be self-explanatory. The one thing that might be a bit confusing is the “driving force” concept. My theory is that films can be driven by:

• Action/Plot
  By this I understand any film that relies on fast-paced action, plot twists and/or just generally the whos, whats, wheres and the order in which things happen.
• Characters
  Any film which relies on deeply involving you with one or more of the characters.
• Issues
  A film which touches upon some sort of social or political issue and relies on that to keep your interest.
• Aesthetics/Mood
  Films where the general mood, rhythm and look of them are what is supposed to engage you.
• Dialogue
  Films which rely a lot on the cleverness and wittiness of their dialogue to keep your attention (Kevin Smith’s films come to mind).

I don’t think this is an exhaustive list, but I figured it still might be interesting - hope you agree :) Most films fall in more than one category and categorizing them might be a bit subjective, but it could potentially be quite informative - worth a try anyway :)

{FILM DIARY}

I Love You Phillip Morris (France/USA, 2009)

Seen: Thursday, 27th May 2010 (cinema)
Runtime: 102′
Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Cast: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor
Production House: Europa Corp., Mad Chance

Trailer

Rating: +1 (Loved It)

Themes: Con Artist, Prison, True Story, Gay Relationship, Romance

Plot: The improbable, but true story of Steven Russell - a con artist who meets the love of his life in prison.

Driving Forces:
- Action/Plot
The series of events that happened to Steven Russell is completely ludicrous and bizarre. The film relies a lot on that.
- Characters
To a slightly lesser extent the film also depends on the audience being intrigued by the lead character and involved in the romance between the two men.

Style: Standard, no quirky camerawork or editing.

Memorable Moments:
- Two lovers dance
There’s a beautiful scene in which one of the prisoners gets paid off to play a love song in the middle of the night, so that Steven and Philip can dance in their cell. The guards try to have the music stopped, so a lot of madness and shouting ensues, but the two lovers continue dancing. It’s a hilarious scene, but also very romantic because of how Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor play it out.
- The chemistry between Ewan McGregor and Jim Carrey
While the dancing scene is particularly memorable, the two of them share a lot of small scenes and moments that are very cute. They seem like a slightly weird pairing, but they really work together. On the sex front my favourite was a scene following a blowjob - we see Ewan playfully spitting out what we can only assume must be cum and Jim exclaims “You don’t love me!” in mock indignation. It’s a really funny, but very sweet scene ;) Another memorable one was when the two of them are reunited after Philip (Ewan) is released from prison - the happiness they share is just soooo cute *grin* There’s plenty of small moments like that in the film.
- The penis references
Every now and then there are shots where random objects like clouds are arranged in penis shapes. The timing of these is always perfect ;)

General Comments
While I definitely loved the chemistry between Jim and Ewan and I thought both of them were extremely well cast, I felt they were a bit over the top. Personally, I would have liked it better if they had taken it down a bit. But despite that, it’s a very nice film to see for the two of them.
Jim Carrey was an excellent choice for this. While I’m not a huge fan, I tend to like him in roles which have a layer of falseness - stuff like Man on the Moon and The Truman Show where the line between truth and lies is very blurred. Steven Russell is a lot in that kind of vein.
I’m a bit taken aback that there was so much hoo-ha about the sex in this film. The film did get a US distributor in the end, but it won’t be released in the US until the 30th of July and that’s only if they don’t move the dates again (they were originally looking at a Valentine’s Day release). Many European countries, including some of the more staunchly Catholic regions like Poland or Lithuania, have had the opportunity to see the film before the American audience despite it being a US-produced movie.
If the film really did feature graphic gay sex scenes, I would roll my eyes at US distributors, but at least I’d understand why the film has run into such problems. As it doesn’t, I’m left very puzzled :] There are some vulgar (but very humorous) sex scenes, yes, but they are neither graphic nor explicit. On the contrary, my mum was actually impressed how much they managed to put through without showing anything.
My guess is that the struggles must have something to do with Jim Carrey - a big and very commercially-orientated star doing those kinds of scenes. I think it’s a first for a film star of that stature to be doing something quite this unapologetically gay. If it’s not that then maybe it’s because it has a lot of mentions of oral sex as well as an anal sex scene. Or maybe it’s none of that and then I totally don’t get it :]

Whew, I’m finally up to date on my film diary *grin*

{FILM DIARY}

The Witches of Eastwick (USA, 1987)

Seen: Sunday, 23rd May 2010
Runtime: 118′
Director: George Miller
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Cher, Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer, Veronica Cartwright
Production House: Warner Bros. Pictures, The Guber-Peters Company, Kennedy Miller Productions
Plot: (from imdb)

Three single women in a picturesque village have their wishes granted - at a cost - when a mysterious and flamboyant man arrives in their lives.

Trailer

Rating: -1 (Disliked It.)

Impressions In Short
Ironically, just as with Eastwick it was Darryl Van Horne that hooked me, here it was Darryl Van Horne that repulsed me :] It’s not just that Jack Nicholson’s performance is very different, but the character itself is written in a very different vibe.

More About the Film
I think firstly, the story works much better when it has time to develop slowly. In the series the witches discover their powers slowly, their friendship develops gradually and it takes Darryl much more time to be accepted into their circle.
But my main bug with this film is Darryl :] He annoyed me so much I even considered rating the film -2. In the end I decided on -1 because I did sort of enjoy the story, plus I rather liked Cher and Michelle Pfeifer (Susan Sarandon not so much - too exaggerated).
In this version Darryl effortlessly woos three women and he only needs one meeting with each to get them in bed with him. The thing is that considering how Darryl is written and performed that just doesn’t make sense to me. Nicholson does have a huge screen presence of course, but his version of Darryl isn’t all that magnetic, so why would all those women throw themselves at his feet? I see what attracts him to those particular girls, but I just don’t see what attracts the girls to him - especially three such diverse ones (which I assume means they would all be attracted to very different types of men). Yes, all three of them are desperate for a man, who would “get them”, but that’s the thing - IMO he’s just as chauvinist as the rest of the men in their lives. I couldn’t make up my mind whether the way that Darryl is supposedly so understanding and appreciative of them as women was comical or offensive :] My top most “WTF?” scene was Darryl telling Suki that he always wanted to be a woman. When she asks him why he answers that because they can have babies and produce milk. Is that all being a woman means to Darryl then? And why on Earth would that line charm Suki? Ugh…
It was a huge contrast to the way they did Darryl in the series. I suppose part of the reason I find the Darryl in the series much easier to stomach is because when he’s being very lewd and rude he generally doesn’t score (which is more realistic I think ;-P) and it helps that Paul Gross is much funnier than Jack Nicholson when he’s being lewd ;) The girls are a lot more distrustful towards him as well. He really does have to put a lot of work into earning their trust. Also, Paul Gross works very well as a female wet dream kind of thing - he’s got the classic tall, dark and handsome kind of looks and they really made use of this in the series. Like the Darryl in the movie, the Darryl in the series is into the whole “I understand women” thing, but it works much better. When he invites the three of them to dinner and declares he loves being “one of the gals” he’s much easier to believe - he really seems to enjoy and join into their gossip.

Recommended?
Er, IMO nope - watch the series instead ;)

{FILM DIARY}

Wilby Wonderful (Canada, 2004)

Seen: Saturday, 15th May 2010
Runtime: 99′
Director: Danny MacIvor
Cast: James Allodi, Maury Chaykin, Paul Gross, Rebecca Jenkins, Sandra Oh, Ellen Page, Callum Keith Rennie
Production House: Palpable Productions, Da Da Kamera
Plot: (from imdb)

A day-in-the-life dark comedy concerning a group of islanders, their respective secrets, and one man’s plan to kill himself quietly.

Trailer

Rating: +1 (Loved It)

Impressions In Short
A very cute Canadian independent film.

More About the Film
It’s one of those films that have many intertwining stories, which makes for a lot of developed characters and that in turn means you can cast a lot of good actors *grin* I don’t know a lot about Canadian cinema, but in the same way that the Harry Potter films or Love Actually are a whose who of the British acting landscape, this film seems to be a bit of a whose who of the Canadian one. Many of the parts were apparently written with these specific actors in mind and the end result of all these factors is that you’ve got some very good performances in it *grin*
Naturally, I watched this because of Paul Gross *grin* Unlike Eastwick, this part is very much in line with his Due South image. He’s the local policeman who always tries to do the right thing, only Buddy French is much more realistic and no where near as idealistic as Benton Fraser. Besides, Buddy French has his own problems - his marriage is falling apart and his mother has just died. Paul Gross is amazingly cuddly and vulnerable in this. I enjoyed him a lot :)
I never really “got” Callum Keith Rennie before, but I genuinely loved him in this. There’s a nice calmness and ease about him in the part.
Everyone else was very good also, I’m just way too lazy to actually write about all of the major characters ;-P But the great thing about everybody is that they’re all subtle, no hamming.
I loved how the film very subtly brought in a lot of small clues as to what was going to happen (it has a very good culmination to all of the stories). I think it’ll be fun seeing it again cause I’ll probably notice a lot of little clues and lines that I missed before. I enjoyed the “the Watch” subplot a lot, even though at the beginning of the film I hardly noticed it. It was only at the end when I suddenly had an “aha” moment ;) “The Watch” is the only bit of the coastline that is still completely natural and untouched. We get to see the two policeman looking for evidence of something there, but initially we don’t get much of an idea of why they’re doing it and what goes on there exactly. What does go on there ends up effecting a lot of the stories though ;) It was very beautifully set up in the script and reminded me of “mysterious” places like that and the way people refer to them in real life. Like even relatively close to me in the Warsaw suburbs, there’s a nudist beach by Wisła. For years I thought it was a bit of a myth, but then one day my mum and I stumbled upon it while walking the dog and it really is there *grin* The way I’d heard people in my region refer (or sometimes not refer) to it really reminded me of how people referred to “the Watch” in the film (not that the Watch is a nudist beach or anything ;-P it’s something else ;) but for some reason my mind made that connection ;-P).
The one thing I found a bit disappointing is that I’d have liked a bit more humour in the first half of the film. Once the stories get into their culmination stages the darkish humour does come through, but before that the film is a bit bland at times. I think it needed a bit more oomph in the first half.

Recommended?
If a small film like this, which feels “very Canadian” sounds appealing to you then I think so :)

{FILM DIARY}

Crazy Heart (USA, 2009)

Seen: Saturday, 15th May 2010 (cinema)
Runtime: 112′
Director: Scott Cooper
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Colin Farrell
Production House: Fox Searchlight Pictures, Informant Media, Butcher's Run Films
Plot: (from imdb)

A faded country music musician is forced to reassess his dysfunctional life during a doomed romance that also inspires him.

Trailer

Rating: -2 (Detested It)

Impressions In Short
Contrary to my rating, it’s not a terrible film ;) It’s just that I really couldn’t get into it because the main character annoyed the hell out of me (and it’s not because the character was bad or anything, it’s just a personal thing). Jeff Bridges is indeed very good though.

More About the Film
I’m not sure if I can moan that Colin Firth didn’t get the oscar now ;) I mean I did prefer Colin Firth ;-P But that is at least partly because as a character George appeals to me, whereas Bad Blake doesn’t.
Bad Blake is the kind of guy that tells you he loves you, but really what he means is that he loves your company not you. That might sound a little cryptic, so I’ll just describe a certain sequence that has stayed with me. Bad Blake is hitting on a girl and in the process he asks her what the most important thing about her is. She replies that she has a 4 year old son named Buddy. Next day she is very late to a meeting with Bad because she had problems finding someone who would babysit Buddy. Clearly her son is a very big and important part of her life. Still, this doesn’t stop Bad Blake from asking her to just leave town and come to Phoenix with him for one of his concerts. The way he asks it, without considering how this effects her as a mother, makes it clear that he hasn’t grasped one of the most important things about her even though she literally spelled it out for him (he asked “what’s the most important thing about you?” and she replied). Even when she says no, he still doesn’t quite seem to get it.
This is what ended up defining Bad Blake for me - he has absolutely no idea how his actions effect other people and has no real love for them. It’s not that he’s unfriendly - on the contrary he’s very approachable. It’s just that in actuality all he can be to other people is a burden (which is why most of his relationships suck - he’s in conflict even with the people who stand by him). I don’t think he even consciously realizes that he doesn’t truly care for the people in his life.
At the end of the film he goes through some major changes and in the last scene we finally see there’s been some change in him on that level as well. The change is not quite complete, but there is a difference in his thinking. When he meets the girl again she asks him if he wants to see Buddy and for the first time we hear him actually truly considering the question not just in relation to himself. He has grown to love Buddy and at one time he would have just said yes, but this time his answer is “I’m not sure that would be good for Buddy”.
For the record, I did think Jeff Bridges did a great job at portraying all the nuances of this. It was very realistic and even though it’s one of those parts that could easily be hammed and overacted, Bridges is very subtle. There’s not a false note in his performance. But somehow, something about Bad Blake really got to me. A film with a leading character like that makes me want to run the other way. Seeing the girl falling for him anyway had me cringing (girls do fall for guys like that unfortunately but seeing it unravel on screen like that is just painful to me :-/).

Recommended?
I can’t really say… It’s definitely a good performance by Jeff Bridges, but I’m not sure it really has that much to commend it other than that. It’s a slow film and it really hangs on finding the main character involving.

{FILM DIARY}

"Eastwick" (USA, 2009-2010)

Finished Viewing: Monday, 10th May 2010
Runtime: 13 episodes around 40′ each
Director: David Nutter, Michael Katleman
Cast: Jaime Ray Newman, Lindsay Price, Rebecca Romijn, Paul Gross
Production House: Bonanza Productions, Warner Bros. Television
Plot: Loosely based on “The Witches of Eastwick” (a novel by John Updike which was also the source material for the 1987 Jack Nicholson movie), it’s the story of three modern day witches, who are discovering their powers with each other’s help and support.

Scene from the Series

Rating: +2 (Adored It.)
Would have probably had it at +1 or even +0 initially, but I really warmed up to it after a few episodes and I’m totally obsessed with Paul Gross in this part *grin*

Impressions In Short
Even though it features witches and all kinds of supernatural events, at its core the series is a story of three women, who are trying to turn their lives around and are gradually realizing their true potential. It has many colourful female characters, a hilarious villain and all kinds of quirkiness.
I’m really bummed that the show was cancelled *sigh* They didn’t even finish the story, it’s just broken off at a cliff hanger :-/

More About the Film
Initially Paul Gross as Darryl Van Horne was the main reason the series appealed to me. It gradually gets better, however, and eventually I got so hooked that I didn’t even notice his absence in episode 11 (I was racking my brains why imdb said that he was only there in 12 episodes rather than in 13 ;)). Nonetheless Paul Gross as Darryl Van Horne remains my favourite aspect of the show.
The rich, good-looking and powerful industrialist type of villain is, of course, nothing new. But despite that I feel Darryl is a slightly unusual character. Firstly, he’s lewd to the point of ridiculousness, which makes for some very amusing scenes. There’s a line in the film when Roxie tells Darryl that it’s like he stepped out of a 70s porno and into her life and I think that’s one of the most accurate ways of describing Darryl ;) Not in the sense that the series is in any way explicit - it isn’t (it’s American TV we’re talking about ;-P), but the constant flow of innuendo that Darryl keeps up is totally exasperating ;) He’s also a bit of an exhibitionist *grin* (again, sadly this is American TV, so the shots and object placement are very strategic ;), but the skin show is still kind of nice *grin*).
But what makes Darryl into a rather unusual villain is that even though he’s clearly corrupt, manipulative and constantly on the lookout for sex, there are plenty of times when he seems very honest and sometimes even vulnerable. Hardly ever does he hint at any sort of cruelty (the embedded scene is one of few where he does) and it doesn’t go much further than hints. He’s certainly not your typical domineering villain.
The relationship between Darryl and Roxie is particularly weird. While she’s initially totally exasperated by all his lewd attempts at getting into her knickers (with good reason *grin*), it gradually becomes evident that that’s not all Darryl is after. In fact he does a much better job at comforting and supporting her (through conversation, not sex ;)) than her boyfriend does.
Villains are usually jealous, forceful and possessive kind of characters, but with Darryl hardly any of that seems to surface. On the contrary - for Roxie, Kat and Joanna he is an empowering and liberating force. He doesn’t judge them the way most of the village seems to, but merely cheers them on in whatever they want to achieve and encourages them to let their feelings run wild without worrying about the consequences. And the way Paul Gross plays it, there’s this beautiful and very genuine acceptance and love of all their quirks and flaws. A pretty weird villain, huh?
Of course, as he is a villain, he does try to manipulate and push them into doing certain things, but it’s all done relatively sweetly and if they refuse he backs off (at least temporarily anyway ;-P). Darryl is charming, stylish and sexy and these qualities never seem to leave him. Of course it helps that Paul Gross is still physically a very attractive man *grin* and he’s far from looking his age (he generally looks more like he’s in his 40s than in his 50s and they even managed to get him looking 30ish for a flashback scene, though I think they were aiming for 20ish ;-P).
But onto other aspects of the series ;) I loved that there are so many developed female characters in this. It’s not just the three witches, there are plenty of supporting female characters of all shapes and sizes. Each of them has a distinct personality of their own and they’re all so feminine! *grin*
The humour of it and the way they keep mixing it with darker undertones really appeals to me and there’s some great melodrama in it as well. I also love the directness of some of the dialogue and situations. The three leading women are all quite direct in how they phrase things - especially Joanna, who seems to say the weirdest and most embarrassing things to men she fancies. It’s not just what she says, but the way she says it as well. One of my favourites was her admitting to a guy that she has “gooey fantasies” about him. Just the choice of the word “gooey” totally cracked me up and there were a lot of lines and situations like that. The way they phrased things made a lot of the situations feel a lot more inappropriate to me (which happens to totally be my sense of humour *grin*) and I felt it was somewhat unusual to have the women saying and doing a lot of the inappropriate things (not that Darryl didn’t join in ;-P but still ;)).
All in all I loved it and I’m really bummed that they cancelled the show :-/ I’m not sure they’re even going to release it on DVD (I’ve found nothing that suggests they will). I totally would buy it if it was, but unfortunately it looks like I will have to make do with the illegal route :-/ There is a whole campaign to try and get ABC to revive the show btw, so if you’re inclined to support it, you can sign the on-line petition and vote for Eastwick on this poll.

Recommended?
Absolutely :) I suppose it’s more of a girly thing really, but I don’t see why men couldn’t enjoy it. Paul Gross fans really should see this and generally anybody who likes a sexy villain will probably be very happy with this version of Darryl Van Horne *grin* Those who like very female-centred films will probably enjoy this as well.
It does take a while to warm up (you’ll find a lot of the comments on imdb also say that the later episodes are much better), but it’s worth the wait *grin*

Reviewing every single film I watch is a bit impractical time-wise (and this has been on my mind for a long time now despite appearances ;-P). The reason I keep doing it is that I like having a record of what I watched and how I felt about it.
I’ve finally decided that while I want to continue keeping track of everything I watch, I’m going to start cutting down on “full-length reviews”. Planete Doc Review feels like a good moment to try out a different approach, so here goes…

Friday, 7th May 2010

Shanghaj Space (Denmark, 2009)
Rating: -0 (Ok)
Mumbai disconnected (Denmark, 2009)
Rating: -0 (Ok)
These two were shown together at one screening and the comparison between Shanghaj and Mumbai was what made the screening interesting. They’re two of the biggest and most dynamically developing cities in the world and both have very similar problems (lack of housing, need for new roads etc.), but the contrast between them could not have been larger. In Shanghaj these problems were being solved in a very organized manner - the people in charge would make specific development plans and then everyone would just comply with those plans regardless of how they effected local communities, what sort of historic heritage would be destroyed in the process etc. Whereas Mumbai was complete and utter chaos - a public debate on the plans was necessary, everyone for and against the plans would speak up almost ending up in fist fights and the development plans themselves were extremely chaotic and often stopped before they were completed, with lots of money lost in the process.

A Blooming business (Netherlands, 2009)
Rating: +0 (Liked It)
It was a very striking picture of how Western companies (in this case flower farms based in Kenya, which supply the Netherlands) abuse African workers and resources. The Kenyans who spoke about their lives and how those companies have effected them made a very powerful impression on me - there was so much calmness and wisdom in them.

Podziemne Państwo Kobiet (Poland, 2010)
Rating: -1 (Disliked It)
The film intentionally doesn’t show both sides of the abortion debate. It just portrays what the state of affairs is - abortions take place in Poland regardless of the law. I found the film a bit purposeless (the one bit I found informative was the history of how abortion was delegalized in Poland after the communist regime fell). It’s clearly a pro-choice film, but despite that I found most of the women who spoke about their abortions very unsympathetic.

Saturday, 8th May 2010

The Monastery: Mr. Vig and the Nun (Denmark, 2006)
Rating: -0 (Ok)
It’s a cute and funny story about a man whose life dream is to start a monastery. The relationship between Mr. Vig and Sister Ambrosija develops in a very interesting way and Mr. Vig himself is a bizarre character (his nose obsession is particularly going to stay with me - apparently one of the reasons he never married is because he didn’t meet a girl whose nose he’d like). The film is a bit on the slow side though.

Sunday, 9th May 2010

The Miscreants of Taliwood (Australia/Pakistan, 2009)
Rating: +0 (Liked It)
This is a film about the film industry in Peshawar, Pakistan. Peshawar is close to the Afghan border and is a Taliban stronghold, so making commercial films there requires a lot of guts. The Miscreants of Taliwood reminded me of Michael Moore in style, but IMO George Gittoes wasn’t able to pull the style off well enough. The content, however, is brilliant (if the style had been executed better I would have probably enjoyed it enough to rate it +1) because it touches upon pretty much all of the issues of that region in a very open manner. It’s the first time I’ve seen a film broach the subject of homosexuality and male prostitution in Pashtun context (women are completely separated from men, so men are much more likely to have sex with each other).

Born Into Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light Kids (USA, 2004)
Rating: +0 (Liked It)
A photographer is trying to help a group of children born unto prostitutes by sending them to a boarding school. One of the ways she tries to get the money to do this is by teaching them photography and selling their photographs at charity auctions.
The biggest strength of the film is that each of the children is portrayed in a lot of detail and they all have their own unique story. One of the most heart-wrenching tales is that of Avijit, who is a very unique talent (he became one of 10 children from all round the world invited to a photography panel in Amsterdam), but a lot of things go against him and it seems his future is doomed. Even the Amsterdam trip seemed doomed not to happen as he had problems obtaining a passport from the Indian autorities. Finally, one day before the planned day of departure they manage to get his passport and you can see the world open up in front of him. It’s an amazing moment. I also loved how every story had its own ending - some of them are happy and some are sad.

Wednesday, 12th May 2010

The Oath (USA, 2010)
Rating: +0 (Liked It)
The film follows Abu Jandal’s daily life in Yemen, as well as Salim Hamdan’s court case (see one of the most famous Guantanamo trials - Hamdan vs Rumsfeld). Hamdan had connections with Bin Laden, but was never involved in any terrorist or military activities and yet he was held in Guantanamo. Jandal recruited and taught all of the 9/11 hijackers, but was never incarcerated by Americans.
There’s a wealth of information in the film, but Kin made me realize that I probably managed to get a lot more out of it because I’ve already been reading around the subject. For somebody who has not done much reading on this, a lot of things might be unclear.
But in the end the most powerful moment in the film for me was the story of Jandal’s interrogation. Jandal gave American intelligence all the information he had on the 9/11 hijackers and Al-Qaeda the moment he understood the tragedy of 9/11. He never supported that kind of jihad. The interrogators used no torture on him. The intelligence he gave was so valuable that the attack on Afghanistan was postponed by a few days to give the interrogators time to finish extracting all of it.

Nenette (France, 2010)
Rating: -0 (Ok)
The story of Nenette, the oldest orangutan in the Paris zoo. It was a nice film to have watched, but a bit too slow for my taste. And although focusing the camera on the orangutans was a cool idea, I would have preferred to have seen some of the people rather than only have heard their voices. I really wanted to see Nenette with her keepers to see their relationship.
Orangutan sexuality is fascinating. I particularly loved the story of a male orangutan in the zoo blowing kisses to a redhead girl and then shooing away a brunette ;) But Nenette observing couples kissing and then trying out their techniques with her own partner was kind of interesting as well ;-P And I never realized there have been cases of orangutans in the wild raping women (I wasn’t sure the film was serious on that count, but google confirmed).

Thursday, 13th May 2010

The Red Chapel (Denmark, 2009)
Rating: +1 (Loved It)
Two Danish comedians of South Korean origin and a Danish director come to North Korea. The concept was to expose the regime for what it is through sarcasm and irony.
The main reason the film worked so well was Jacob - the 18 year old paraplectic comedian. He’s extremely easy to like - there’s something very honest and genuine about him. Even Mrs Pak, their guide, is very taken with Jacob and they develop a very weird sort of bond.
But also, in North Korea there are no handicapped people - they are not allowed to live. So in a way Jacob exposes North Korea just by being there. But most importantly, as Jacob’s speech pattern is distorted by his disability, the North Korean censors can’t understand his Danish. So he’s the only one of them that can freely speak his mind.
Ironically, IMO Jacob exposed not only North Korea, but also the director of the film. The director was willing to go as far as it takes to expose North Korea, no matter how much dishonesty it would cost. Jacob was not able to go through with that level of lies. There’s a couple of times when he completely breaks down - for example by refusing to salute at a North Korean parade.

Friday, 14th May 2010

GITMO (Sweden, 2005)
Rating: -0 (Ok)
A documentary trying to uncover what happens in Guantanamo prison. I thought it was a bit lame (most of it consists of just showing us how they can’t get any information rather than showing us actual information). But the reason I thought it was worth a look was the Bacchus and Karpinski story. Bacchus and Karpinski are US army generals. Bacchus was fired from Guantanamo, most likely because he did not agree with the policies there. Karpinski, on the other hand, was completely removed from the army after the Abu Ghraib scandal (she was the one in charge when the abuses took place, but she claims not to have known about them).

On a final note, I was hoping to shorten the notes on these films a lot more ;-P I think this means I will still need to think things through *sigh*

{FILM DIARY}

A Single Man (USA, 2009)

Seen: Tuesday, 2nd May 2010 (cinema, special screening)
Runtime: 99′
Director: Tom Ford
Cast: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult, Matthew Goode
Production House: Artina Films, Depth of Field, Fade to Black Productions
Plot: (from imdb)

A story that centers on an English professor who, after the sudden death of his partner tries to go about his typical day in Los Angeles.

Trailer

Rating: +2 (Adored It)

Impressions In Short
Basically, it lived up to my expectations (which is a big achievement I think :)). The one surprise of the film is how funny it is. I found it absolutely hilarious a lot of the time (awkward and sarcastic humour rather than slapstick of course).

More About the Film
Visually the film is stunning. The aesthetics of it are very meticulous - the fashion, the set design, the lighting and even the grainy texture of the film. It captures the essence of that period (the film is set in 1962) and is stunningly beautiful at the same time.
I find that today’s cinematography tends to differ aesthetically from photography quite a bit, but this is not the case with A Single Man. There are a lot of beautifully, but very “photographically” composed frames. Even the narration is slightly “photographic” - the film is basically a set of vignettes from George’s life.
I’m pretty certain that the film’s style has been heavily influenced by Tom Ford’s experiences as a fashion designer, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. On the contrary, it’s given the film a very unique look and feel and I’m rather looking forward to seeing Tom Ford’s future film projects.
Colin Firth is brilliant, but to be honest he does nothing that I didn’t already believe him capable of ;) The fact that he works so well in this has a lot to do with Tom Ford’s direction. Ford clearly has a great sense of his actors and he seems to have an amazing feel for how to show off their strengths. I suppose some of it is down to how he dressed and made them up (Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult both look absolutely stunning in the film) and they’re also cast extremely well. But it’s more than that, especially in Colin Firth’s case.
I tend to think that the way Colin Firth’s performance was shot and edited was not just a purely aesthetic choice on Tom Ford’s part. I mean I can’t exactly prove it, but a lot points that way IMO ;-P
Colin Firth was kept in close shots most of the time. With many actors I would have hated such a huge reliance on them, but with Firth it actually works better that way. He’s a ridiculously restrained actor, but also a very genuine and honest one. Sometimes close-ups pick up on actors looking fake or over the top, but with him that’s not really an issue. And because he’s so restrained, you get to see a lot more of the feelings he’s expressing when you have him in close shot.
What’s usually true of restrained actors (as I keep saying ;-P) is that they work better when you give them slightly longer shots and let them have their silences, so again this is something that Ford really took care of.
The scene that Firth gets praised for the most is the fateful phone call and if you take a look at it you’ll see it relies very heavily on both keeping him in close shot and on letting him take it at his own pace, no rushed editing. It was one of the scenes where Ford was particularly careful to keep it like that and I’m pretty sure he did this very consciously. The scene is very long (that clip is only part of it), but for the whole duration of it Ford practically doesn’t cut away from Colin Firth’s face (there’s that one short shot of his hand on the glasses, but that’s it I think). And once the phone call is over and George puts the phone down, the silence that follows is very long and yet there’s still no cut. Colin Firth quite rightly gets praised for that scene - it’s a very difficult one to do for a number of reasons (the sudden change of mood is a major one), but Tom Ford makes sure you don’t miss any of his brilliance *grin*
I was quite annoyed to have read a lot of homophobic comments on the film on-line. They usually say something along the lines of “I have nothing against gays, but the film really rubbed my face in it”. The thing is that’s just not true :] As far as homosexuality goes it really isn’t that explicit. Yes, men kiss in it and also they flirt, but that’s it! Where it does go quite far is in sexualizing the male body. But to be fair, it sexualizes the female body as well. We get a lot of close-ups on lips, eyes, male chests and so on. Some people seem to equate the sexualization of the male body with homosexuality, which annoys the hell out of me. Straight women like ogling male bodies too and it would be nice if people actually acknowledged that fact. Anyway, rant over - just needed to get that off my chest ;)
I had a lot of fun with the sexual part of the film generally speaking. Apart from a lot of opportunities to ogle beautiful men, there was some great innuendo going on. I particularly loved the scenes between George and Kenny (Nicholas Hoult). I was quite taken aback by some of the flirting towards the end - there were some unmistakable Domination/Submission undertones there ;) Loved the way Kenny asks “Is that an order?” *grin* That whole dynamic between them felt quite taboo because of their age difference (Nicholas Hoult was 18 at the time of shooting and Colin Firth was 48 I think and playing someone in his fifties). I find it quite curious that I’ve not come across any derogatory comments about this yet (I was sure someone would say an age difference like that is sick, but seems I was wrong ;)). I have, however, found some accusations along those lines relating to a completely different part of the film. The imdb thread about this is here and I found it absolutely hilarious, the idea of interpreting that scene in that manner hadn’t even occurred to me lol
I absolutely loved the humour of the film, although I probably should add it was one of those days when it was mainly me and Kin laughing even though the cinema was almost full *sigh* But really it was funny, I swear ;) And even the rest of the cinema started laughing when he was planning his suicide. There’s this wonderful (and completely silent - no dialogue or voice-over) sequence where George is trying to find the best place and position to shoot himself - in bed, in the shower or maybe he should use a sleeping bag to stop the blood from soiling the bed sheets. Morbid humour, I know, but it was really funny.
The main criticism I’ve seen levelled at the film is that it’s very cold and that it’s too much about the aesthetics. I didn’t find the aesthetics and the rushes of colour to be bothersome in the least. They made total sense in the context of what Tom Ford was trying to do. But I do agree that it’s quite a “cold” film. The only “warmth” comes from Colin Firth really - he’s the one totally genuine human element of the film and all the feeling comes from him (not that the other actors don’t put in very good performances, but they’re just not used in the same way - the film is told through George). In a way, maybe this is why this film has not made my “+3 category”. It has a lot of factors that would normally make me connect with it on a very personal level, but I haven’t really. I love it to bits, but I just haven’t quite connected with it in that way (then again my feelings may change the next time I see it, we shall see :)).

Recommended?
Definitely, it’s quite simply a great film. So unless you’re completely not into art house stuff on any level or unless you don’t like watching films with gay themes even when the sex is not explicit, I’d say give it a go :)