reviews – Page 9 – Ripple Effects

Go Set A Watchman: Sequel or Prequel?

Background

Go Set A Watchman is Harper Lee’s first draft of a novel (See links at the end of the post). In 1957, Lee’s agent submitted it to Tay Hohoff, an editor at the now defunct publishing house J. B. Lippincott. Hohoff did not see it adequate to be published; however, she did see promising elements in it, “the spark of the true writer flashed in every line,” she later recounted.

The draft’s protagonist, 26 year-old Jean Louise Finch, Scout, now a New Yorker, goes back to visit her childhood home in fictional Maycomb County, Alabama, and finds discrepancies about her father Atticus now from the man she thought she had known all the years growing up. To her alarm and disillusionment, Atticus, while a good father and a good man to all the rest in Maycomb, holds racist views and is firmly a segregationist.

Hohoff advised Lee to rewrite the draft but this time, instead of writing Jean Louise Finch as an adult, focus on her reminiscence of her childhood growing up in Maycomb with her brother Jem, living under the roof of her father Atticus, and summer days spent with a boy next door called Dill. After more than two years of editing and rewriting, To Kill A Mockingbird was born. And the rest is history.

So here’s the query I have: If your novel, after two years of editing and re-inventing, had developed into a final form and published in 1960, some 50 plus years ago, had gained high acclaims, won the Pulitzer, become a beloved American classic, been adapted into an Oscar winning movie, and achieved international recognition, why would you want your very first draft as a novice be published to the world now?

At 89 years old, Harper Lee now lives in a nursing home, a stroke survivor who has lost most of her hearing and eyesight, and just months after her sister Alice Lee – guardian of her privacy and legal advisor – had passed, and suddenly a ‘newly discovered’ Harper Lee novel appeared.

In a recent New York Times Op Ed article entitled “The Harper Lee ‘Go Set A Watchman’ Fraud”, columnist Joe Nocera vehemently argues that the Rupert Murdoch-owned HarperCollins had “manufactured a phoney literary event.” The publishing house had sold more than 1.1 million copies of the book in a week, the ‘fastest-selling book in company history’ according to the publisher, to which Nocera decries “Go Set A Watchman constitutes one of the epic money grabs in the modern history of American publishing.”

The above is the major challenge surrounding this phenomenal ‘literary event’. So how should one read the book? Controversy aside, what can we reap from reading Go Set A Watchman?

Definitely not as a sequel and not a prequel either, but take it as it is: A first draft of To Kill A Mockingbird.

Only when comparing the two books as a ‘Before and After’ transformation can we see how the writing process had taken place. By reading Watchman as a first draft, we come to appreciate how a seasoned editor had helped a novice and an aspiring writer to achieve her goal to become a respectable, published author. And this we know Hohoff had done most successfully.

***

Reading Go Set A Watchman

First off, to all readers, a major reminder: Harper Lee is a real person, and Atticus Finch is a fictional character. In Lee’s first draft, Go Set A Watchman, Atticus is a good father, but a racist. Yes, he had successfully defended Tom Robinson and gained him an acquittal, that was a court appointed case. This is anecdotally mentioned in Watchman. But Atticus is a self-professed Jeffersonian Democrat, one who subscribes to Jefferson’s view that: “A man couldn’t vote simply because he was a man… He had to be a responsible man.”

Lee spends a climatic chapter towards the end describing the arguments between father and daughter on the issue of race. While both are polar extremes, and I don’t want to quote the words from Atticus pouring forth his arguments about how “white is white and black’s black”, I must point out that it is Scout who loses her cool during the debate. She is the one who blows right out, foul-mouthed and accusing her father with hurtful, derogatory terms. Throughout the verbal confrontation, Atticus remains a gentleman. “I’m seventy-two years old, but I’m still open to suggestions.”

And I’m quite impressed by the next episode, and that’s when Scout cools down and goes back to her father, seeking reconciliation. It’s not just a simple case of ‘agree to disagree’, but somewhat laying out a more complex relationship with the ambivalent stance of ‘I can’t beat you, I can’t join you,’ but love can still triumph over all. That is the spark of an inspiring writer I can see in the conclusion of Lee’s Watchman. As Scout apologizes for her foul-mouthed diatribe aimed at her father the day before, this line from Atticus will remain with me: “I can take anything anybody calls me as long as it’s not true.”

Hohoff might just have seen this character trait in Atticus that she advised Lee to expand on in her rewrite. I see this admirable element as I read. Let the fictional character Atticus be created as an ideal type of a man, open to others’ opinions, upholding his ground with firmness but with no malicious hostility. And yes, we can all appreciate this change of heart in Lee’s rewriting in Mockingbird. Let Atticus be the ideal father and friend, a deserving, honourable man.

Further, in Watchman, the racist turn in Atticus has not been well accounted for. Since Jean Louise has come back to Maycomb annually to see her father, why the sudden discovery of his racist stance? And why had she not known about his views considering her close relationship with her father all her growing years and only in recent years in her adult life had she moved to NYC. But most important point of all Lee had not explained in Watchman, why had Atticus changed his view? These could be flaws in the plot line that Hohoff had Lee re-think.

As recounted, Lee based her Atticus character on her own father, the lawyer Amasa Coleman Lee who had actually defended two black men but failed to have them acquitted. According to reports, the elder Lee had been a segregationist but later changed his views to support integration. The real life parallel is obvious. The details we could only speculate, was it the man that had influenced the change in the book, or maybe vice versa?

In the rewriting process, there is the elimination of two significant characters in Watchman, Hank, Jean Louise’s suitor, and Uncle Jack, holder of family secrets. Once a clear storyline is established, with the equally moving minor plot of Boo Radley, a parallel Mockingbird theme with Tom Robinson as both being vulnerable victims, Hank and Uncle Jack would not be needed to uphold the story lines. So, no matter how much a writer had invested in a character, cuts and alterations could be the outcome, quite like the deleted scenes we see on DVDs, the rational choices we have to make in the long creative process. On the other hand, a character that exists only in memory, Jem, who had died in Watchman, is revived to his lively self, and we are all grateful for that revision.

One of the main reasons Hohoff had rejected the first draft was that it was episodic, lacking a unified story arc as a novel. Readers of Watchman will find this so, especially when Jean Louise switches back and forth from the present to the past. As I read, the past holds much more attractions as Scout describes her growing up days in Maycomb. We see the children in a different perspective, something like a ‘behind the scene’, a ‘making-of’ featurette. Thanks to Hohoff, such episodes are restrung into the gem of a book called To Kill A Mockingbird. Indeed, Hohoff had grasped the social psyche well, there was a need for a noble, heroic character in her time then, and maybe even more so in our time now.

***

LA Times (With video)

The Telegraph

New Republic

The New York Times (Jonathan Mahler)

The New York Times (Serge F. Kovaleski and Alexandra Alter)

The Wall Street Journal

The Washington Post

The Washington Free Beacon

Wikipedia

Clouds of Sils Maria Movie Review

Clouds of Sils Maria is an intricately conceived rumination on the passage of time, ageing, being female, being famous, and for that matter, being gradually becoming obsolete. The newest film from the prominent, Paris born, French director Olivier Assayas, it was nominated for numerous awards at film festivals, including the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 2014. I watched it at TIFF last September, and gladly again at the indie theatre when the film came to our city a few months ago.

A middle-aged celebrated screen and stage actress Maria Enders (Juliette Binoche) is on a train to Zurich with her personal assistant Valentine (Kristen Stewart) to attend a tribute to the playwright Wilhelm Melchior, who had cast her in her breakout role in one of his plays Maloja Snake some twenty years ago. At that time, Maria played a manipulative young office girl Sigrid who had an emotive relationship with her older office boss Helena, driving her to commit suicide.

While on the train to Zurich, Maria gets the news that Melchior has died, an apparent suicide due to a terminal illness. When arriving Switzerland, Melchior’s widow Rosa (Angela Winkler) lets Maria and Valentine stay in her idyllic house in the Swiss Alps, in the Sils Maria locale, while she tries to get away from the sad memories of her late husband. In that serene natural setting, Valentine helps Maria practice her lines for a revival of the play Maloja Snake, re-mounted as a tribute to the late playwright. But this time, Maria is to play the older character Helena, while a wildly popular, scandalous young star Jo-Ann Ellis (Chloë Grace Moretz, the rising star in real life) is to play Sigrid.

If you have the patience to read up to here, you likely can see the parallels: Maria and Valentine – Helena and Sigrid, as well you probably can guess the feelings Maria goes through in this role reversal, for now she is twenty plus years older, and the loss of Melchior could well be the foreshadow of an imminent path everyone has to trod, famous or not. The film is an intricately woven, multi-layered construct, with thought-provoking dialogues and incisive subtexts; the mirroring effect is brilliant especially the scenes when Valentine helps Maria practice her lines and accept the role reversal, from the young to the older.

If you appreciate the characterization and the superb performance of the actresses, you would not only bear with but savour the complexity of the dialogues and scenes. Instead of a litmus test for the viewer’s patience, the complications and layered meaning are a testament of some fine screenwriting and directing. Assayas’ signature realism and naturalistic style works marvellously well; in some scenes towards the end, the honesty is harsh and biting.

Juliette Binoche always delivers. Here she is an ageing celebrity and star, her outward coolness masks tumultuous insecurities. She is totally natural in her role. Viewers may even feel she’s not acting at all.

But my highest praise has to go to Kristen Stewart. I admit I’m probably one of the few who have not watched, or read, any of the Twilight movies or books. So this is my first Stewart film, and I’m most impressed. She lives and breathes her character Valentine, assistant to Maria Enders. From juggling several smart phones while balancing herself on a moving train, to helping Maria practice her lines adjusting to the older role, Stewart has shown she has mastered the needed nuance, intelligence and sensitivity for her character. She has portrayed convincingly a complex female who, despite her efficiency and strength at her job as assistant to a famous but fast fading star, is herself vulnerable as a female with deep, inner yearnings and conflicts muffled only by her outward sensibility.

With her role as Valentine, Stewart went on to win the 2015 César Award for Best Supporting Actress this February in Paris, the first American actress to win the prestigious French acting award which is equivalent to the Oscar here.

Chloë Grace Moretz aptly plays the youthful, and bratty, rising star Jo-Ann Ellis. She embodies the young and famous, a celeb whom Valentine admires, but whom Maria can never understand as to how the young measures talent or shoots to the peak of popularity despite (or maybe because) of scandals. I’m sure what’s mind boggling to her could well be the thoughts in many a mind of the, alas, fading bunch of old school, superbly trained actors and iconic performers of our days.

The Largo from George Frideric Handel’s opera Serse is poignant, a solemn and grand diction of existential angst as Maria confronts the loss of her beloved and respected artistic mentor, and her own fading glory. Interestingly, the music reminds me of Kon Ichikawa’s The Makioka Sisters (1983), wherein this piece of music also appears, bringing out the poignancy of the passage of time, the erosion of the familiar, the end of an era, of traditions, and of treasured values.

This brings us to the very title of the film. The clouds of the Sils Maria mountain range in the Swiss Alps is famous for their sudden appearance like a snake curling and weaving around the mountains. Many have climbed the peaks only to be disappointed as the clouds may not appear while they are there. In the scene towards the end, just as Maria turns and walks away, the clouds come into view for us audience but not her, indeed, like a snake slithers silently in and in a few seconds, moves out of sight again. Ah… the ephemeral of it all. The ultimate mirroring of nature and life.

Probably the best film I’ve seen so far this year. A film that deserves – and requires – multiple viewings.

~ ~ ~ ~ Ripples

***

This is my last entry to Paris in July 2015 blogging event hosted by Tamara of Thyme for Tea.

***

Other Related Ripple Effects Posts:

Conversation with Juliette Binoche

Summer Hours by Olivier Assayas

My Old Lady

Suite Française: From Book to Film

Flight of the Red Balloon

Suite Française Movie Adaptation

The film is the long anticipated adaptation of Irène Némirovsky’s final work in progress before her death in 1942. Born in Ukraine, Némirovsky had moved to live in France since 1919. Before the Nazi occupation, she was a prominent literary figure in her adopted country, having published nine novels and a biography of Chekhov. The Nazi takeover sent her fleeing Paris. She was writing Suite Française in the village of Issy-l’Evêque where she was living with her husband and two young daughters when the French police arrested her for her Jewish descent and sent her to her demise in Auschwitz.

Suite Française was intended to be a literary composition in musical terms. Like a musical suite, the author had planned to write five pieces, but had only finished the first draft of two upon her death. The whole set when completed could have been an impressive eyewitness paralleled fiction, a historic testament reflecting the larger picture from the microlevel, a family, or, a woman and a man from different sides of the war falling in love.

Such is the story of “Dolce”, the second novella in her Suite on which the movie is based. Lucile Angellia (Michelle Williams) falls in love with a German officer staying in her house where she lives with her widowed mother-in-law (Kristin Scott Thomas), the most elegant estate in the village. Lucile’s own husband has been missing in war and now a likely prisoner. That makes falling in love with the enemy right in your own home even more conflicting. However, Williams fails to bring out such internal battles or even ambivalence; Schoenaerts fares better in expressing the conflicts.

The opening of the film captures vividly what Némirovsky described as the ‘German artillery thunders… its wailings fill the sky’. As viewers we see people carrying suitcases and personal belongings scurry or simply dive for cover and we hear the sudden, roaring thunders of bomb blasting the country road on which refugees from Paris flee like rats – and as the camera zooms away – insects. It’s this kind of cinematic moments that make films powerful. We read about the air raids in the book, we see and hear the actual effects in the theatre. With that regard, the voiceover narrative by Michelle Williams is redundant. Or, maybe it’s just a lazy way of storytelling.

With that dynamic start, the film falters in not sustaining such power, albeit it still has many beautiful shots; romance in its period setting, the movie is visually appealing. But the attractions between Lucile and the handsome German official, Lieutenant Bruno von Falk, played by the ubiquitous Matthias Schoenaerts, soon becomes the centrepiece.

Like his role as Gabriel Oak in Far From the Madding Crowd, here Schoenaerts portrays another man of few words. Compare the two roles, he is more convincing here with his German officer look, and yes, sitting at the piano, mesmerizing Lucile with his soft touch. No words needed when music lures.

If not interrupted by her feisty mother-in-law, Lucile would have dived into the pool of passion immediately. Thanks to Kristin Scott Thomas, who adds some realistic sparks into the dreamy world of wartime romance with the ‘wrong man’. Such episodes could make interesting exploration, but the film is overwhelmingly mellowdramatic and seems not intended to be deep or psychological.

When a farmer, Benoit Labarie (Sam Reily), kills a German officer, the plot thickens. And as a viewer, I’m thankful for that turn in the otherwise relatively uneventful story. Benoit’s wife Madeleine (Ruth Wilson) urged Lucile to help him out. And that she did, risking everyone in her household and ultimately leading to the moral dilemma of both herself and her enemy lover.

The prolific film composer Alexandre Desplat (The King’s Speech, 2010, among many other works) wrote the signature piece “Bruno’s Theme”. While romantic in its overall styling, it is punctuated with discords, could well be a reflection of Bruno’s inner state. The ending of the film shows us his resolve. When love and duty is in conflict, there can’t be any favourable resolve. But then again, the film does not go further into that.

Kristin Scott Thomas plays a pivotal role in balancing sense and passion in her household, and bringing out some worthwhile and lively performance for the production. My major objection regarding this talented veteran of cinema and the stage is that nearly all her movie roles in recent years present her in character twenty years older than she really is. Here, the first shot we see Madam Angellier is her white painted, over-made-up face as an old widow. That is one reason why her other work in 2014 My Old Lady is so refreshing, for we get to see her in a suitable age where she can still find love.

Regarding WWII Holocaust movies, it is unfortunate that films of this genre in recent years based on popular fiction or chronicling significant historical events are mere passable works, like The Monuments Men, or The Book Thief, Sarah’s Key, or the related film Woman in Gold. Seems like the epic war movie genre with its affective power to move has not re-emerged in the past decade, iconic films such as Spielberg’s Schindler’s List (1993), Benigni’s Life Is Beautiful (1997), and Polanski’s The Pianist (2002) have all but remain distant memories.

As for Suite Française the movie, it should not be seen as the adaptation of Némirovsky’s book called Suite Française, however unfinished. The movie is best taken as a rendition of a storyline in one of its pieces, and true to the title ‘Dolce’, sweetly laced with soft touches. Overall, despite its flaws, it is still a watchable film.

~ ~ 1/2 Ripples

This is my second entry to the Paris In July blogging event hosted by Tamara of Thyme for Tea.

***

Other Related Reviews on Ripple Effects:

Sarah’s Key (2010): From Book into Movie

The Book Thief (2013): From Book to Film

Far From the Madding Crowd (2015)

My Old Lady (2014)

Woman In Gold: Then and Now (2015)

The King’s Speech (2010)

***

My Old Lady (2014) Movie Review

Among the dozen films I’d watched at the Toronto International Film Festival last September, two are apt selections for the annual Paris In July blogging event hosted by Tamara in Thyme for Tea, now in its sixth year. Recently I have re-watched both, one at an indie theatre, the other on Blu-ray. Here’s my first entry to Paris In July 2015.

***

My Old Lady (2014)

Just when voices had been raised in recent months from female stars against the sexist domination in Hollywood, and lamenting the lack of significant female leading roles, another issue pops up. Well, the problem has been there all along, but who would speak for those who are…. getting old? The peril of Agism in the movie industry. And, if you’re female and aging, confronting Hollywood is a losing battle.

I’m glad there are filmmakers who consider film as an art form, and in its essence, conveys the meaningful and universal that make us human. Kudos to all who attempt to break the barrier. Here we have a directorial debut from 75 year-old Isaac Horowitz. As he had noted, which first-time film director would talk about his five grandchildren?

Horowitz is an author of more than 50 produced plays. Several of his works have been translated and performed in as many as 30 languages worldwide. This is his first time directing a film, adapting his own play onto the big screen. My Old Lady is a delightful debut. I’ve watched it three times, so far, and liked it more each time.

In an after screen talk, Horowitz shared that he had heeded one advice from the iconic director Sydney Lumet: “Cast the best actors in the world and then get out of their way.” In his debut movie, his cast is first-rate, and allow me to show their age when they made this movie, just to prove a point: Maggie Smith, 80, Kristin Scott Thomas, 54, and Kevin Kline, 67. How much the director had left them to their own I don’t know, but sure looks easy for these veteran actors to take on this one. Such natural ease comes from decades of experience, expertise honed as innate skills.

That’s the advantage of ageing. Let’s drink to that.

Kevin Kline plays Mathias Gold, a down-and-out, thrice divorced, alcohol dependent, penniless middle-aged American who is relieved to inherit from his late father an apartment in the Marais district of Paris. Going there to claim his rightful ownership and aiming at a quick sale, he learns a French lesson in property transfers instead: En Viager. When his father purchased the apartment 43 years ago – now worth over 10 million Euros – he was under the contracted stipulation of a Viager.

This is the issue Mathias faces: Instead of a lump sum payment made for a clear purchase, his father, the buyer, had contracted to put down a cheap amount and then pay the rest as viager, a monthly fee of 2,400 Euro to the vendor and occupant of the apartment, Mathilde Girard (Maggie Smith), until she dies. Now at 90, Mathilde is in good health, thanks to her daily sustenance of red wine and precise meal times. Not only that, Mathilde has a daughter living with her, headstrong and vocal to defend their property against any potential profit-driven redevelopment plans.

That’s the story. It is not hard to predict the ending, with Kline and Scott Thomas together, albeit fiery and combative to start with. But what is harder to foresee is the story within the story at the outset. Everyone has a past. This is one of the best performance I’ve seen with Kline, for he carries the whole film and delivers with just the right touch of humour and pathos. The first time the two were co-stars was in Life As A House (2001), interestingly, another story based on a domicile. Life as a house indeed.

Scott Thomas as always is a pleasure to watch. No matter what role she takes up, her communication is crisp and clear even without having had to say a word. The last scene is a prime example. But of course, you don’t have to wait till the last. As for Maggie Smith, at 80, she is as strong as ever, even when she is playing one who is ten years older.

When it comes to plays turned into films, one should expect the prolific dialogues. Not a perfect fit all the time, there are moments where I as a movie viewer expect better lines, and more than stage-like scenes. But overall, the three characters are a delight to watch.

The few external Parisian street scenes with their fine matching music score instil longing. Yes, this is the kind of films that work best to lure you to Paris, not to the hot tourist sites, but to the streets where Parisians actually live. Subliminal seduction registering in my mind that next time I must go to those districts which are less trodden by tourists but equally representative of the historic city. Maybe a B&B right there in the Marais instead of a boutique hotel.

My Old Lady is a light comedy with a heart, bringing out an issue that, alas, could not be fully resolved, for what’s done cannot be undone. Offsprings inherit from their parents not only the physical properties but often the emotional baggages and their consequences. As a dramedy, Horowitz has brought us not only the drama but the happy ending, the best case scenario that can come out of human failings. That could well be a reason why we go see movies.

~ ~ ~ Ripples

***

Related Posts on Ripple Effects:

The Second, Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Tuffing It Out At TIFF14

For a list of Paris in July Posts from previous years, CLICK HERE.

Like Father, Like Son (2013)

In honour of Father’s Day tomorrow, I’m re-posting my review of the acclaimed Japanese film Like Father, Like Son. (Update: Director Hirokazu Koreeda’s most recent work Our Little Sister is a Palme d’Or nominee at Cannes 2015.)

***

I had wanted to see this Japanese film since it came out last year. Missed it at TIFF13 last September, its North American premiere after winning the Cannes Film Festival’s Jury Prize in May. Glad it has finally arrived on Netflix, reaching a much wider audience than just festival goers, deservedly.

Director Hirokazu Koreeda wrote the screenplay based on a disturbing premise: what if after six years of raising your son, the hospital where he was born contacted you and told you that your child was switched at birth, and of course, they sent their apology.

The hospital officials do not take this lightly. DNA tests are done to confirm. They have a lawyer with them, arrange to have you meet the other parents, mediate and ease the proposed switch back, which they recommend with a six-month preparation period, preferably before the boys start grade one in school. They even find out who the nurse is that made the error; due to her own frustrations at the time she knowingly made the switch. Of course, she is deeply sorry for what she had done and duly prosecuted. Monetary compensations are arranged.

But all the above have absolutely nothing to do with easing the shock and alleviating the trauma afflicted upon the families. Formality and legality do not soothe the pain; apologies and money cannot compensate for the abrupt termination of relationships.

Director Kore-eda has treated the subject matter with much tenderness and charm. The cinematography is stylish, the children and adults are all captured in a realistic manner with splashes of endearing humour.

The two families come from very different social strata, and the two boys have been raised in opposite parenting styles. Interestingly, only one of the families seems to take this news much harder. Ryota Nonomiya (Masaharu Fukuyama) is a successful professional who spends most of his time in the glass towers of Tokyo busy at work. His son Keita (Keita Nonomiya), an only child, is raised in a protective environment. Mother Midori (Machiko Ono) is loving but also ambivalent about a husband who puts his career over his family.

The other family is a shop owner in a rural part of the country, their son Ryusei (Shôgen Hwang) is the eldest of three children. Father Yudai Saiki (Rirî Furankî) is every child’s dream. He spends his days playing with his children, fixes their toys, and exerts no rules, albeit Mom Yukari (Yoko Maki) might wish he could have spent more time working.

What makes a father? What makes a son? Fatherhood and bloodline tend to supersede all other factors in a patriarchal society like Japan. But the film reflects the point of view that not all families necessarily embrace such a value. Further, apparently there are different parenting styles even in a homogeneous Japanese society.

If there is ever a Japanese version of the movie Boyhood as we have seen from Richard Linklater, Hirokazu Kore-eda would be the ideal person to direct it. Like Father Like Son follows his previous work I Wish (2011) in its sensitive and incisive depiction of a boy’s heart and yearning. He can tear apart the facade of societal formality – but in a most tender way – and lay bare the hopes and needs, the essence of parents child relationships.

I must give credits to Johann Sebastian Bach, and the late Canadian pianist Glenn Gould. The beginning of Bach’s Goldberg Variations had been used in numerous films, but every time the soulful slow moving piano melody comes on, I am moved, no matter how many times I’ve heard it, and in so many different genres of films. Just from memory, I can think of The English Patient (1996), Hannibal (2001), Shame (2011)… It is so effective in augmenting cinematic moments without becoming clichéd.

Here, the Aria is well placed as director Kore-eda uses it as a motif to spur us into deeper thoughts. What makes a father; what makes a son? What is more important, blood or relationships? What is the role of a wife and mother in a patriarchal society? What is the purpose of giving birth and bringing up a child? What is fulfilling and meaningful to us as human beings? Indeed, a motif that can strike a universal chord of resonance that transcends cultures.

~ ~ ~ 1/2 Ripples

***

Ex Machina (2015)

I mentioned in a previous post that movies aiming for awards are usually released in the last few months of the year. I should also stress that some movies released earlier in the year could be award contenders too, albeit much fewer. Last year’s The Grand Budapest Hotel is one fine example. And this year, Ex Machina could be another one.

The title would instantly lead one to think of the literary device ‘deus ex machina‘ (Latin, direct translation: God out of a machine). Originated in Greek theatre, when the imminent disastrous ending is suddenly intervened by a god extended by mechanical means, saving the day. Without the word ‘deus‘ for God, what we have left is Ex Machina, out of a machine, and in this science fiction/suspense thriller, it’s the robotic Artificial Intelligence (AI). Leaving out the word ‘deus’ only intrigues us more: who is God now, the human creator, or the AI?

I’m not a huge fan of science fiction, neither a CGI or special effects aficionado. But I’m always drawn to those movies that, despite their genre, carry a meaningful thematic element. Ex Machina, Alex Garland’s directorial debut is one such production. Garland’s previous adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go into screenplay had drawn my attention for the same reason. It’s the substance that makes it worthwhile.

In Ex Machina, viewers are gratified not only by the content, but the form as well. The set design is minimal but stylish, the music is ponderous and inviting, just like the natural environs we find the ‘research facility’ in the movie, home of Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac), the software genius and reclusive founder of the world’s most powerful search engine Bluebook. Nathan conducts a competition in his own company, and the winner is a young coder named Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson). The prize is to spend a week in Nathan’s estate nestled in a pristine, natural setting. Just imagine a Frank Lloyd Wright designed home like Fallingwater with a futuristic touch.

After being dropped off by helicopter onto the grounds of Nathan’s remote, well-hidden facility, Caleb soon finds out the purpose of his mission – if he’s willing to accept it and sign a non-disclosure agreement – to conduct a Turing Test on Nathan’s latest invention, an AI called Ava, hauntingly played by Alicia Vikander, the highly sought after Swedish actress today. To complete his task, Caleb has to test if Ava is on a par with human in terms of her intellectual, language, and emotional competence. The thematic element unfolds like that of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. To avoid spoilers, I’ll just leave it at that.

Another gratifying element is the cerebral components of the film. Here are some examples. Nathan got the name Bluebook from Wittgenstein’s Blue Notebook, which contains the philosopher’s rumination on language and thinking. Even the Jackson Pollock on the wall carries a deeper meaning. How is art made? By the rational mind or automatic impulses? Ultimately, the key questions are: What is the essence of being human? And what will become of the human race if we continue down the unchecked trajectory with our technology?

But the story is not just one-sided with man creates machine, man tests machine. It is utterly intriguing to see the interplay among the threesome. The psychological wrangling between Nathan, Caleb, and Ava is mind-boggling. The twists and turns are the juicy bits in the plot line as we try to figure out actually who is out-smarting who. The suspense engages even more than a Hitchcock movie. The visual designs and effects of the AI is haunting as an existential horror because it is right here on earth and not lightyears away in space; we can relate how possible a similar scenario could be reality one day. A cautionary tale, if you will, and a brilliant one.

A successful debut for first-time director Garland, albeit he is no novice in writing. Garland has been a prolific novelist and screenwriter; his crafting of Ex Machina is highly nuanced and intelligent, at the same time, very human. I will not go into the twists and turns, and definitely not the denouement; the viewer must experience it first-hand.

What I can say is the engrossing performance from all three actors. Oscar Isaac, who from his minor role in Drive to his Oscar nominated Inside Llewyn Davis, to last year with Jessica Chastain in A Most Violent Year, has shown time and again his versatility as an actor. Very convincing as the mastermind Nathan, the chilling genius and yet a mysterious, macho figure, Isaac portrays quite a fusion of seemingly incompatible characteristics. He could get another chance for an awards nod.

Domhnall Gleeson had his breakout role in Harry Potter, but has grown into an actor suitable for a myriad of roles that is congruent with his innocent, boyish look. His character here in Ex Machina develops a mutual relationship with the AI Ava, a scenario similar to Her (2013), wherein Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with his OS Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson.

Why do Gleeson and Vikander, the innocent coder and the robot have such unlikely on-screen chemistry? Maybe because they had worked together in another film as a loving couple. Remember Anna Karenina (2012), Joe Wright directing Tom Stoppard’s adaptation? Well, these two had much interaction there as Levin and Kitty. And watch for Vikander in two upcoming book to movie adaptations: Testament of Youth and The Light Between Oceans, and Gleeson in Colm Tóibín’s Brooklyn.

Ex Machina is a film that fits all aspects of a well-crafted production, in its writing, directing, thematic elements, set designs, visual effects, choice of music, and overall gratification as a sic-fi suspense thriller. Hopefully by the time Awards Season comes at the end of the year, it will not be forgotten.

~ ~ ~ ~ Ripples

***

Update January 14:

Oscar Nominations for Best Original Screenplay and Visual Effects

***

Other related Review posts on Ripple Effects:

Never Let Me Go: From Book to Movie

Inside Llewyn Davis: A Serious Man in Greenwich Village

Anna Karenina (2012)

About Time: The Use and Abuse of Super Power

Flight of the Red Balloon (2007)

In honour of Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien winning the Best Director award last Sunday at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival, I’m re-posting a review I wrote a few years back on Hou’s Flight of the Red Balloon (2007).

***

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, that omnipresence, watching over him, removed yet engaged, far away, yet ever so near.

~ ~ ~ Ripples

***

Other Related Posts on Ripple Effects:

Conversation with Juliette Binoche

Tuffing it out at TIFF14

Summer Hours (l’Heure d’été) by Olivier Assayas

Yasujiro Ozu and the Art of Aloneness

***

While We’re Young: Wearing the Hat of Authenticity

The discussion that follows involves major plot points. Spoiler Alert. If you have watched the movie, you’re welcome to share your views in the comment section.

The film begins with an excerpt from Henrik Ibsen’s play The Master Builder. In the context of the play, Solness, the Master Builder, is fearful of the young, specifically, the draftsman he has taken under his wings, Ragnar. Solness’ anxiety lies in his apprehension that one day, soon, the young Ragnar would open shop on his own as a full-fledged builder, surpassing him and rendering his life work obsolete. He has the following exchange with a young lady friend Hilda:

Solness: … Wait and see, the young will come here, thundering at the door! Breaking in on me!
Hilda: Then I think you should go out and open your door to the young.
Solness: Open the door?
Hilda: Yes. Let them come in to you – as friends.

Writer/director Noah Baumbach sets the stage for a contemporary story with the parallel of Solness in his main character Josh Shrebnik, 44, aptly played by Ben Stiller. Josh is a documentary filmmaker who may have passed the peak of his career, his latest project dragging on for ten years without new grant money coming in. In the continued education class where he teaches documentary filmmaking, he meets a hipster couple in their 20’s, Jamie (Adam Driver) and Darby (Amanda Seyfried). Jamie expresses great admiration for Josh, feeding him what he needs. Soon, Josh and his wife Cornelia (Naomi Watts) become fast friends with them, and begin to drift away from their peers, new parents Marina (Maria Dizzia) and Fletcher (Adam Horrovitz).

In Frances Ha (2012), Baumbach brought us a positive profile of youth embodied in co-writer and star Greta Gerwig. Gerwig grasped the gist of youth beautifully by portraying an aspiring young dancer in NYC finding her way to a career and to her own true self. In Frances we see a delightful image of the young. Here in While We’re Young, Baumbach presents another view on youth. He does it by juxtaposing hipsters with the middle-aged, leading the audience through a revealing and interesting story. While the brunt of the laughs falls on the older pair Josh and Cornelia, the ultimate revealing is on the younger generation.

What makes the movie rich and intriguing is that what looks like a simple, single storyline embeds multi-layered thematic materials. On the surface, Baumbach lets us laugh at Josh and Cornelia, forty-something, childless, needing to come to terms with aging but not until one last attempt at rejuvenation. Hanging out with Jamie and Darby makes them feel young again. Josh dons a fedora hat, wears hipster shoes, rides a bike to keep up with Jamie. Cornelia goes with Darby to a hip hop dance class, and stressed herself out with the moves. For more flavour, both try the new experience of detoxing through a vomit inducing potion in a shaman party. Watts sure can keep up in her comedic act with Stiller, just right in juggling between depth of emotions and light-hearted fun. After St. Vincent, where she plays a small, funny role alongside Bill Murray, Watts has proven once again that she can wear the comic hat suitably.

On another level, we see Baumbach contrasting the ironic lifestyle choices in a sequence of fast cuts. We see the middle-aged couple using iPhone to Google once something comes up, while Jamie and Darby just try to remember and recall the info. Googling is too easy; they don’t want instant answers. If they can’t recall, they’re contented with not knowing. I can’t get enough of these subtly planted Baumbach jokes. As Josh listens to CD’s on his laptop, Jamie enjoys his wall to wall collection of vinyl records, played on a turntable. Jamie makes his own table, Darby makes ice cream from scratch. They ride a bike to get around. Their hipster lifestyle totally grabs Josh as genuine and cool; impressing him even more is their generous and open demeanour. A budding documentary filmmaker, Jamie invites Josh to co-direct his film. Josh is totally sold.

Ben Stiller is a natural when it comes to playing a clueless, de-valued character like this one. In Greenberg (2010), his previous collaboration with Baumbach, he plays a similar role, middle-aged and lost in the flow of life, also touched and changed by a youthful character (Greta Gerwig). It’s easy for us to laugh at Stiller, a greying forty-four-year-old hipster-wanna-be trying hands-free cycling following Jamie but only for a short two seconds before he twisted his back. The back will soon heal, but it’s “Arthritis” on the knees that the doctor is more concerned about. The joke there in the doctor’s office is just too good for me to include here. And, when did he last have his eyes checked?

As the story develops however, we begin to see Josh having second thoughts. Maybe Jamie’s work isn’t as authentic and spontaneous as it looks. Adam Driver is perfect in projecting a fused expression of innocence and mischief. His calculated moves startle Josh. Herein lies a crucial, contentious thematic element. There’s a fundamental breach of integrity. Is Jamie ignorant about ethics or is he simply amoral? Isn’t a documentary supposed to present truths? To what extent can it be staged or its ‘facts’ twisted? Nil, according to old-schooled Josh; such methods are fraudulent, crossing ethical boundaries, inexcusable. To Jamie, it’s no big deal, “it doesn’t matter that it’s fake.” To us the viewers, this third act is the juice in the meat. Josh’s indignation is justified.

But then, Baumbach pulls back, as if being too harsh on young Jamie. As I think about the notion of authenticity in the movie, I realize it comes in different forms, not only in documentary filmmaking, but with the actual life these characters are living. A love for retro and owning a collection of vinyl records don’t mean Jamie has real experience living in the 60’s. Or for Josh, imitating hipster fashion doesn’t make him young, as his friend Fletcher says: “You’re just an old man with a hat.” Taking an example from a recent real-life happening: when we see a veteran news anchor faking accounts to add glamour and self-importance to his reporting we know age is not the dividing line for authenticity. So maybe Baumbach has a point there by cutting Jamie some slack at the end. In the last scene, Josh, wiser now, utters: “He’s not evil; he’s just young.”

Let’s hope authenticity won’t become a dismissible fashion trend like a hat.

~ ~ ~ 1/2 Ripples

***

Other Ripple Reviews you may like to read:

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

Force Majeure (2014)

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Inside Llewyn Davis (2014)

Upcoming Movie Adaptations from Literary Sources: 2015 and Beyond

“Literary Sources”, that’s a highly debatable term. Here I just mean anything that’s written, with text, and had been published in real paper or digitally. Which means, Avengers: Age of Ultron is eligible, having been published as a comic book, with text accompanying graphics. Indeed, that’s one movie I’ll be watching. Main attraction: James Spader as Ultron.

Now, for the list. I admit that’s subjective because it’s my list. I include here some titles that pique my interest, ones that I feel would create some ripples. So here it is.

Far From The Madding Crowd (May 1, 2015)

I have talked about this in a previous post, and now the time has come. In just a few days – opening the same day as Avengers: Age of Ultron – is a new version of Thomas Hardy’s classic. What an assortment of delights in our entertainment smorgasbord. Almost fifty years have past since John Schlesinger’s 1967 production, the definitive version shall I say. Schlesinger was a director of high repute; two years after Madding Crowd he went on to win the Oscar best picture for Midnight Cowboy. His stars for the Hardy adaptation were all high caliber actors: Julie Christie, Peter Finch, Alan Bates. But watching it again a while ago I couldn’t help but feel it a bit dated. Now almost fifty years later, a 21st C. attempt is viable and anticipated. I should reserve my judgement until I’ve seen the movie of course, but from the trailers, it sure looks like a very contemporary take on 19th C. literature. Will the eversweet Carey Mulligan make a believable Bathsheba Everdene?

Macbeth (May 2015)

Acclaimed Australian director Justin Kurzel’s Macbeth will premiere at this year’s Cannes Film Festival in May. Shakespeare’s works are probably the most adapted sources on screen. Just for Macbeth, we have 200 results if you go on IMDb. So why watch another one? For one reason, how many Macbeth’s have your actually seen on screen? I’m sure there are other good reasons too, like, watching Academy Awards best actress Marion Cotillard transform from Edith Piaff into Lady Macbeth should be interesting. What more, with high calibre character actor Michael Fassbender as Macbeth, the two should make a dynamic, murderous duo.

Genius (2015)

Based on the National Book Award winning bio (1978) Max Perkins: Editor of Genius by A. Scott Berg. Perkins was editor at Scribner, a ‘genius’ because he brought to the world the works of Earnest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Thomas Wolfe, among others. He was also the man who told Hemingway to “tone it down”. To these great writers, Perkins was also critic, money-lender, psychoanalyst, and friend. What’s interesting is that the 500+ page bio is adapted into film with its director and most of the main cast all non-Americans. Acclaimed stage director Michael Grandage, cast includes Colin Firth, Jude Law, Dominic West, Guy Pearce, Nicole Kidman, Laura Linney. Screenplay by John Logan who wrote Skyfall (2012). Yup.

Blonde (2016)

Joyce Carol Oates’s imaginary account of Marilyn Monroe was a finalist of the National Book Award in 2000 and the Pulitzer in 2001. It just happened that recently I’ve re-watched My Week with Marilyn (2011, Michelle Williams as MM) and the superb doc Love, Marilyn (2012), both leaving me with a troubling sadness. I’ve not read Oates’s novel and know not how she approaches her subject, who I feel, despite her talent and popularity, was a victim of objectification as a sex symbol, exploited for her beauty and sexuality, despised for her inadequacy by her husband AM, drowned in fame, and eventually, lost her total self. I hope Oates’s perspective is internal and sympathetic. I love the choice for the role: Jessica Chastain.

With the success of Cinderella (2015), looks like this is the trend: Animation turned into live-action feature. I do look forward to this one. I mean, even with such a worn-out, age-old tale like Cinderella can be revitalized and brought back to life with such vigour and sparks, I trust Disney’s Beatuy and the Beast can be adapted into an even more entertaining work. After all, that’s a story I love much more than Cinderella. Take a look at this human cast: Emma Watson as Belle, Dan Stevens as Beast (a long way from Matthew Crawley), Luke Evans as Gaston, Ewan McGregor as Lumiere, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Stanley Tucci as Cadenza, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Kevin Klein as Maurice, directed by the Oscar winning Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight). But can they all sing?

This is not Robert Graves’s autobiography but Joan Didion’s essay in her collection Slouching Towards Bethlehem (1968). The film rights have just been optioned recently by Megan Carlson and Brian Sullivan as the first project of their production company. A feature film based on an essay is a most interesting idea. But this is no ordinary essay. Didion’s seminal piece in her iconic collection contains substantial materials as a springboard to a full length movie, and I believe it can be done. The essay is a summarized account of her years living in New York City working for Vogue, an essay prize she won while at UC Berkeley. At first thinking of staying in NYC for six months, eventually living there eight years until she married John Dunne and moved back to CA. I highly anticipate this movie adaptation. The producers are seeking for a female screenwriter and director for the feature. Who other than Didion herself should do the writing?

McFarland, USA (2015): A Worthy Winner

The reason I waited till now to see McFarland, USA is plainly because I thought it would be just another cliché movie on teacher inspiring students, and specifically here, a white teacher coming into a hispanic community, changing their youngsters to what they’re not, the white knight of condescension.

I’m glad that’s all a misconstrued perception. True, there’s a white teacher coming into the poorest town in the USA, McFarland, CA, where most of its population is hispanic, Mexican immigrants labouring in the open fields from morn till dusk picking produce. The hope of the parents’ – if there is any – is for their sons to continue picking produce so they can earn a living for themselves.

What’s best about this movie is that it’s a true story. The script is well-written and the production helmed by a competent director Niki Caro (North Country, 2005; Whale Rider, 2002). While its elements seem like the ingredients of a formulaic teacher changing students feel-good movie, it is surprisingly moving and exceeds my expectation.

Sure, the coach can’t be more white… a Mr. Jim White (Kevin Costner) from Idaho. You can’t find a whiter name. The school is McFarland High School, with low morales and expectations, students from blue-collar Mexican immigrant families. We see Mr. White come to McFarland after some unsuccessful employment at another school. Bringing his wife Cheryl (Maria Bello) and two daughters Julie (Morgan Saylor) and Jamie (Elsie Fisher) with him, White soon finds they are a misfit and maybe even unsafe in the town. Yet, he has no choice; this is his only job offer.

McFarland 1

Hired as a biology and gym teacher, White one day discovers some of his boys are fast long-distance runners. There are the Diaz boys, David (Rafael Martinez), Damacio (Michael Auguero), and Danny (Ramiro Rodriguez, well, maybe not all of them fast) who are waken up by their mother every morning before dawn to go work in the fields before they head to school. Their only way to get to school on time from the field is by running fast. And then there’s Carlos Valles (Carlos Pratts), whose athletic talent is marred by family and personal conflicts.

White sees the potentials in these boys. With no experience whatsoever, he asks for permission to set up a seven-member cross country running team and train the boys for competition. Being the newest team, they have to compete against well-trained and formidable upper-middle-class schools from areas such as Palo Alto. Physical endurance comes much easier than when the McFarland boys have to deal with low self-image and discouragement.

Kevin Costner is the key to the success of the movie. I can’t think of any other actor who is more suitable for the role. Costner is a natural, even without the chance of him pitching a baseball, even having him ride a girl’s Barbie bike (White’s daughter’s apparently) to keep up with the boys in their practice, as he’s just a bit over-the-hill to run with them. A charmer and very convincing here, Costner shows genuine concern for the welfare of his students, even going to the fields to pick produce with them to make up for the time when he takes them out for practice. He soon wins the hearts of the parents and their community.

The movie captures my attention from the very start, any resistance is soon melted by Costner’s performance, and the natural appearance of the students and their families. Most of them are first time actors, and some are residents of McFarland. One soon finds that it’s not a white knight rescuing the underprivileged, but life-changing for them all. The movie sheds no traces of racism or condescension, but paints a realistic picture of family, community and the humanity that binds.

If you want to avoid spoilers here we have the historical facts in the following:

The triumph comes in the final act of the movie when the McFarland Cross Country Team The Cougars won the California States championship in 1987, and subsequently, a total of nine wins over the next fourteen years. And to his credit, White turned down an offer from a Palo Alto high school to stay where he was, at McFarland.

What is most moving is the final text shown on screen telling how the boys had turned out in real life. All of them have no family member who had gone past a grade 9 education, but all seven of them in the cross country team graduated from college. Some of them had gone back to teach at McFarland High School, one became a police detective, one a writer for the L.A. Times. We see their faces as adults, the fruits of everyone’s labour at McFarland.

The triumph of the movie is in its authenticity and uplifting ending. Uplifting because it’s a true story. Of course, the filmmakers have to tweak and add in dramatic elements to turn it into a watchable movie, but the basic facts remain intact. I can’t remember being so moved by a Disney movie. Kudos to the McFarland community for the inspiration.

~ ~ ~ Ripples

***

CLICK HERE to watch a featured video of the movie.

Here’s a “History vs. Hollywood” comparison.

Woman in Gold (2015): Then and Now

Gustav Klimt (1862 – 1918) was an Austrian Symbolist painter and one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Art Nouveau (Vienna Secession) movement. His major works include paintings, murals, sketches, and other art objects, but the most recognizable piece probably is the painting “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I” (1907), commonly known as “The Woman in Gold”.

The painting measures 54″ x 54″, oil, silver and gold on canvas, a highly embellished work reflecting the elegant lady active in the Viennese art circle, patron and muse of Klimt’s, Adele Bloch-Bauer. Adele was married to Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, an Austrian Jewish industrialist who commissioned Klimt to do the two portraits of his wife. It had been hanging in his home until seized by the Nazis.

Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I — Source: Wikipedia

After the war, the famous painting had been hanging in Austria’s federal art museum, the Galerie Belvedere, as a national treasure, until a near eight-year legal battle finally decided its restitution back to the hands of Adele and Ferdinand’s niece, Maria Altmann, who had escaped to the United States before the War broke out. The long legal fight to gain back the painting’s rightful ownership is the focus of this movie.

Arts looted by the Nazis have their screen time twice in the past year, first The Monuments Men, and now Woman in gold. Important subject but unfortunately both films fall short of cinematic rendering. Director Simon Curtis’s handling in Woman in Gold emits less glimmer than his previous My Week with Marilyn.

Helen Mirren delivers a fine performance as the determined yet conflicting Altmann, who, on the one hand, wants to see justice done in the restitution of her family heirloom but reluctant to re-open a traumatic chapter of her life and return to Austria for the case. She remembers her Aunt Adele well, with some endearing and awestruck moments beholding her beauty. The film handles the shifting between the past and present quite well. It is heart wrenching for a daughter to have to make a hasty escape from her home, leaving her parents behind as the Nazis take over the country.

The David and Goliath legal battle is handled by a young and inexperienced Los Angeles attorney E. Randol Schoenberg. Yes, that’s the grandson of the Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg, who had escaped to the U.S. in time to avoid the Holocaust, just like Altmann. In 2004, the young lawyer argues his case Republic of Austria v. Altmann in the U.S. Supreme Court, and in January, 2006, heads over to Austria to present his arguments in front of a panel for a binding arbitration. An emotional Altmann sits beside Schoenberg as they hear the decision announced by the panel of three Austrian judges ruling in their favour.

The choice of Ryan Reynolds as Randol Schoenberg looks like a miscast. Something’s missing… But then again, it could be the screenplay, maybe infusing more cinematic moments, or cutting some banal scenes and dialogues would help. Katie Holmes who plays Randol’s wife and Daniel Brühl (excellent in Rush, 2013) as a helpful journalist are incidentals. I can understand condensing the almost decade-long legal story into 109 minutes with an ending that is already known is itself a difficult feat. So all the more we need a more effective screenplay.

However, for someone who did not know about the details of this piece of art history, the movie still captured my attention. I watched it like a documentary. Not knowing the details of this legal case, I found the movie informative in taking me through the obstacles, albeit in synopsis format and simplification.

The beginning is probably one of the most appealing sequence of the whole movie, and that’s a close up on the technique the painter Klimt uses on his painting, meticulously forming a gold leaf and pasting it on his work in progress. Unfortunately, the scene is way too short to allow us to savour. This may well be the only artistic spot a viewer will get.

In a post-script text, we learn that Altmann sold “The Woman in Gold” to Ronald Lauder for $135 million in 2006, at the time the highest purchase price on record for a painting. Those living in or visiting New York City now have a chance to see the current exhibition at the Neue Galerie – opened by Lauder in 2001 – “Gustav Klimt and Adele Bloch-Bauer: The Woman in Gold”, April 2 – Sept. 7, 2015.

In August last year, Lauder, as President of the World Jewish Congress, wrote a moving op-ed for the NYT about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Africa. He ends with this: “The Jewish people understand all too well what can happen when the world is silent. This campaign of death must be stopped.”

It’s all about speaking out. That’s what makes this movie important. I can’t help but imagine though: what if it were Klimt who made it…

~ ~ 1/2 Ripples

***

The Second, Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015)

The comma is not a typo. If you pause there before you say the rest, you’re clear in announcing the sequel, and not ‘The Second Best…’ for it’s not.

I’d say, it’s a little better maybe, funnier and more lively than the first. I can hear some protests. But in my case, kudos to the Bollywood dancers entertaining us before the movie began – two pairs of youthful and energetic Indian dancers giving us a taste of Bollywood – we were all warmed up and ready to embrace the show.

Who will speak up against Ageism in the movie industry? What better spokespersons than the stars themselves? Let their charisma and performance speak.

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is all about checking into new beginnings. In the last chapter, life can be beautiful and fulfilling, and one is never too late to enjoy it, even if they are merely ephemeral, fleeting moments. With the latent energy of the Marigold residents, they intend to make those precious moments last for the rest of their lives.

Director John Madden, who helmed Shakespeare in Love (1998) and saw it go on to win seven Oscars, brings us the sequel to his unexpected box office success of the first Marigold Hotel. This is no Shakespeare In Love, of course, but from the digital ink of screenwriter Ol Parker, we have some fine dialogues despite a lack of substantial plot lines; from the mouths of the seasoned and weathered come some refreshing viewpoints.

Even if you’re not starstruck, you have to tip your hat to this cast of talents, veteran actors whose average age works out to be 70; yes, I looked them up and did the math. Two-time Oscar winner Maggie Smith, Judi Dench (also Oscar winner and exactly 19 days older than Maggie in real life, as she said in the movie), Bill Nighy, Penelope Wilton, Ronald Pickup, Celia Imrie, Diana Hardcastle, and this time around, the newly-aged and still handsome Richard Gere, with David Strathairn also playing a small role.

The young proprietor of the retirement hotel in Jaipur, India, Sonny Kapoor, is eagerly planning for an expansion of his business venture, a second Marigold Hotel. Performed with much animation by Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire fame, Sonny is basically the foil, not just in his youthfulness and agile Bollywood dance skills, but in his overacting. My query: why is his Indian accent thicker than his mother’s (Lillete Dubey)? Nevertheless, watching the threesome, the soon-to-be-married Sonny and Sunaina (Tina Desai) plus the odd addition of Kushal (Shazad Latif), is energizing and mood altering. In the last act, having the Marigold residents join in the Bollywood dance at the wedding party is a treat, an acquired taste for some viewers I admit.

Under the direction of DP Ben Smithard, we see some colourful street scenes and beautiful sights. Following the constant panning camera between pillars and doorways, we become silent observers of the lives of these Marigold residents.

Throughout the movie, I’ve jotted down a few fine lines which, if spoken by the inexperienced, could well become platitudes. But here delivered by these professionals of film and stage, the one-liners are spot-on and memorable. Everyone has a story and there are a few notable dialogues, like this between the eldest pair swept by clashing undercurrents:

Muriel (Maggie Smith): You’re just nineteen days older than I am.
Evelyn (Judi Dench): Nineteen days is the life span of a wasp.

Exactly, time is relative. Fact is, time is what these Marigold residents don’t have. That’s what makes each of their story so pressing. At 79, Evelyn is faced with the choice of accepting or declining a new career as well as a genuine but shy suitor, Douglas (Bill Nighy). Her feeling in a nutshell:

“Sometimes it seems the difference between what we want and what we fear is the width of an eyelash.”

Good that she realizes just in time, and it’s clever how she conveys her message to Douglas at Sonny’s wedding. So, her new insight after much pondering:

“I thought, how many new lives can we have? Then I thought, as many as we like.”

And for Norman (Ronald Pickup) and Carol (Diana Hardcastle), it’s never too late to change as we see love turn them from promiscuity to monogamy. Well, even a faint attempt is encouraging.

As for Madge (Celia Imrie), she finally decides which direction she should take, left, right, or straight ahead, probably for the first time in her life.

Who can laugh at the old but themselves? Here when Jean (Penelope Wilton) suddenly reappears at the Marigold, I can associate her role as the sharp-tongued Isobel Crawley in Downton Abbey:

“I couldn’t resist the opportunity to come out and visit the old ruins, and see how the hotel was doing too.”

As a self-appointed tour guide in Jaipur, Douglas knows it’s never too old to step out into uncharted territory. Some good laughs there with his little helper in the background feeding him info or he’ll be just as lost as his tourist clients. As well, he is experiencing love like an insecure young chap. This is my favourite line, not only for the words but the way Nighy says them can make your heart ache:

“The great and terrible thing about life is there’s just so much bloody potential.” The subtext is brilliantly conveyed by his obvious frustration and agitated demeanour.

Ah… “There is no present like the time” [sic, exactly]

Time is a gift and a torment when you’re only given a limited portion under the low-hanging clouds of mortality. Here’s the poignant scene at the end. It belongs to Muriel (Maggie Smith), could well be foreshadowing what we will see in Season 6 of Downton Abbey. Her voiceover is full of pathos:

“There is no such thing as an ending; just a place where you leave the story.”

Of course there are flaws in the movie. But just like wrinkles, you’ve come to overlook them while admiring the person. Call it an escape or a two-hour vacation, The Second, Best Exotic Hotel offers a fun and gratifying ride.

~ ~ ~ Ripples

***

Related Posts on Ripple Effects:

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2012)

The Lunchbox (2013): A Meal that Binds

Downton Abbey Season 5 Finale

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)