films – Page 23 – Ripple Effects

Last Chance Harvey (2008)

last_chance_harvey

Dustin Hoffman, Emma Thompson, London, England… attractions enough. Can anyone ask for more?

… Well, yes… how about a good plot.

The relatively new director/writer Joel Hopkins must have great confidence in his actors unleashing their charisma in lieu of a substantial plot… well, he’s lucky. They do. Despite a slow start, an uneventful and banal storyline reminiscence of past movies, I’ve enjoyed it, mainly because of the actors. Just watching Hoffman and Thompson strike it up can lighten your day. Their performance is worth the ticket, especially Hoffman. Just watching his toast to the bride in the wedding of his daughter is worth the 92 minutes you sit in the theatre.

For their performance, both are nominees in their respective best acting category for a comedy or musical at the recent Golden Globe Awards.

Weddings are popular in recent movies. Maybe because a wedding is the most sensitive occasion where families, past and present, have to come together, tempted to open old wounds, but also given the chance to mend relationships, or to simply love those for whom you haven’t got time in your life. A hotbed for drama to ensue.

Hoffman here plays Harvey, a divorced jingle writer facing a post mid-life crisis. Not only is he hanging in a dead-end job, his life is one stale and stagnant bore. The movie begins as he flies to London England for his daughter’s wedding. The excitement is soon doused by his realizing that the wedding ceremonies have all been planned without him. An embarrassment to his ex-wife Jean (Kathy Baker, The Jane Austen Book Club, 2007) and even to his daughter Susan (the fresh Canadian Liane Balaban, Definitely Maybe, 2008 ), Harvey nevertheless grasps the most critical moment to express his heart-felt endearment for his daughter at the reception.

Other than that self-assertion, and the father-daughter dance which is made possible only because his son-in-law is gracious enough to initiate, Harvey is totally slighted. While drenched in self-pity, he meets Kate (Thompson). She too is beginning to, (or has she already?), give up the chance of falling in love. Kate is self-sufficient though, and probably feels she could fare better on her own, especially without her mother (Eileen Atkins, Evening, 2007) calling her every hour. But of course, the rest of the story is predictable; yet you still want to cherish the two great actors hitting it off, to witness Harvey winning Kate over.

Last Chance Harvey is like a stroll in the park. It’s simple, light, relaxing. I mean for both the viewers and the actors. It sure looks like this is one easy job that the two of them can do even in their sleep.

But of course, for me as a viewer, I’d like to see more depth, more characterization, more twists and turns, more laughs.

I suppose it’s alright if you don’t mind coming out of a restaurant half-full… and you did enjoy the dessert.

~ ~ ½ Ripples

Tess of the D’Urbervilles (2008, TV): Part 2

tess The “lite version” of Part 1 has turned into a heavy and somber continuation on PBS Masterpiece. In this second and final part, screenwriter David Nicholls and director David Blair unleash the gloomy Hardy worldview unreservedly, releasing the bleak and dismal elements that are almost too much for new year viewing. The music has played a major and dramatic role in setting the tone and mood of the movie. The cinematography too, in contrast to the lush green opening in the first part, has drawn us into a slough of mud, grey and black. Hardy’s view of nature lamenting the tragic condition of his heroine is effectively conveyed, engrossing albeit a tad too melodramatic.

Kudos to David Nicholls for a meticulous job in adaptation. He has kept the plot intact, for the most part faithful to Hardy’s book. While a couple of incidents are left out, quite meaningful and symbolic too, but not to diminishing effects. These include the sleepwalking episode, the Freudian slip of Angel’s innermost longing to love Tess despite all restraints. The second being Tess’ mercy-killing of pheasants wounded by hunters, a sensitive portrayal of her own predicament. However, Hardy would not have her killed off so easily. Like the sadistic “President of the Immortals” in his view, Hardy the author wreaks havoc on his heroine, leading her into scenes after scenes of tragic events beyond her control.

tess-part-23

Tess can forgive Angel for his sexual sin, but he refuses to forgive her. Actually, what sin has she committed if she was innocently violated by Alec D’Urberville when she was a young girl. She loves Angel unconditionally, but his love for her is marred by constraints. Later, she cannot avoid stalking by Alec, who keeps preying on her, and in her most needy and vulnerable, takes advantage of her again by manipulating her love for her family. Whatever dignity she may have Tess ultimately sacrifices it for her beloved family. But I admire Tess’ integrity, yes I like to see it as integrity, and not pride, that has sustained her until that very end when she finally has no choice but to yield to Alec’s sinister scheme.

It is for this reason that I find Gemma Arterton’s portrayal of Tess as just a proud and feisty gal to suit modern viewers incongruent with the book. She may look innocent enough, but her performance at times is contrived and lacks the striving complexity required. But her tears are effective and moving, I must say. While Hans Metheson has delivered his diabolic role adequately, Eddie Redmayne as the losing lover at the end is a bit lacking.

And Angel, oh, what a tragic character. The seemingly altruistic lover cannot stand the test against social mores. In the book, the chapter describing the mutual confession of sins between the newlyweds is aptly entitled: “The Woman Pays”. What an irony of double standard! This might well be the name of the novel. While Hardy may have held an entangled and agnostic view of the transcendent, his social critique is incisive and spot-on.

the-stonehenge-1

At long last, Tess and Angel can enjoy marital bliss, but only for a painful, fleeting moment. Tess says in her anguish: “It is too late”, the four words that define the tragedy of her life. As a young girl, she did not understand the meaning of Alec’s sinister advances until too late. And now as a married woman, her husband has come to her rescue too late. I learn from the end notes of my Penguin edition that the original title of the book was Too Late, Beloved! What a heart-wrenching story.

PBS has a link to an online interactive Q & A with screenwriter David Nicholls. In there he answers the many questions viewers have regarding the process of turning book into film. I have enjoyed Nicholls’ previous adaptation of Blake Morrison’s memoir into the movie “And When Did You Last See Your Father”, starring Colin Firth and Jim Broadbent, an excellent and sensitive film. I look forward to seeing more of Nicholls’ work in the future.

~ ~ ½ Ripples

Click here to go back to Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Part 1.

*****

2009 Golden Globe Winners

If you’re looking for the 2010 Golden Globes, CLICK HERE.

slumdog-golden-globe Photo Source: Irish Times

Click here for the list of the 2009 Golden Globe winners

Slumdog Millionaire is the big winner of the night, garnering the golden globe in four categories: Best Original Score (A. R. Rahman), Best Screenplay (Simon Beaufoy), Best Director (Danny Boyle), and Best Motion Picture – Drama. Good to see the underdog win. Hopefully the bright road leads all the way to the Oscars.

Another big winner is Kate Winslet, surprising even herself by winning both Best Supporting Actress (The Reader) and Best Actress (Drama, Revolutionary Road). Her emotion was spontaneous… She even said sorry to her fellow nominees Meryl (Doubt), Kristin (I’ve Loved You So Long), and who’s the other one? Yes, Angelina (Changeling). But ooh, she forgot Anne (Rachel Getting Married), who got all the hype from being recognized as the winner due to an earlier glitch on the GG website.

kate-winslet-golden-globe-2009 Photo Source: CBC.ca

Sally Hawkins nabbed the Best Actress trophy (Comedy, Happy-Go-Lucky), beating fellow Brit Emma Thompson (Last Chance Harvey).

After waited for a whole year, Steven Spielberg finally received the Cecil B. DeMille Award which he won in 2008 but was not presented due to the cancellation of the GG Awards ceremony. Or was it 50 years that he waited? It was in 1959 that Spielberg made his first film, an 8 min. short. He was 13.

Heath Ledger won posthumously Best Supporting Actor for The Dark Knight. Chris Nolan accepted it on his behalf: “He will be eternally missed, but he will never be forgotten.”

Wall-E took the Globe for Best Animated Feature Film, deservedly.

As for the TV division, John Adams garnered four Awards, seeing Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti receiving their honors.

Overall, a big night for the Brits.

Click here to read CBC reporting.

Click here to see a clip of the highlights from BBC News.

*****

WALL-E (2008, DVD)

Continuing with my review of ‘hopeful movies’ for the new year, this is a must-see… for your whole family.

wall-e

WALL-E has re-defined for me what makes a good movie. It doesn’t need human actors, doesn’t even need dialogues. Its visuals are stunning and thought-provoking, and the silent scenes speak volumes. Especially the first part of the movie, I’m fascinated by how human meanings and sentiments are conveyed with almost no dialogues yet with such eloquence. It is ironic, I know, that it takes an animated robot, or two, to bring out what is important for us humans: The need to connect, the joy of simplicity, the power of a tiny green sapling bursting with life, and love, the essence of being human. The creators of WALL-E have invented a fresh and entertaining way to send these age-old messages back to us humans, with grace, humor, and wonderment. Now that’s creativity.

The time is post-apocalyptic, some time in the future where Earth is no longer habitable because its junks are piled up higher than sky scrappers. WALL-E is a robot with one directive: garbage compacting. Earth is no man’s land now. One ‘human remains’ that WALL-E treasures is an old video tape of “Hello Dolly”. WALL-E plays it constantly to admire that very human act and emotion: courtship and love. One day, he witnesses the landing of a spacecraft, from which comes Eve, an exploratory robot. Now WALL-E has a chance to practice what he has learned.

As Earth is no longer viable for life, humans, ever ingenious, especially when it comes to their own enjoyment and gratuitous consumerism, have branched out into space, the final frontier. They have created for themselves a utopia in a cruise ship, perpetually holidaying in space. Their pastime is lounging on a couch, being served by automated robots. Due to lack of use, their limbs have shrunk while their bodies have bloated. No matter, they only need one finger to press buttons to eat, drink, and be merry. WALL-E’s adventures begin as he follows Eve back to this ultra high-tech space station.

wall-e-and-eve

But Earth is home for humans, not a cruise ship in space. Earth is meant for us to cultivate, to nurture, and to enjoy. So, that’s the ultimate epiphany for all these perpetual space vacationers. Herein lies the miniscule hope, symbolized by the tiny sapling of green, that there’s still a chance to return home and set roots once again, to live and grow. The movie ends with all the right notes without being preachy or turning into a propaganda, nor does it wake us up by scare tactics. It leads you on a pleasant ride and brings you to its intended destination without coercion or didactics.

The DVD has some excellent special features including a couple of animated short films, deleted scenes, and many more. But my favorite part is ‘Animation Sound Design: Building Worlds From the Sound Up”, in which the legendary sound designer Ben Burtt shares secrets of creating the sounds of WALL-E. Credited by writer/director Andrew Stanton as the genius behind WALL-E, Burtt has won Oscars for his sound effects in E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones movies.

Teach your children well… while there’s still time, that’s the underlying axiom (the name of the cruise ship) of the movie. An animation more relevant for adults than kids. After all, who are in a better position to bring hope to the next generation other than parents themselves?

~ ~ ~ ½ Ripples

Tess of the D’Urbervilles (2008, TV): The Lite Version

tess-of-the-durbervilles-movie

After reading Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles just shortly before watching the new re-make on PBS Masterpiece, I can fully understand why screenwriter David Nicholls has done what he did. He has turned a heavyweight into a light classic. For if Hardy’s book is to be adapted in spirit and letter, it would certainly be less appealing and just too heavy a burden to cast upon our collective psyche.

As an author, Hardy himself personifies the sadistic ‘President of the Immortal’ he perceives. Humans are just the playthings for The Immortal’s jest. As an agnostic, he can’t just outright blame it all on God, since he isn’t sure even if God exists. But in the book, he makes his readers know clearly the cosmic tragedy his characters are caught in, by turning Browning’s lines into:

God’s not in his heaven: all’s wrong with the world!

If we can see Hardy on the streets today, I’m sure he’s the guy who takes Murphy’s Law to heart: Anything bad that can happen will happen. That’s what he makes of his heroine Tess in the story. A pure, beautiful and innocent country girl, fresh and untouched for life, is being caught in all sorts of circumstances that will bring only heart-wrenching consequences, one after the other all the way to the end.

David Nicholls has spared us the looming Hardy worldview and lightened it up for us, and I don’t blame him for that. For who needs more tragedies of cosmic proportion in this very tumultuous time in our human history. Mind you, he has presented the plot faithfully. In this first part at least, you see the sequence of events in the book adapted to the dot, albeit in a much more condensed and hurried pace. Considering the full length of the book is about 400 pages, and the made-for-TV movie is four hours long, that means for every hour he has to cover 100 pages. From this first part, I’d say he has done an admirable job.

tess-and-alec

Now to Gemma Arterton. I’ve enjoyed her role as Elizabeth Bennet in ITV’s Lost In Austen. So it is with high expectation that I come to watch Tess. If the screenplay is a light version, then Arterton’s Tess is aptly portrayed, for I have a feeling that she has turned it into a comic character at the beginning of the movie. But maybe that is to contrast her later portrait of lost innocence. Nevertheless, I feel there is something lacking, maybe the almost god-like purity and depth of love in Tess are qualities just too demanding for so young an actress to depict.

Hans Matheson’s Alec D’Urberville is much more attractive than the detestable Alec described in the book. Though the obvious villain, his dark and sensual appearance is symptomatic of a soul in turmoil. He has added complexity to his character that even sheds a bit of appeal. I look forward to his crucial role in the latter part of the story.

angel-clare In contrast, Angel Clare is the innocent lover. His willing to challenge his strict Victorian upbringing in a clergy family for love of a milkmaid indicates his bold rejection of social norms and family expectations… up to this stage. Eddie Redmayne has delivered a convincing performance.

The character that really draws my attention, surprisingly, is Tess’ younger sister Liza-Lu, played by Jo Woodcock. For some reason that face has the look and intensity that’s so fitting in a film like this. And the three milkmaids that offer the much needed relief to the story, Marion, Retty and Izz, are well cast and portrayed. They play no minor roles in Tess’ life.

Finally, I must also mention the new host of Masterpiece Laura Linney. I admit, she’s more what I had in mind for the character of Tess while reading the book. Unfortunately that part is taken. Oh well, I’ll see her again next week, and in future Masterpiece presentations.

So, for a lighter and entertaining take on the tragic story of Tess, and to browse through the plot in a few visually appealing hours while sidestepping the somber philosophical view of Hardy’s, this BBC production offers a viable choice.

(Photos Source: bbc.co.uk)

~ ~ ½ Ripples (so far)

Click here to go to Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Part 2

*****

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

slumdogposter

Updates:

Feb. 22: Slumdog Millionaire just won 8 Academy Awards. CLICK HERE for the Oscar Results 2009.

Feb. 8: Slumdog Millionaire has just won 7 BAFTA Awards including Best Picture and Best Director tonight in London, England.

Jan. 25: Slumdog Millionaire has just won the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture.

Jan. 22: Slumdog Millionaire just nominated for 10 Oscars including Best Picture. Click here to go to my Oscar Nominations Post.

Jan. 12: Slumdog Millionaire just won 4 Golden Globes for Best Original Score, Best Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Motion Picture – Drama.

***

A. O. Scott in his 2008 year-end article and podcast on the New York Times website gives credits to movies that explore the element of hope. How fitting it is to start the new year by watching ‘hopeful movies’. In this turbulent time of ours, ‘Hope’ might just be the word of the year for us all.

Slumdog Millionaire not only explores the idea of hope, it builds its whole momentum on this element, and its fuel is none other than ‘love’. The movie is a modern day fairy tale, an exciting concoction bubbling with fantastic visuals and sounds, a post-modern alchemy of culture, language, and place. But what unifies is the aspiration of requited love and shattered souls redeemed.

Directed by Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, 2002, Trainspotting, 1996) and based on Vikas Swarup’s award winning novel Q & A, which has been translated into 36 languages, the film has garnered high acclaims in film festivals. Just four months into its limited release, Slumdog Millionaire has already won 20 awards, and is nominated for 4 Golden Globes including Best Picture, and 2 SAG Awards, and is a possible contender for the Oscars.

Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) grows up in the slums of Mumbai, India. He and his brother Salim watch their mother killed by mobs. The two boys have to fend for themselves living on the streets. They survive the deplorable conditions with tact, style and grace, until Salim falls for the gang. Jamal has a childhood sweetheart Latika (Freida Pinto). In a heart wrenching episode, she gets separated from the brothers. Her fate seems to be sealed as a young girl on the street.

Years pass but Jamal’s heart still yearns for Latika. One thing that unites all Indians seems to be the popular quiz show “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”. With his heart firmly fixed on reaching out to his long lost love somewhere out there in the mass populace of India, Jamal gets on the show, hoping Latika would see him. Latika at this time is in the firm grip of a gang lord, her hope of freedom is dismal.

slumdog-millionaire-2

Yet, screenwriter Simon Beaufoy (Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, 2008 ) and director Danny Boyle gratify their viewers with some unexpected twists and turns, allowing us to savour an exhilarating end to the story. With their seamless, non-linear way of storytelling, framed by an upbeat musical score, they have turned what could be just another love story into a fresh and engrossing tale.

While the film features all Indian actors and some Bollywood stars, shot in Mumbai, many dialogues in Hindi with English subtitles, I don’t feel the cultural elements particularly stand out, drawing attention to themselves. Herein lies the success of the film. It has not led me to feel like I am watching something ‘foreign’ or ‘ethnic’, like some National Geographic features. The sense of place and subject matter, plus the amiable cast have all worked together effectively to transmit a universal appeal. The only Bollywood moment is when the end credits roll. Do stay for that.

Slumdog Millionaire evokes reminiscence of similar successful though lesser known titles like ‘Chop Shop’ (2007) and ‘Born into Brothels’ (2004), but on a grander scale, with an explicit message of hope and an unabashed resolution of requited love.

How satisfying! You’ll come out rejuvenated. The skeptic in you might say it’s only a movie, a fantasy too… Mind you, not all fantasies end well. With some, the darkness can loom for days. Be good to yourself, start the year on a cheery note. Watch a ‘hopeful movie’. Love and Hope can sustain and triumph. As simple as that.

~ ~ ~½ Ripples

*****

The Best Movies of 2008

It’s that time of the year when film critics choose their ten best. Here are a few of their lists. Click on them to see the full content.

Breaking the top 10 tradition, Roger Ebert has chosen 20 for 2008, because in his opinion, there are just too many good films this year.

A. O. Scott of the New York Times tends to agree, but still managed to pick his top 10 among the 650 films he has seen this year… incredible.

His colleague Manohla Dargis has also done the year-end cut from the hundreds she has seen. Here’s her take on the ten best. And while you’re there, click on the podcast where she and Scott discuss this year’s movies.

And finally, a Canadian perspective, represented by Johanna Schneller of the Globe and Mail. I like how she puts it: the 10 films “that I feel richer for having seen.”

What draws me to these lists is not so much about which movies get picked as the 10 best, but WHY they are selected, and HOW critics come around to that final decision after, I must suppose is a long, struggling process. Imagine having had to pick 10 out of 650!

Comparing these lists, there are of course titles that are common among them, but not too many. A few getting up on three of these lists but not all, like Rachel Getting Married, Milk, and Wendy and Lucy. Only one film gets the nod from all of them and that’s Happy-Go-Lucky. But for the rest, it seems like each critic has his or her own personal criteria when it comes to choosing what makes a good movie. And I’m glad to see it this way.

Of course, there are theories, on film, aesthetics, and criticism, and then there are acting methods and execution criteria in camera works, lighting, sound, cinematography, editing, screenplay… it all boils down to one whole package, the final production. And then there is also the receptive end of the movie, the viewer, and in this case, the critic, each bringing his or her own experience, sense of self, personal values and point of view. And I’m relieved to see each critic pick what he or she feels is most affective and meaningful to him or her as an individual.

I’ve particularly enjoyed reading A. O. Scott’s year-end article in the New York Times entitled “In The Face of Loss, Celebrating Ties that Bind“. Although not intended to answer the question: “What makes a good movie?” Scott has inadvertently expressed his criteria. When discussing a few movies that he thinks are well done, namely Doubt, The Reader, Revolutionary Road, and Frost/Nixon, he comments that they :

are impeccably acted, exquisitely production-designed excursions into the recent past. And each one is a hermetically sealed melodrama of received thinking, feverishly advancing a set of themes that are the very opposite of provocative.

So, one criterion is originality, and not cliché treatment of subject or idea.

In the midst of our unsettling and troubled time, films could be manifestations of a collective predicament, and expressions of our hidden longings. I’ve particularly appreciated Scott’s comment at the end of his article:

And while I am suspicious of easy affirmation or forced happy endings, I am nonetheless grateful for movies that, in spite of everything, investigate the possibility of hope.

Another criterion: good films are flowing conduit of hope. I cannot agree with him more. If you listen to the podcast on his webpage, you will hear him reiterate this point.

And on this note I end my post of 2008. To all my readers, visitors, and fellow bloggers, may 2009 be a year of hopes abound and dreams fulfilled!

Happy New Year to All!

*****

2009 Golden Globe Nominations

Update January 12: CLICK HERE for the Golden Globe Winners.

Hollywood Foreign Press Association has just announced the 2009 Golden Globe Awards nominations. Click here for the full list.

If, as they say, the Golden Globes usually is a good prediction of the Oscars, then I am hopeful that some of those who truly deserve the recognition might just get a nod for next year’s Academy Awards.

I’m thinking in particular of Kristin Scott Thomas for her role in I’ve Loved You So Long (France), nominated for a Golden Globe Best Actress Award (Drama), and the film getting a nod in the Best Foreign Film category.

Anne Hathaway is also a contender in the same category as Scott Thomas, for Rachel Getting Married. Her performance is a good sign of her versatility. But my choice is Kristin Scott Thomas, hands down. She has delivered a superb performance in I’ve Loved You So Long as the deep and tormented Juliette Fontaine. I wish her all the best all the way to the Oscars.

As to the two nominations Mamma Mia! receives for Best Picture (Comedy or Musical), and Meryl Streep for Best Actress (Comedy or Musical), I admit I am a bit surprised. But then again, as a musical goes, especially one made up of amateur singers, maybe it does deserve a nomination for its entertainment value.

To read my reviews of the movies mentioned here, just click on their names. My reviews are also linked by IMDB’s ‘external reviews’.

*****

I’ve Loved You So Long (2008, France) Il y a longtemps que je t’aime

Update:

March 3: The DVD has come out. For those who don’t like to read subtitles, the DVD has an English Version with Kristin Scott Thomas voicing her own part. But nothing compares to the original of course.

Feb. 8 I’ve Loved You So Long has just won the BAFTA for Best Film Not In The English Lanugage tonight in London, England.

Dec. 11: I’ve Loved You So Long has just been nominated for two Golden Globes, Best Foreign Film and Best Actress (Drama) for Kristin Scott Thomas.

Sisters reuniting is the storyline of several movies recently, as in Margot At The Wedding (2007) and Rachel Getting Married (2008 ). But both Nicole Kidman and Anne Hathaway are just featherweights compared to Kristin Scott Thomas’s powerful performance here in I’ve Loved You So Long.

il-y-a-longtemps-que-je-taime

Winner of the 2008 Berlin International Film Festival, I’ve Loved You So Long is the directorial debut of Philippe Claudel, French novelist, screenwriter, and professor of literature at The University of Nancy. It is unfortunate that festival films like this one are rarely shown in North America, except in major selective cities. I’ve wanted to see the film for a while, but not until my trip to Vancouver last week did I have the chance to watch it in a theatre.

In the film, the reunion of the sisters comes under the most unusual of circumstances. Kristin Scott Thomas (The English Patient, 1996) plays Juliette, an older sister who has just been released on parole after 15 years in prison. She rejoins society to the embrace of her younger sister Léa (Elsa Zylberstein). Léa was only a young teenager when her much older sister was disowned by their parents. To them, the crime she had committed was unforgivable. Léa was told to ostracize Juliette, as the rest of the family did. Now years later, Léa is teaching literature at a university, and mature enough to reconnect the tie that binds. She receives Juliette into her own home, a warm family with a loving husband, two adopted Vietnamese girls, and her father-in-law Papy Paul (Jean-Claude Arnaud), who has lost his ability to speak after a stroke. But her husband Luc (Serge Hazanavicius) is apprehensive, and understandably so.

Like the viewers, Léa is kept in the dark as to the details of the act Juliette had done , a secret that is painfully borne by Juliette alone. The slow unfolding of the facts thus sets the stage for the heart-wrenching performance by Scott Thomas. The film is an exploration into the nature of good and evil, love and forgiveness. In our society that excels in labeling people, the writer/director leads us to ponder the questions of what constitutes a crime, who are the victims, likewise, who are the strong, the helpers, and who are those that need help? How can we truly know each other? And ultimately, what is love?

ive-loved-you-so-long

I admire that the elegant Oscar nominated actress Scott Thomas was willing to take up a role that would cast her against type, and to work under a first-time director. Devoid of make-up, her gaunt and haunted look, deep set eyes and languid lids, and the high cheek bones that used to speak of beauty in her other films now form the epitome of a soul tormented. Her icy demeanor reflects a guarded self that is too wounded to risk another blow. Though released from physical confinement, Juliette is still imprisoned by her own guilt, and has to serve a life sentence of torments from the ambivalence of her act. Scott Thomas has poignantly portrayed a believable character and effectively created a tragic heroine. Juliet is out of prison, has nowhere to go, lost to herself and the world.

Yet love paves the road to redemption, and courage is the building block. While Léa plays a major part in reaching out to Juliette, her adopted daughters and even the silent Papy Paul have all unknowingly participated in the healing process. It is his silence and the calming effect of his books that Juliette finds affinity. In sharing the French children’s song ‘Il y a longtemps que je t’aime’ with Léa’s adopted daughter P’tit Lys (Lise Ségur), she ventures out to reconnect in a meaningful way.

Léa also invites Juliette into her circle of friends, in particular, her colleague Michel (Laurent Grévill). Michel has spent some time teaching in a prison. He reaches out to Juliette with his understanding and compassion, and shares with her the enjoyment of art. Although he does not know the full details of her circumstances, he respects her humanity and offers his friendship, even when Juliette is not ready to receive. He patiently waits.

Engrossing and intense, the film nonetheless offers a satisfying experience. Even though I was able to guess the nature of the dark secret underlying the suspense, such that it has lessened the effect of surprise on me at the end, I still find the film thoroughly enjoyable, in particular, the superb acting from both sisters. For those who associate tears with melodramatic and contrived effects, the film is an apt refutation of such a view. Tears are most welcome and cathartic as a closure here after almost 90 minutes of elliptical restraint, for they are the very expression of reconciliation and redemption. The climax is one of the most poignant I’ve seen in a long while, and the subsequent ending, a triumph.

I look forward to more of Claudel’s work. And for Kristin Scott Thomas, I think she deserves no less than an Oscar for her performance.

~ ~ ~ ½ Ripples

****

Lost in Austen Episode 4 (2008, TV): Lost and Found

After trudging through a slow and a tad too serious Episode 3, the production has redeemed itself by finishing up with a grand finale. Episode 4 has found its original pace with its fast sequences to wrap things up, offering unexpected and entertaining twists and turns.

One thing that screenwriter Guy Andrews remains consistent with is his attempt to mix things up as much as he can, like Lydia eloping with Bingley, Wickham turning wicked schemes into timely rescues, Mrs. Bennet coming to her senses and confronts Lady Catherine de Bourg, and ultimately, the big ultimate, Elizabeth Bennet swaps places with Amanda Price not for a moment, but for good. The laughs and fun derived from these “post-modern moments” are all based on juxtaposing time and mixing up of characters and story lines. The whole production is an effective deconstruction of an all-time classic and its adaptations.

The most fun of them all, of course, is Amanda coming back through the portal and see Elizabeth Bennet in 21st Century London, with a new pixie hairdo, working as a nanny, computer savvy, environmentally conscious, and fully liberated. What more, she enjoys modern, post-modern rather, life so much that she intends to stay for good. And once she sees Darcy, who follows Amanda to the modern world, Lizzy right away knows who he is, thanks, as we all do nowadays, to all the webpages about Colin Firth’s wet shirt scene.

Darcy on the other hand is totally lost in the future. Here the scene is almost a replication of the one from Kate and Leopold (2001), where Hugh Jackman portrays a late 19th Century English nobleman travelling through a time portal and lands in modern day NYC. Darcy is even wearing a similar long, blue coat like Leopold, mesmerized by the tele and the busy urban traffic. And the ending too, a similar twist as Meg Ryan’s ultimate choice at the end of the movie.

What would Jane Austen think? “Turns in her grave” as Amanda puts it? As a satirist and a fan of the burlesque, Jane might have a good laugh too I think. I’m sure she was confident and self-assured enough to know that parodies of her work, at best, remain only as they are, spin-offs and re-makes of something that is inimitable. No matter how you deconstruct Jane Austen, you would always come out admiring the ingenuity of the brilliant mind behind that original creation.

*****

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

Slow Blogging and the Long Take

Recently, I’ve been mulling over the notion of slow blogging, a movement that is gradually gaining attention. I first read about it in a blog I frequent. In her post entitled “Slow “, Stefanie has drawn out the essence of what slow blogging is. It’s all about thinking through, reading and studying in depth, chewing and digesting, and finally putting something meaningful down in words. I don’t know who initiated the idea. It may have sprouted up from various bloggers, those who care about the quality of their writing, and the effects of their posts. I urge my readers to visit the Oxford University Press blog post on the subject, and the Slow Blog Manifesto.

Yes, a Slow Blog Manifesto, written by Todd Sieling dated back to September, 2006. But for some uncanny reasons, just as I was working on my draft of this very post, after I’ve linked the SBM to my draft, it has now been taken off the WWW. Hope this is not an omen of things to come. Fortunately, before its disappearance, I had the chance to read and mull over his words:

“Slow Blogging is a rejection of immediacy. It is an affirmation that not all things worth reading are written quickly.”

(It’s back! Todd Sieling has just re-posted his SBM. He has created a whole new site just for this. Click here to go there. You may want to read his comment at the end of this post. I’m just going to leave the following paragraph as is.)

But then, all is not lost. Barbara Ganley’s BGBLOGGING is still standing. Ganley had taught writing at Middlebury College in Vermont for some years until quiting her academic job in recent months and ventured into uncharted personal exploration. She is an advocate of slow blogging, and related the idea to the term meditative blogging, way back in November 2006. Here’s the link to that post.

After more than two years, the notion has finally reached Arti of Ripple Effects. As my blog name suggests, I thrive on hindsights and delayed resonance. I may not have immediate response to all that I come across, but for those ideas I find stimulating, I would delve into and mull over, research and read about them, sometimes for a long while, before I dare to put thoughts into words. I’m glad I have finally found a name for the kind of writing and thinking with which I feel most comfortable all along.

And that is why I find a recent article in the November issue of ‘The Atlantic’ so disconcerting. In his article entitled “Why I Blog”, Andrew Sullivan , the prominent political commentator and blogger, describes blogging as postmodern writing that thrives on its immediacy. By nature it is rash and temporal.

“It is the spontaneous expression of instant thought. As a blogger, you have to express yourself now, while your emotions roil, while your temper flares, while your humor lasts.”

What Sullivan is pronouncing is that you may have an instant platform accessible by all in the blogosphere, and with links authenticating your sources, but what you write is as ephemeral as your breath, as unreliable as your mood, and as momentary as your fleeting thoughts. Time is of the essence in the blogging world.

I can understand such a perspective may apply to political and news blogs, where bloggers’ views and comments are almost on a par with professional journalists, or where bloggers are journalists, such as Sullivan himself.

But I’d just like to remind Sullivan that there are also those of us for whom blogging is not about beating to the punch, or channeling rants and angsts, or climbing to a higher ranking and authority. What we write may seem like ramblings at times, but they are thoughts that have gone through regurgitation, pondering, and conscious self-censure. For the writing I read in some of the blogs I visit, their quality is not undermined by the self-publishing nature of blog writing. Their message is no less important, their style no less eloquent, their impact no less powerful than many conventionally published materials.

Around the same time, I came across the post on the long take in Brett McCracken’s blog The Search. Do click on the link there to read the whole essay when you are there. The long take is a technique where a camera follows its subject for an extended period of time without cutting, capturing life in real time. Viewers looking for instant gratification and fast actions would often find the long take boring, incongruent to the normal pacing of a normal movie. But as blog writer and movie critic Brett McCracken reflects, the long take leads us to confront life in a real sense, in real time:

I go to movies to recapture time—that achingly pervasive burden that keeps us so unceasingly busy in our normal lives. In the movies, time is “free.” We need not worry about our own time; all that is required of us is that we cede our imagination to the screen, where time is footloose and fancy free, dancing to and fro in flashback, flashforward, slow-mo, still, etc.

A vivid example is Hou Hsiao-Hsien’s Flight of the Red Balloon which I reviewed in my last post. Who would want to sit in a theatre to watch a balloon slowly drifting above the urbanscape, other than those who enjoy the grace of unhurried moments, those who consciously seek for poetics in the mundane, and those who take time to ponder the meaning conveyed by the filmmaker.

Slow blogging and the long take, two powerful ways to glean the indelible essence of life.

*****

Flight of the Red Balloon (2007, France, DVD)

In celebration of its 20th anniversary, the Musée d’Orsay in Paris has commissioned four notable directors to create a series of commemorative films. One of them is Olivier Assayas with his Summer Hours (l’Heure d’été) which I have reviewed. Another is the highly acclaimed Taiwanese auteur Hou Hsiao-hsien. Flight of the Red Balloon is a unique piece of film art gently crafted by Hou in homage to Albert Lamorisee’s Oscar winning short Le Ballon Rouge (1956). Hou has long been garnering awards in international film festivals throughout Europe and Asia since the 1980’s, albeit relatively unknown in North America. Flight of the Red Balloon is his first French language film.

The little boy in this 2007 rendition is Simon (Simon Iteanu), a child growing up in the hustle and bustle of Paris. With an absentee father somewhere in Montreal pursuing his writing, and a frantically busy mother Suzanne (Juliette Binoche), Simon is alone in an adult world. Overloaded with her work as a voice-over artist in a puppet production plus other personal matters, Suzanne hires Song (Fang Song), a film student from Beijing, to look after Simon for her.

Suzanne is the embodiment of urban frenzy. As a single mother, she has to shuttle between home and work, deal with the eviction of a bad tenant in her lower apartment, confront her non-committal husband on the phone to Montreal, and connect with her daughter in Brussel, all in a day’s work. Simon is most perplexed. “Why are you so busy, Mama?”, he asks.

Song, on the other hand, offers the tranquility that is needed to balance life in the midst of chaos. As a film student, she uses her hand-held camera to record Simon’s activities, and by her quiet demeanor and calm observing, she reflects pleasure in the mundane, everyday trivialities called life. This is reality show without sensationalism. Hou has ingeniously conveyed his perspective of realism with artistic overtone. No doubt, there is a lack of plot, suspense, or climax, but there is character contrasts, cinematic offerings in sights and sounds, and realistic, natural performance. Juliette Binoche has once again assured me why she is one of my favorite actresses. And no, you are not watching paint dry, you are watching life unplugged.

The red balloon forms the focal point of Hou’s signature long take. The almost God-like omnipresence hovering over buildings in the Paris skyline is a joyful symbol of childhood. Its silent drifting is as elusive as the fleeting memories of happiness. Even little Simon achingly remembers the pleasant days he had shared with his much older sister, who is now living in Brussel. We are all trying to catch and hold on to fond memories and meaningful relationships. Yet as the busyness of urban living numb our senses, we ignore and shove away what we think is a hindrance to our time, just like the people rushing out of the subway station, shoving away the red balloon. Only a child would try to catch and befriend it.

Complementing the cinematic artistry is the equally mesmerizing piano music, meditative, serene and restoring, setting the mood and the preamble of the film. Other musical numbers are equally soulful. Click here for the official IFC site where you can have a taste of the sights and sounds of the film.

I particularly enjoy the ending. As Simon goes on a school trip to the art gallery of the Musée d’Orsay, the children gather on the floor to talk about Félix Vallotton’s 1899 painting Le Ballon, he leans back, slightly removes himself from his school mates, and lays on his back. As he looks up to the glass canopy of the museum ceiling, he sees it again, the red balloon, watching over him, removed yet engaged, far away, yet ever so near.

~ ~ ~ Ripples