Showing posts with label Trainspotting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trainspotting. Show all posts

Sunday 23 June 2019

A 'French Sundae' with Jon Davies at The Cinema Museum : La haine (1995)

A 'French Sundae' at The Cinema Museum with Jon Davies : La haine (1995)

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2019 (17 to 24 October)
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


23 June

Tweets in response to a 'French Sundae'
at The Cinema Museum with Jon Davies :
La haine (1995)










If, in the first act, you have hung a pistol on the wall, then, in the following one, it should be fired ~ Anton Chekhov


Jean-Paul Belmondo in À bout de souffle (1960)




Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Monday 28 September 2015

Big River

This is a Festival review of May Allah bless France ! (2014)

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2015 (3 to 13 September)
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


27 September

This is a Festival review of Qu’Allah bénisse la France ! (May Allah bless France !) (2014)


Some titles act as a puzzle, throughout a film, as to where they will fit in, whereas, with some others, one can acquiesce in and with them (as, say, with that of Frances Ha (2012)) : that of Qu’Allah bénisse la France ! (May Allah bless France !) (2014) is of the latter kind.

Sometimes reviewers are far less clear, than those who give films titles¹, by stating that such-and-such a film ‘is a(n) [adjective(s)] adaptation of [author’s] novel’ as to whether they have read the book, a précis, or just what some other reviewer / the press pack or release / even Wikipedia® had to say about it :

There really is no merit in this.

Reviewers should not pretend to have more knowledge about an adaptation, or its nature / quality, than they have² – for, if they do, why should we trust them as to what they made or thought of the film, because they have evasively wished to over-represent their smattering of understanding about the relation between the film and the novel / novella / stage-play, etc., in which its origins lie ?

(Those who know about etymologies will be aware that the words ‘truth’ and ‘trust’, and the feelings and beliefs that they both embody, are tightly bound up with each other.)


Back to the film…

Abd al Malik has made a present to us of this account of his life to the point where he had become established in hip-hop, and started to come to terms with what his ethos was : it is arguably not a feel-good film, he does not preach, it is not mawkish, but his film does - and rightly so – ask us, in the West, whether we are guilty for what colonial powers did in our name in post-colonial times / politics.

In this regard, although Malik shows a broader range of ages and a greater variety of experience, his film has sympathies with the story of Sixteen (2013), but he superbly carries off the balance between his own narrative and how it explicates the generality of growing up in ‘the projects’ on the outskirts of Strasbourg (a city that could stand for any with outlying settlements, however those places became repositories for despair, or no-go areas). One moment, where Malik’s life makes a major turn, brings out the essence of this existence strikingly.

but what do they do all day ?
what are they supposed to say ?

'Big River' ~ Jimmy Nail


This is a film that makes [the focus of] Trainspotting (1996) seem distinctly parochial, and - even if some seem to say that the collection of pieces that constitute the book is better - as aiming too much at effect and quirky / clever plot. By telling this story (as already told in the form of a novel), Malik avoids the likely pitfalls that can make many a so-called bio-pic unwatchable [it may be that the nature of such films to be so ?], i.e. that those who know the historical person are offended by the unnecessary inaccuracies / distortions , and that those who do not want to credit everything that they are shown. Net benefit = zero ?


Categorically, we do not need to know (or maybe even like) Malik’s music, or this style of music, to feel that it makes us part of the film : the way that sound, from the bass up, floods significant scenes colours them without our feeling that we are being manipulated, but gives us Malik’s emotional undertow. The honesty with which, directing the cinematography, he seems to show both youth blighted, and yet how he found both a mature approach to acquiring an Islamic faith and a measure of hope, allow one to believe that, as a film-maker, he should continue to impress with his screenwriting and direction.

So, momentary interludes, which reflect on the suburban environment, and dramatic ways of composing scenes and using variations in light and focus, make this a highly filmic work, which deserves to be seen on a large screen (as it was twice at Cambridge Film Festival, in Screen 1 at Festival Central³).


End-notes

¹ Not only if the original title is in another language, and, even if by design, the title in English poorly or barely reflects it.

² Or whether they even watched all, or even most, of it ? Some ‘reviews’ make clear (when compared with others) that what one is reading is not their writers’ own evaluation / interpretation, because they offer the same questionably founded observations about an aspect of a film, sometimes using identical phrases or descriptions, and expect us to believe that they came upon them in their mind.

³ Screen 1 of The Arts Picturehouse (@CamPicturehouse) was the only place to conceive seeing this highly visual film, both for the integrity and inventiveness of its use of monochrome, and to hear the bass-effects in the sound-system.




Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Saturday 21 December 2013

Supporting the garlic-eaters - or declining a Faustian pact

This is a Christmas review of It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2013
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


21 December (updated 22 December ; Tweets added, Christmas Day 2015)

This is a Christmas review of It's a Wonderful Life (1946)



When George Bailey (James Stewart) kisses his wife Mary (Donna Reed) on their wedding night, he murmurs (more to himself than to her) ‘Wonderful, wonderful’. He has something then that he loses – or, rather, loses sight of.

Their location at that moment is bizarre in its real sense, and almost, also in its real sense, surreal¹, for they had planned a honeymoon without much thought for the future. But it symbolizes some things, such as courage in adversity and less love in a garret maybe than riches in heaven.

As has been said, George loses sight of the self who found all this, which initially seemed so ramshackle, made whole and complete by Mary’s love and care for him. He faces what seems an impossible position, and his enemy Potter (who started as if to remedy George’s uncle’s mistake, before seeing the capital for him in it (the palpable miserly wickedness embodied by Lionel Barrymore)) threatens him with penalties from a position of power : George ends up abusing the forgetful / easily distracted Uncle Billy (Thomas Mitchell), and, not believing that anyone can help, gets frustrated with Mary and the children, showing only tenderness for Zuzu [one is reminded of Louis Malle’s Zazie], in bed with a temperature

He has lost hope. What happens, when he seeks to drown his sorrows makes matters worse, and causes him despairingly to recall Potter’s words of derisory rejection, thinking that his value is in being dead, not alive. In one version of the Gospel story, distraught at what he has done, Judas throws the thirty pieces of silver down when they will not be accepted back from him and they are used to buy The Potter’s Field (which is the name of where George builds his homes, but which is where the graveyard is in what Clarence shows him, a Bedford Falls without George, where the place is then called Pottersville ?); in another, Judas hangs himself, so suicide, choosing death over continued life (which some try to harmonize as his doing one and then the other).

Clarence Ardbody (that seems to be his name, and he is charmingly brought to us by Henry Travers) is George’s guardian angel, and he leaves George, after what he has shown him – but only when George chooses to embrace life again, after seeing a world where he is the nobody that he has allowed himself to believe that he is. There he is someone whom no one, not even Mary, knows and is even frightened of, and who is the witness of how differently things could have been.

The conception of this film, starting with prayers for George, Clarence’s appointment, and seeing how George became who and where he is, avoids the easy solution that Clarence should simply tell George how Potter kept back the crucial money that he decided not to return. The film has George choose life, after Clarence’s ruse (used again by Luc Besson in Angel-A (2005)) diverts him from his own plight to – where his heart is as a man – someone else’s, but only after he comes to value himself and the life that he has.

Meanwhile, aside from those prayers, Mary has been addressing the problem that gave rise to his disaffection and, although she did not know it, led him to the brink. He was going to choose water : water had been where, saving his brother from drowning, he lost hearing in his left ear, and into which, in a sort of sacramental baptism, envious hands contrive for Mary and George to fall. Water was falling from the sky and into the new home that Mary had contrived for George and her, and, of course, in the snow of Christmas Eve, it is there in frozen form. That is just an observation, but, those who believe that the other three classical elements will be there when water is found can, of course, excavate…

A criticism that could be levelled at the pacing of the film, which is why do we spend so much time with George in the world where he does not exist before he understands. Actually, because it builds up to him being rejected by the woman whom he still thinks of as his wife (and whose status Clarence has been a little unwilling to give), it takes that for the message that his mother only runs Ma Bailey’s Boarding-House because he is not around to sink in – George has both drunk a lot, before meeting Clarence, and had a double after, and the film symbolically represents how difficult, with a person in deep depression, it is for the truth of his or her worth to permeate and unfreeze that numbness of being dislocated from the world.

As the lyrics of Talking Heads’ song² Once in a Lifetime go, seeming to see a dislocation, from the opposite pole of psychosis :

You may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful house
You may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful wife



In the world that he sought to leave, George had lost contact with the things and people who mattered to him, burdened by not knowing what to do; in the world that Clarence shows him, he is able to seek out what should be familiar, and keeps trying, ending with Mary. It is only when, under danger of gunfire, that he has gone back to where he started that he can value what he had before and ask for it to be restored – before, it might as well have been in a vault as behind a veil, for he could break through neither to it.

As a portrayal of depression, it demonstrates the truth that one cannot ‘snap out of it, ‘count one’s blessings’ or ‘pull oneself together’, and also, with Clarence’s inscription in Tom Sawyer (some significance in that choice of book, one would warrant), of the value of true friends. But the film works without entering into those considerations, just better if one sees what is slow to change in George.

And perhaps one has to consider the force, in Potter, that George has been fighting, whose Pottersville is debauched and gaudy when (in Clarence’s other world) there had been no one to stop him making it that way : on his desk, seen most clearly when the offer is being made that is too good to be true, is a skull, a bell in a triangular arch, but also an apparatus for heating something over a flame in a spoon that would not be out of place in the drug-laden realm of shooting-up in Trainspotting (1996)³.

In different ways, Potter, desiring domination in a no more rational way than Iago wishes Othello’s destruction, is stood up to by George’s courage and self-sacrifice : by riding the effects of the run on the bank, opposing Potter (and getting the vote) when he moves that the Building & Loan be wound up, and by rejecting a cushy offer for himself. Probably far-fetched that they are parallels to the temptations in the wilderness, but George does give up, respectively, (along with Mary) their honeymoon, his cherished plans of travel⁴, and a life of benefit for himself by going over to Potter…

James Stewart has humour (some of it at the inquisitiveness of Annie, the servant), warmth, and frustration at what he has to give up for what he believes in, even if he does put his foot in it by calling it ‘a crummy little office’ (or some such) to his father : that characteristic quality to Stewart’s voice fits hand in glove with the sort of astonished pleading with people to know who he is. Barrymore, even when he is slow to see his final winning hand against George, brings a smouldering, disgusted malevolence to the role of Potter.

And, when soaked from the swimming-pool trick played on them, George has walked Mary back home in borrowed clothes, Donna Reed and Stewart have a delightful awkwardness to them, so that he does not quite dare kiss her properly when she dares to offer her hand, and then both are spooked by him being urged to kiss her (one almost feels that, by not doing what is suggested, he is trying to avoid his own destiny, and cheat history...). And he has to be snatched away, without that kiss (or, acting against form, trying to exploit her being robeless in the hydrangea bush) on this very night, because of his father’s health. Pain prolonged, and hope deferred, but bringing a life together that they want to lead – though threatened by the opportunistic Potter and George’s despair.


Happy Christmas !



Post-script

One can also find, given that the film was made in 1946, a Hitler figure in Potter : George's father appeased him by putting him on the Board of the Building & Loan ; George fought his offer to Building & Loan customers with Mary's and his honeymoon fund ; Potter offered an alliance to George ; and rejected Potter takes the opportunity to turn the weapons of law and order on him.


End-notes

¹ The ruins where Edward Scissorhands is found spring to mind.

² By David Byrne, Christopher Frantz, Tina Weymouth, Jerry Harrison, and Brian Eno.

³ Seen more obviously, though fleetingly, is a bronze bust of Napoleon Bonaparte near the window in Potter's office.






⁴ He is a sort of Marius (in Daniel Auteuil's film this year of the same name), with a sense of Wanderlust.




Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Tuesday 24 January 2012

Tired old nag of a film (2)

More views of - or after - Cambridge Film Festival 2011
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


25 January

And the amazing thing is that Peter Mullan (who could have done with being given a lot more to do in Trainspotting (1996) than the role of Mother Superior) is in this opus:

Some may not know his name, though - whatever one thinks of its ruling idea - he added immensely (as did his opposite number, Olivia Colman) to Paddy Considine's conception of Tyrannosaur (2011), but, for me, this is almost as incongruous as realizing that Robert De Niro really was playing the part of Tuttle in Brazil (1985)*!


* I haven't seen it since, and should, as it is a great film - than which many a Gilliam production is a pale (or very pale) lamp**.

I also must have known at the time, but I have just been reminded, that he had the great Tom Stoppard alongside to temper his inclinations on the writing side - I wonder if anything reveals how those two got on (other than in the finished film)...

Interesting also, I think, that Terry Jones was accepted as the director of the Python films (more or less, give or take a few grumbles about his perfectionism regarding certain aspects of a take, whilst ignoring what others sometimes thought more significant). Which could have been because Gilliam was in so many ways in a different relation to the others or that he simply had not developed in that way - not, at any rate, until his contribution to The Meaning of Life (1983).


** And I do not know whether I am being unfair to Gilliam for his direction, or to Robin Williams for that certain worthiness that he seems to have in all his acting (or to both), but The Fisher King (1991), for whatever it could have been without, sadly gave rise to a feeling akin to having gorged on too many Easter eggs (when that time of the year, marking Christ's death, necessarily had a highly chocolatey character, such that one could easily do it)!