Geum.ru

Gsc films e-m the Eagle

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


The Elephant Man
E.T., the Extraterrestrial
Les enfants du paradis
Entre les murs
Erin Brockovich
Подобный материал:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   33

The Elephant Man 1980 David Lynch 3.0 John Hurt evoking pity and admiration as John Merrick although hidden inside his hideous disguise; Anthony Hopkins very young and playing it straight and a bit dull as the doctor who sponsors Merrick’s emergence; Anne Bancroft as a kindly actress who lends her support to Merrick and Hopkins; John Gielgud as the crusty hospital administrator who supports Hopkins; Wendy Hiller as the head nurse, also supportive; Freddie Jones well played as the cruel and evil original “owner” of Merrick. Sentimental, beautifully produced and directed adaptation of the best-selling book (although the film denies that it is based on anything but the historical record). Merrick is rescued by Hopkins from exploitation in the virtual sewers of London, placed in a safe room (well, more or less) in his hospital, where he develops as an intelligent man and Victorian gentleman until his death at the end of the film. The art direction, make-up, and costuming are flawless – from the cockney denizens of the basements and slums of London to the gas lit hallways and rooms of the hospital and the rooms of Hopkins and his wife neatly overloaded with Victorian bric-a-brac; the cinematography evokes the era expertly. The film is essentially about Victorian conformity and kindness. Hopkins seems to be a decent and kind gentleman, who is at first prejudiced against Merrick because of his shocking deformities but then becomes his defender when he discovers that he is intelligent, not violent, and respectful of Victorian proprieties: once acclimatized, Merrick speaks to all his visitors politely, he takes tea like a proper English gentleman, he enjoys a cult of female beauty without expecting any beastly sexual connection, he recites psalms with spiritual fervor and romantic quotations from Shakespeare (it appears that he somehow has already learned how to read). One often gets the impression that the upper class Victorian folk that support and applaud him when he attends a play in the theater (at the invitation of Bancroft) are really applauding themselves for their enlightened willingness to treat him like a human being and not a freak. The film comes across as quite prejudiced against lower class people, since they are the ones that exploit Merrick, display him in freak shows, and mock him for his appearance. The film sometimes uses horror film gimmicks (the camera descending into the depths of the cellar, photographing Merrick’s face with a fish-eye lens, etc.), but generally the story flows peacefully in the direction of right behavior. The ending is appropriately sentimental – Merrick lies down to die on his bed, and the camera pans out the window, travels through the night sky, and fixes on a vague, celestial image of a beautiful woman, presumably his mother whom he has left the earth to join. What more could one ask for than to be a proper Victorian gentleman?


E.T., the Extraterrestrial 1983 Steven Spielberg 4.0 Henry Thomas, Dee Wallace, Peter Coyote, Drew Barrymore. Superior children’s fantasy movie about encountering a visitor from another world, and deciding not to destroy, dissect, study, etc., but to love, support, and help it return to its own parents. Very endearing throughout; sentimental, but saved from excess by Spielberg’s genuineness and good taste. Much glowing supernatural mystery with the hazy atmosphere and crane shots of the city’s street, the bluish night sky with the new moon (appearing emblematically in first part of movie) and the sparkling stars suggesting the intriguing mysteries of other worlds. Set firmly in American suburbia in Southern California; the family lives in a typical tract home, the kids swarm into the streets like locusts on Halloween, the final exciting extended chase takes place through graded lots and houses under construction. The family is ‘typical,’ always tugging on the heartstrings; the mother, Mary, is pretty, competent and divorced and is teary eyed when she thinks of her husband off with another woman in Mexico; the kids bicker, but hang in there together when the going gets tough; they care about their mother’s feelings; Gertie (Drew Barrymore) misses her dad and generally is cute and adorable throughout. Movie is definitely kid’s eye with few adult characters, aside from the mother, who finds out about E.T. pretty early on. Kids hope and believe and are not realistic; they have the privilege of living in a world of make-believe, where they are not suspicious and accept creatures different from themselves. E.T., despite his bizarre appearance, is pretty much like any other kid: same desires, he misses his parents, he can learn a foreign language quickly, etc. An extra-sensory parallel of powers between E.T. and Elliott, whereby E.T. heals Elliot’s finger, and then Elliott raises E.T. from the dead. The federal agents are faceless and threatening in the beginning; then they metamorphose into rather sterile medical personnel as they perform endless tests on E.T. and pursue the kids as they try to cycle the extraterrestrial back to the clearing to meet his parents; there is one good guy, Peter Coyote, who understands what childhood wonder and faith are like. Great emblematic moments: E.T. undiscovered by Mary because he looks like a stuffed animal in the closet; E.T. leaving the Reese’s Pieces on Elliott’s blanket; the kids on their bicycles levitating and peddling in front of the large yellow full moon; the sensitive close-ups of E.T.’s face. All performances good, particularly Thomas, who shows real emotion. Values are ultimate in family values: tolerance and understanding across all frontiers, the sacredness of life, the healing power of love; the value of a close family; always stay loyal to your friends.


En la Cama 2005 Matías Bize (Chile) 2.5 Blanca Lewin; Gonzalo Valenzuela. Claustrophobic film about a couple getting to know one another after meeting at a party and going to a motel for some recreational sex; the two actors are the only players and they never leave the motel room. The film starts off with the sexual event depicted by a lot of huffing, grunting, and crying out and only indistinct images of sheets and flesh very close up that slowly become more distinct when they finish. It turns out that neither partner knows the first (or last) name of the other; and they warily yield their identity and then begin to reveal important things about their own lives. They make love two more times, once beginning in the bathtub; the third one is interrupted suddenly by Lewin when Valenzuela cries out the name of his former girlfriend in the heat of passion. The film seems like it must have received an NC-17 rating. It is reminiscent of ‘Before Sunrise’ in its easy-going, natural talkiness, and sometimes playfulness that gradually leads to significant revelations about the principals. Both of course are wounded by previous failed relationships; Valenzuela reveals that he is soon to leave for Europe to study for a Ph.D. When Valenzuela’s condom tears, Lewin reflects on intimacy by imagining that the sperm of this man that she barely knows are swimming around inside of her. They guardedly approach aspects of an intimate relationship, and when they part, the viewer is left with the open question of whether there is any possibility of pursuing the connection. The strength of the film is the natural, insightful dialogue that explores the frontiers of intimacy and its relationship with sex. The static, claustrophobic visual atmosphere, however, make it hard to watch all the way through.


The End of the Affair 1999 Neil Jordan (Britain) 3.0 Ralph Fiennes as London writer who has had an affair with Sarah and who now must come to terms with it; Julianne Moore as Sarah, the wife of a London bureaucrat, who looks for love outside of her affectionless marriage; Stephen Rea as colorless but earnest upper bureaucrat who suffers from his wife's infidelity; Ian Hart as earnest Dickensian private detective who shadows Moore for lover and husband. Searching adaptation of Graham Greene novel, set in London during the war and right after; film emphasizes equally the romantic, sexual aspect of the film (the sex scenes use tasteful nudity to make them convincing)and Green's probing Catholic-tinged theology of good and evil. Film is beautifully photographed and edited -- close-ups are elegant and appropriate; colors and hues are dark and rich; although we may wonder why almost every outdoor scene has to be in the rain. Film has modernist plot structure, beginning with Fiennes at his typewriter announcing that he is writing the story of his affair on the theme of hate; and then alternating between flashbacks to show us the progress of the affair and the present where he develops a kind of friendship with the husband as the two of them try to come to terms with what has happened. Sarah has a fatal disease and Rea invites Fiennes to live in his house to attend to Sarah until she dies. The affair had been stormy, very romantic, and very sexual. Fiennes suffers from jealousy mainly of the husband, and the script announces that as a sin. The affair comes to an end when a German bomb explodes next to the building where the two lovers are in bed, apparently killing Fiennes; when Sarah discovers that he is not dead, she makes a pledge to God on her knees that she will never see her lover again and the two part. When we come to the present, the theme has become the tension between God's rules about sexuality and love (or perhaps just of Sarah's understanding of them, since Fiennes continues to insist that he does not believe in God) and the demands of the human heart and body. Sarah shows that she cannot remain true to her pledge, since her need to be with Fiennes is so great; she agrees to go off with him. Fiennes is increasingly frustrated and angry that God has taken his beloved from him -- first because she "got religion" in her supposed vision in the explosion, and then because she gets sick and dies. Film ends in a kind of depressed resignation, when Fiennes finishes his work and asks God just to leave him alone. Film is noble effort to translate Greene's themes to the screen; it suffers from an overly complicated thematic development; more simplicity would have increased its impact.


Les enfants du paradis 1946 Marcel Carné (France) 4.0 Arletty as Garance, iconically beautiful and incrutable unattached woman for whom only love matters, Jean-Louis Barrault as the inspired mime Baptiste, in the middle of the many love stories, Pierre Brasseur as Frederick, the bullshitter actor always playing a flamboyant part in his life and for whom only being a success on the stage (he hates mimes) matters, Louis Salou as an also iconic Count de Montray, stiff, formal, formidable, dangerous, impeccably turned out, Marcel Herrand as the criminal leader Lacenaire, who is also irresistibly drawn to Garance. Two part movie – the first rather optimistic and happy, the second fatalistic and tragic – about complex love relationships in the world of the theater in Paris of the 1820s and 1830s. Pace of movie is quite slow as all the ins and outs of the love stories are developed: focuses on Baptiste’s love for Garance – with serious rivals from Frederick and Lacenaire; the love finally has its fulfillment at the end when Baptiste and Garance spend the night togther. Garance is elusive and refuses to settle down, marry, etc.; the only thing that matters to her is love – and she truly loves Baptiste at the end – but for her it is soon over – the wheel of life continues to move – and she must move on. Baptiste loves her with a pure romantic ideal, to the point that he dare not touch her when he first has her in private; Lacenaire is no love, but tells her he “desires” her (sex); Frederick just likes to sweet talk her – since there is apparently no character behind the actor’s mask, it is difficult to know what he wants. Ends dramatically and tragically. Garance returns to disturb the happy marriage that Baptiste has with Nathalie (Maria Casarès), and when his wife tries to reclaim him after the affair, Baptiste leaves the room and runs hopelessly through the street screaming his lover’s name. Meanwhile, de Montray, who is trying to fight duels with most men, is murdered by Lacenaire in his Turkish bath; the latter waits to be arrested. All the other characters are again set free and are lonely individuals in the world; the love connection has not remained stable for anyone. Marvelous copy of the film restored by Criterion. The environment is popular celebration in the streets (e.g., Mardi Gras in the last scene), and the lower class folk (“enfants du paradis”) who sit in the cheap, higher seats in the theater, and cheer lustily the mime of Baptiste and the acting of Frederick. Hard to know where the allegory of Nazi occupation lies. Plays with images of illusion – the acting profession and how it affects one’s real-life behavior, the role of dreams and idealism in one’s love (Baptiste), etc. A film that needs to be seen many times.


Entre les murs 2008 François Bégaudeau (France) 3.0 François Bégaudeau playing himself as a teacher struggling with his pupils in a junior high in the low-income 20eme arrondissement in Paris; the children are played more or less by themselves. Highly praised semi-documentary film about trying to teach a multi-ethnic gaggle of early adolescent kids on the other side of the generation gap in contemporary France. The film feels like a documentary: no music on the soundtrack, more or less flat narrative curve as we follow Bégaudeau’s daily struggle. The narrative focuses on a Black girl who defies and mouths off at the teacher continuously, but who after a confrontation with him cools down; on an aggressively mouthy Arab girl Esmeralda who at the end of the film tries her best to get Bégaudeau into trouble; on a hard-working and cooperative Chinese kid, Wei, and his beaming parents; on an engaging heartbreaker of a kid from Mali, Suleyman, who refuses to do any work and finally explodes in the classroom and is then expelled from school. Bégaudeau is engagingly well-intentioned; he thinks the best way to get the kids to learn French is to go down to their level, put up with their interruptions and disrespectful interjections, so to speak become their friend and associate so as to motivate them to care about their education and future. He uses sarcasm, talks back to the kids in class, and as the school year wears on, he often gets angry – to the point of calling two girls “skanks” (French original?) in class. The overall impression is that the rewards of teaching to this group are minimal at best; at the end of the year very few of the students are motivated to make something of themselves. Teaching in this environment is basically waging a war against resisters on the other side of the cultural divide. The kids are separated from the school system by their youth culture that prizes baggy jeans, rap music, video games, and being cool and also by their ethnic differences, which appear to be much deeper than in the USA, where immigrant children seem to have accepted basically that they are Americans. The immigrant kids in France seem to identify with their place of origin and express resentment against being “French”, which to them evokes snobby white people in suits and ties; the school is an institution trying to brainwash them into joining the club, although they don’t think they will ever be accepted anyhow. The impact of the film on the viewer is that teaching in such an environment is mostly a hopeless task, and this despite the director being clearly on the side of the kids – for example, he has firebrand Esmeralda put down Bégaudeau in the end by announcing in front of the class that she has read Plato’s ‘Republic’ (Huh? That’s what kids read in their spare time?). Often engaging film that is sometimes dull and manipulative.


Erin Brockovich 2000 Stephen Soderbergh 3.0 Julia Roberts credible and entertaining as ill-tempered, potty mouthed housewife (three children) who suddenly launches into a crusade against big industry; Albert Finney also entertaining as the equally combative and excitable lawyer who works with her; Aaron Eckhart as thin, hirsute motorcyclist layabout who spends most of the movie submissively taking care of Roberts’ children. Entertaining Hollywood-style film about an alienated housewife who finds redemption in her campaign to get compensation from PG&E for the horrible health damage they have caused in people living near one of their Southern California plants. The film marks time when it lingers on the absurd romance between leather bedecked dropout Eckart and the shrill and in-your-face Roberts – it is difficult to believe that a Hells Angel admirer loves to change diapers and feed the baby, and Eckart’s acting skills seem in any case to be in remission; it also marks time when Soderbergh pulls our heartstrings as we watch and listen to pale copies of Ma and the Judd family (‘Grapes of Wrath’) whine weakly about their physical and familial ills. The pace picks up a lot, however, when the blustering Finney and the mouthy Roberts are in the same frame; against our better judgment, we enjoy how despite their conflicts and outbursts of temper they grow together to accept and even admire one another. Roberts’ performance is reinforced by her revealing wardrobe – the viewer has long looks at sizable parts of her breasts and of the bras that have them barely under control. The depiction of the legal progress toward sufficient damages (the plaintiffs were awarded $333 million) is also entertaining: in high Hollywood style, we chuckle at the discomfiture of arrogant and up-tight lawyers and at the defeat of the heartless big corporation. The film ends of course in triumph: with a twinkle in his eye Finney gives the (for once) dumbfounded Roberts a check for $2 million, he walks away with a merry spring in his step, and the credits tells us how everyone lives (more or less) happily ever after.


Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004 Michel Gondry 3.0 Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet (speaking in flawless American accent), Kirsten Dunst, Tom Wilkinson. Very inventive, unpredictable screenplay. Film about two lovers, who take advantage of new medical technology to erase painful memories of their ill-fated romance. You put a sort of helmet on your head, and then computer has you relive and then erase your past, beginning with the most recent (and therefore painful) memories and regressing to the most distant (and romantic) ones. Film a kind of attention-teaser: you spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is going on – Is this really happening? Is it in the mind of one of the characters? Are both Winslet and Carrey there, or is this the memory of only one of the characters? Begins with Carrey meeting Winslet on Montauk Beach, he being very shy and she coming on to him; and then confusing cut to hard-to-follow actions, which turn out to be a prequel to the first scene. Point: this is a sweet romantic story about two ne’er do wells, who love one another, can’t get along, despair (thus deciding to erase the memories), and then in process of reliving their memories, decide to give it another go: Winslet says to Carrey at end, “Meet me in Montauk,” thereby telling us that the versions of the meeting at beginning of movie is the second try. An inventive romantic comedy, kind of like a good Woody Allen one. Winslet particularly good as unpredictable, emotional, and demanding young woman with blue or orange hair; Carrey completely buries his bigger-than-life comic persona. Demands that movie makes on one’s attention and interpretation undercuts somewhat one’s involvement in the drama, but still sweet and romantic.


Ethan Frome 1993 John Madden 2.5 Liam Neeson strong and suitably agonizing as the husband of Joan Allen and lover of the younger Arquette, Joan Allen as shrewish, contemptible hypochondriac wife of Neeson, Patricia Arquette as the destitute, coquettish, somewhat desperate poor relative in the household. Based on Wharton’s famous novella, the drama takes place in wintry New England (actually filmed in Peacham, Vermont); narrated in a flashback to inform the new preacher who arrives several years after the incident. The landscapes dominate and are very pretty, but also cold, forbidding, little sign of life. The plot is claustrophobic – concerned with the fate of a ménage a trois in a small New England town. Illicit romance between the homeless Arquette and the romantically deprived Neeson is consummated twice. Allen of course objects, and the two agree painfully to send Arquette away; but they decide on one more sleigh ride, which ends in a crippling accident. The viewer does not know immediately what the outcome is, but after we return to the present and the minister visits the Frome household, we find out that all three are still alive, but with Arquette now an invalid in bed being cared for by the two spouses. The story is hard to swallow: Wharton is not happy with simple tragedy, but racks ups the punishment for adultery – the two lovers are not allowed to die, but must live out their days handicapped and sharing their household with the shrewish Allen! All performances are good, especially Allen, who depicts the ill-tempered hypochondriac very convincingly. The film is a competent adaptation of a literary work, but the story is a serious handicap.


The Evil Dead 1982 Sam Raimi 2.5 Bruce Campbell looking constantly petrified, covered with blood and gore and fighting for his life; several unknown actors who turn into ghouls and then go after Campbell. Blood- and gore-fest about a bunch of college kids who for some reason rent a shack in the backwoods of Tennessee (?) for a little fun, and who get more than they bargained for. The best part of the film is the beginning that is filled with menace as the kids prowl around the house and in the threatening outdoors; they find a skin-covered book in the cellar, and the reading out loud of the contents awakens some bloodthirsty force buried in the ground that attacks the kids (one girl appears to have been raped by tendrils from bushes outside) and turns them into ghouls, who in turn attack one another and Campbell, who for some unexplained reason is able to resist without turning into a ghoul himself. The last half of the film is a blood-fest: the girls, for example, turn into screaming harpies with whites of their eyes protruding and various sorts of goo sometimes dribbling, sometimes projecting, out of their facial orifices; the favorite is the scene in which Campbell attempts to bury his transformed girlfriend, but she seizes his arm through the earth from the grave, rakes bloody gashes in his legs, leaps upon his body, and when he hits her with a shovel, he detaches her head that flies off, planting itself right side up in the ground, still crowing, while her headless body struggles on top of her former boyfriend. The ending has Campbell with his blood-soaked face exiting peacefully from the house – he has survived! But the force again generates momentum from behind the house, the steadycam bobs and weaves through the house and toward the back of the protagonist, who turns to face his pursuer – he screams knowing that he will join his friends. The film is low-budget – basically one set, unknown and low-paid actors; but it is well filmed with lots of angles, tilts, and shots well-chosen for suspense. The famous Raimi sense of humor is not apparent, aside from a few moments, e.g., the flying head. One tires awfully of gory images, blood splashing in all directions, extremely ugly visages shrieking and cackling in ghoulish glee. It must have made quite an impact in 1981, but it hasn’t aged well.