4 August, 2008 | 6 Comments

In this edition: The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Blindness, Revolutionary Road

I don’t always write enough about books on this site, which is strange, given how obsessed I am with all things literary. I think I feel that if I write about books, I have to provide insightful commentary and a proper review. That’s too much pressure and too much work. I’m doing a lit PhD, so literary analysis is indeed work for me. Also, and perhaps more importantly, I just have no interest in writing book reviews. I’m not sure why. I like reviewing films and plays, but not books. Perhaps books are too personal to me. I would rather write about my response to a book, rather than reviewing the book itself, if that makes sense. So I will just write about books in a different way and see if that works.

*

I have just started reading Haruki Murakami’s The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. I was inspired by the recent article in the Times, Ten Things You Need to Know about Haruki Murakami, who they label “the coolest writer in the world today.” I was in the mood for some good lit in translation, since I feel like being transported to a foreign locale right now. I want to see the world through eyes that are far different from mine. I’ve read the first chapter so far and I’m hooked, though we’ll see if the whole 600 pages sustain my interest. (I am hopelessly picky about books.) The only Japanese fiction I’ve ever read is a few books by Banana Yoshimoto, who was quite trendy and popular when I was younger. If I remember correctly, it was her book Kitchen that I read and perhaps something else. So I’m excited to explore a bit of the Japanese literary landscape.

*

One of my favorite novels of all time is Blindness by José Saramago. When I heard recently that this book had been made into a film, I felt disappointed. This book cannot be translated to film. This is a dark, twisted book filled with depravity. In an unnamed country, one by one all of the citizens begin to go blind. Eventually, everyone is blind and society descends into anarchy and chaos. It is highly allegorical and surreal. It’s extremely difficult to read not just because of the writing style, but because of the subject matter. You can take the bare bones of the narrative and create a screenplay from that, but the soul of the book would be lost. This book does not belong on the screen, it belongs in the mind of the reader. Saramago refused to sell the rights for years. The LA Times quotes him as saying, “Cinema destroys imagination.” Unfortunately, he changed his mind. The director of the film “reports that he softened the film’s disturbing (but not graphic) scenes of sexual violence after ‘the audiences didn’t react well at the first test screening; some people even walked out.’” Yeah, well, that’s not surprising.

(more…)

14 July, 2008 | 2 Comments

I went to see this film, which is the true story of Barbara Daly Baekeland, who married the heir to the Bakelite plastics fortune. The morally bankrupt American socialite’s big claim to fame was having an incestuous relationship with her homosexual son and then being murdered by him. I’m pretty sure the subtitle of this film is, “Be grateful your family isn’t this crazy.”

(more…)

14 April, 2008 | 7 Comments

Today I saw the acclaimed Coen brothers film at the cinema. I know, I’m behind the times. Here is my review:

Good flippin’ grief.

I think that about covers it. I mean, come on. What the heck was that all about? While I admire the skills of the actors and filmmakers, I think it was a deeply flawed film overall. More specifically, it featured a deeply flawed narrative. Actually, I would describe it as an anti-narrative. This review from the Washington Post is one of the only negative reviews out there (and I think it’s right on). I don’t understand the universal acclaim for this film at all. I could write more about it, but the whole experience has drained me and I’d just rather forget about it. One thing is for sure — tonight I will have nightmares about this face (and haircut):

Oy vey.

28 March, 2008 | 1 Comment

I went to see this movie tonight in Leicester Square, which cost £12.50 (that’s $25 — no joke. There’s an interesting article in the Times today called Goodbye to Rip-Off Britain, which forecasts a recession coming and an end to these insane prices — could it be?).

This Boleyn movie has gotten pretty bad reviews, so I don’t know why I wanted to see it. I felt like a costume drama, I guess. To my surprise, it really wasn’t bad. I was engrossed throughout. Though this is not a serious historical epic, it does remind one of the way women in the upper classes were pimped out by their families like whores — and that’s no exaggeration. Women were used, abused and then tossed aside like trash or, in the case of Anne Boleyn, murdered. [Of course, this still happens. Lady Di, anyone?] The 500 years that have passed between now and then have somehow lessened the horror of Henry VIII’s reign, which I don’t understand. Henry VIII is like a cartoon character to us now. In the gift shops around London, I see Henry VIII stuffed toys and finger puppets being sold for children. Would you let your kid play with a stuffed toy of Saddam Hussein? Frankly, I don’t see much difference.

Many of the reviews have discounted this film as a bodice-ripping romance. While any movie with Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson doing English accents can’t be taken entirely seriously, a film that features scenes of rape is not romantic. But then I guess not all film critics recognize rape when they see it.

14 December, 2007 | Comments

Since Atonement has finally been released Stateside, I’d like to link to my review of it from when it opened here in October. Atonement got rave reviews in Britain, so much so that I hesitated to post my own review, a review that complimented the film’s strengths but considered it to be a big failure overall.

I predicted that the American critics would respond in the same glowing way that the British did and they have for the most part. The film has also received seven Golden Globe nominations. While most American reviews have been positive, reviews in the New York Times and the New Yorker have been much more critical and expressed views similar to mine. Thank heavens for that. The deep flaws in this film should be blindingly obvious to any seasoned film critic.

(more…)

7 October, 2007 | 4 Comments

I saw Atonement yesterday. Finally, a major film that opens over here before it does in the States. I’ve never read the novel upon which this film is based, nor any novel by Ian McEwan, though I did rub shoulders with him once when he was awarded an honorary doctorate at one of my many college graduations.

As I watched the film, I was thoroughly engrossed by it. I’m not a fan of Keira Knightley, but she was *almost* tolerable in this. The male lead, James McAvoy, is someone I am not familiar with, but he reminds me of a young Russell Crowe. That, my friends, is a good thing.

The first hour of Atonement is exquisitely done. It’s absolutely fantastic to watch and it’s ingenious in the way scenes are played from one character’s perspective and then re-played from another point-of-view. This first part takes place on a lovely English country estate and besides admiring all aspects of the production, I experienced major home furnishings lust.

The next part of the film takes place during WWII on the battlefields of France and in the hospitals and air raid shelters of London. Like so many films and stories about the War, it descends into sappiness and melodrama, which was a disappointment after the outstanding first hour. I resent it when filmmakers try to capitalize on the audience’s strong emotions surrounding WWII. That’s lazy film-making.

(more…)

6 October, 2007 | 5 Comments

Today at the movies I saw a preview for Elizabeth: The Golden Age starring Cate Blanchett. Clive Owen plays Walter Raleigh. Behold:

He’s just too stunning for words.

[Hey, I haven't posted about my Clive lust for at least a year. Give me a break.]

19 August, 2007 | 2 Comments

Matt Damon calls James Bond a misogynist! And an imperialist! Ah, you gotta love it. More on this in a moment.

Today I went to see The Bourne Ultimatum. In general, I’m not a fan of action movies and summer Hollywood blockbusters, not because I don’t like pop culture, but because these movies are usually so stupid they’re unbearable to watch. In light of this, the Bourne movies are really exceptional. They’re primarily entertainment, obviously, but they feature great actors, an actual story as opposed to dumbed-down idiocy, fab European locations, a lack of computer-generated effects and they even make the audience think about U.S. foreign policy post-9/11. Not too bad for a popcorn flick.

(more…)

30 May, 2007 | 5 Comments

“how can one man be so endlessly disappointing?”

20 May, 2007 | 5 Comments

I took a break from working late this afternoon to go see Zodiac. This is the first time I’ve seen a film since returning to London and I was dismayed to discover that Odeon now charges people extra to sit in the back rows of the theater. You’d think that for £8.80 (!!!) you could sit wherever the hell you want.

I wasn’t even aware of this film’s existence until Friday when the reviews came out. [Hey, I've been living in Paris and cut off from the world.] I went to see it because David Fincher directed it and I’m a fan of his. And Mark Ruffalo is in it and really, that’s reason enough to see it. The rest of the cast is also good, with Robert Downey Jr., Jake Gyllenhaal and many recognizable character actors. Nearly all the actors in the film are men, save for the wretched Chloe Sevigny, who thankfully has a small part.

This movie held my interest for nearly 3 hours — I didn’t even take a loo break. The movie is violent, but nowhere near as violent and twisted as Fincher’s brilliant Se7en. Thankfully he doesn’t overdo the 1970s vibe in this film with lots of intrusive music and pop culture references. But the details of the era are quietly perfect. I enjoyed watching the police and journalists work without computers and e-mail and mobile phones. It didn’t seem like the Stone Age. It seemed blessedly less complicated than our current lifestyles.

(more…)

17 July, 2006 | 1 Comment

I was chatting with my sister last night about our mutual love of Amélie, which is one of the all-time great romantic films. While very few films can come close to the loveliness of Amélie, the other night I watched The Girl on the Bridge (La Fille Sur Le Pont), which certainly ranks right up there as one of the sexiest and most romantic movies I’ve ever seen. What is it with the French?

The Girl on the Bridge is from 1999 and stars Vanessa Paradis and the exquisite Daniel Auteuil. (Quick! Name a French movie that doesn’t star Daniel Auteuil!) In this film, the two lead characters never have sex or even kiss, which to me gives the film much of its power and passion. How very un-Hollywood.

This film is quirky in the extreme and it’s very very French. If you don’t love French movies, you won’t like this. This is a visually stunning film, shot in black and white and taking place in Paris, Monaco, Italy, Greece and Istanbul. The music is also fantastic.

Paradis’s character is a down-on-her-luck nympho who, early in the film, is about to commit suicide by jumping into the Seine. Auteuil’s character (self-described as “manic-eccentric”) is a knife-thrower who travels around performing in circuses and carnivals. [This film is a homage in many ways to silent movies, hence the kooky profession.] He hangs out on bridges looking for desperate women to be in his act, believing that only a woman with a death wish would allow a man to throw really sharp knives at her.

The two characters take their act on the road and are a big hit. Together, these two luckless losers bring each other incredibly good fortune. Their act isn’t just standard knife-throwing – Paradis is covered with a sheet, spun around on a wheel, etc. The relationship between the characters grows quite intense. (Ooh la la!) They develop a psychic bond. Knife-throwing is an obvious metaphor (no need to spell it out!) and you’re probably thinking it’s a violent, twisted and perhaps even sexist one. It may seem that way on paper, but you just have to submit to the story and not think about it too much.

This isn’t a deep or profound film, it’s just whimsical and fun and bizarre. The two people at the heart of the story are lost and damaged souls who find each other and forge a connection. Their bond makes them each feel extremely vulnerable and at the mercy of the other, but choosing to surrender and trust the other person is what saves them both. It makes them whole. To me, the knife-throwing simply heightens and intensifies the story’s exploration of the risks inherent in human relationships.

After watching this film, I couldn’t help but feel disappointed that I’ve never met a man I’d be willing to let throw knives at me. But in the grand scheme of things I’m still fairly youngish, so perhaps there’s hope…

Link: Roger Ebert Review

Tags: The Girl on the Bridge, La Fille sur le Pont, Daniel Auteuil, Vanessa Paradis

6 July, 2006 | 1 Comment

1. Every member of the French police force speaks fluent English.

2. John the Baptist was really a woman.

Tags: Da Vinci Code

1 June, 2006 | 11 Comments

I recently watched the new version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I’m so behind the times. My favorite character, without question, was Augustus Gloop. As for Johnny Depp, well, if you have a movie star crush on him and you have not seen this film, please do not rent it. As Willy Wonka, Depp appears to have undergone a botched sex change operation. Either that or he’s been castrated. Johnny Depp castrated? Uh, no thanks. He’s already a bit of a femme, which is part of his charm. No need to take things further. (And what’s with the Valley Girl accent? Egad.) My question is, how long will it take for me to erase this horrific imagery from my mind? It’s been four days now and I still can’t shake it.

19 May, 2006 | 4 Comments

Pardon my French, but the critics can go screw themselves. Given the savage reviews this film has gotten, I expected it to be unwatchable. It wasn’t. It’s no better or worse than the rest of the crap that Hollywood produces. I think the media piling-on is in many ways a childish reaction to the lack of pre-release press screenings. I mean, yes, this film is overly long and super talky and very hokey, but I was still entertained (until my ass turned numb). And given that this is a mainstream Hollywood film with a feminist, heretical message that dares to show members of the clergy behaving like thugs in an inner-city street gang, I must give it two thumbs up.
Tags: The Da Vinci Code

19 May, 2006 | 3 Comments

I’ve written on this blog before that I have not read The Da Vinci Code, but I am pleased that its themes of female exclusion and suppression within organized Christianity have struck a nerve with millions of people. This is one of my big issues and the fact that people are actually talking about it thrills me.

I would probably go see the movie version (opening worldwide today) no matter what, but the fact that the Vatican, US evangelicals and religious groups around the world are condemning and/or banning this film means that I will definitely see it. The critics who’ve seen the film have not been kind, but I really don’t care if it’s as boring as watching snow melt. That’s not the point. (And really, who had faith in Ron Howard’s abilities? Not me.)

Via Feministing, I’ve discovered a new website called HerCode.org. Sponsored by the organization Faith and Feminism and inspired by The Da Vinci Code phenomenon, the site encourages women to share their stories of struggling with religious faith. The stories are very poignant. One of the site’s creators, Helen LaKelly Hunt, writes in her introductory letter:

(more…)

6 May, 2006 | 1 Comment

Yes, I went to see this. Shut up! I think they should change the title to Mission Impossible III: Blowing Stuff Up.

I went to see this movie because I was in the mood for Hollywood fluff and it didn’t disappoint. I know Tom Cruise is completely batshit in real life, but he’s still good at his day job – movie starrin’. And now he has another mouth to feed (a mouth that may or may not belong to a human being), so cut the guy some slack.

The movie is typical high-budget action movie fare. There were a lot of car chases and explosions and scenes where Tom single-handedly took on mobs of men with machine guns yet escaped with nary a scratch on him. Oh, and that creepy-cute Irish guy from Match Point is in it, plus Truman Capote himself, Philip Seymour Hoffman, is the baddie.

As for Tom, he’s in his forties now yet he looks pretty much the same as he did 20 years ago. I’m sure he’s had some work done, but it doesn’t show. While the 40+ women in Hollywood are paralyzed with Botox, Tom looks perfect. I don’t know how he does it. I’m guessing there’s some sort of Scientology/Picture of Dorian Gray thing happening. Whatever it is, he still looks mighty fine in super tight jeans.

Tags: M:I:III, Mission Impossible III, Tom Cruise

13 April, 2006 | 1 Comment

Memo to Spike Lee: You should be tried at The Hague for cinematic crimes against womanity! How could you make a film with Clive Owen and then cover up that gorgeous face for over half the show? Why do you think women like me go to movies starring Clive Owen? I don’t care that he played a bank robber and needed to wear a mask. We could have just imagined him wearing it. You could have flashed a message at the bottom of the screen that said “Picture Clive in a Mask Right Now.” That would have worked fine. You should be glad I don’t know where you live.

Funnily enough, Clive still looked sexy, even in a mask.

As you probably guessed, I went to see Inside Man. Despite the aforementioned travesty, I must admit that Hollywood popcorn movies do not get much better than this. Denzel Washington was great in this movie, as was Jodie Foster. Because this is a film full of twists and surprises, I really can’t write much about it. While it’s primarily escapist entertainment, Lee (in his first “Hollywood” film) adds political asides here and there, mostly to do with racial politics. I especially liked the scene about violent video games and how they are mind poison for kids.

The beginning and the end of the film are set to very loud Bollywood music, which is lovely as music, but a little strange for this movie. But enough of that – now back to Clive. His attempt to speak in an American accent only earns him a C-. It was almost as bad as Natalie Portman’s mangled English accent in V for Vendetta, though nothing could be quite as bad as that. But as for his overall performance in the film? A+, of course. I’m grading on a curve.

10 April, 2006 | Comments

From the AP: “A prison officer faces punishment for showing the gay cowboy movie Brokeback Mountain to inmates at the state’s largest prison, a corrections department spokeswoman said.”

“I want to make it clear, it wasn’t the subject matter — it was the graphic nature of the sexually explicit scenes.”

I totally agree with this. Prisoners should be shielded from images of gay sex. It’s not like any of them have personal experience with it.

24 March, 2006 | Comments

Last month I reviewed Michael Haneke’s film Hidden (Caché). Haneke is Austrian but he works in French (he directed The Piano Teacher with Isabelle Huppert). I was intrigued by his work and wanted to see more, which led me to rent the DVD of his 2000 film Code Unknown. The film stars Juliette Binoche, who was also in Hidden, playing a character with the same exact name. Many of the actors in Hidden also appeared in Code Unknown, though the two films are only linked thematically as far as I can tell.

Code Unknown is a series of interlocking stories dealing with racial, class and cultural conflicts in modern-day Europe. After seeing the film, there is no doubt that it very obviously resembles this year’s Academy Award-winning abomination Crash. One of these filmmakers surely copied the other and given that Code Unknown was released several years before Crash, I can only come to one conclusion. Crash is a really bad L.A. version of Code Unknown.

The two films offer a marvelous opportunity to compare European and Hollywood styles of filmmaking. While Crash could have been written by an 8th-grade remedial English student, Code Unknown actually respects the intelligence of the audience. While Crash is offensive in its obviousness, Code Unknown makes the audience work. While Crash features stereotypes rather than characters and then dares you not to sympathize with them and/or despise them (nothing about Crash is subtle), Code Unknown creates real characters and puts you in their shoes so that you feel what they feel. This list could go on forever, but you get the idea.

This is not to say that Code Unknown is a perfect film. It’s not. I agree with the NYT reviewer who stated that one of Haneke’s flaws is his tendency to be cryptic. Both Hidden and Code Unknown have endings that leave the audience wondering a bit too much. But compared to Crash, Code Unknown is a masterpiece.

19 March, 2006 | 3 Comments

I have been excited to see V for Vendetta for months. It was supposed to open last November, but was postponed because of the London bombings. (Smart idea.) When it opened on Friday, the critics in the UK savaged it. Stateside, the NYT and the New Yorker trashed it as well, though other papers were more charitable. I must admit I was expecting the worst.

Just briefly, the film takes place in Britain 20 years hence. It has become a fascist state. The people are kept in line through fear – fear of terrorism, Muslims, gays, etc. Across the pond, the US is engaged in a civil war, though we never get many details about this. The hero of the movie, V, wears a Guy Fawkes mask. At the start of the film, he blows up the Old Bailey and ultimately, his goal is to complete the job his hero didn’t finish – blowing up the Houses of Parliament. The movie’s hero is a terrorist, there can be no doubt about that.

From the NYT: “…inevitable questions and objections have been raised about whether ‘V for Vendetta’ turns a terrorist into a hero, which is precisely what it does do. Predictably, the filmmakers, actors and media savants have floated the familiar formulation that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, as if this actually explained anything about how terror and power (never mind movies) work.”

After seeing the film, I understand many of the criticisms. Still, I thought it was entertaining and worth seeing. I think the problem is that people expected this film to make a profound political statement, but this is Hollywood. Get real! This is a popcorn movie that aspires to be something more. The film version was written and produced by the Wachowski brothers of Matrix fame, and from what I’ve read, they wanted this film to be a scathing takedown of George W. Bush and his administration. If that was their intent, they failed. Bush isn’t the first power-hungry fearmonger running a country and he certainly won’t be the last. Instead, the film is a retread of 1984 and other dystopian tales. It adds nothing new to the genre. It’s too vague and unfocused to pack much political punch.

The main faults with V are its meandering and muddled plot, which is very confusing and often doesn’t make sense. Natalie Portman’s performance is absolutely dreadful. It’s painful to witness her mangling the English accent. (The other actors, including Stephen Rea, are quite good. And I found the character of V, with his creepy mask, to be mesmerizing.) Another flaw is that the film is an American/Hollywood tale about English politics and as a result, England is really a caricature in the film. Outside of the main characters, the only English people we see are clichéd pub goers and a few bland families. The film was shot on a soundstage in Berlin and it shows. While the comic book upon which the film is based was unmistakably English (and set during the Thatcher years), the new film uses London as a backdrop, but it could have taken place anywhere.

Roger Ebert, who enjoyed V, wrote that he “found an audacious confusion of ideas in “V for Vendetta” and enjoyed their manic disorganization. To attempt a parable about terrorism and totalitarianism that would be relevant and readable might be impossible, could be dangerous and would probably not be box office.”

**spoiler**

**spoiler**

As I watched the film, I wondered if the Houses of Parliament would actually blow up at the end. The story required that they would, but I didn’t know if the filmmakers had the chutzpah to follow through. So I was surprised when the iconic buildings, including my beloved Big Ben, exploded in a lavish fashion. It was unsettling to watch (especially given that Parliament was only about a mile away from the cinema) – but worth the price of admission.