Callas Forever

I very much enjoyed seeing this film this afternoon. I would strongly
recommend it, sad as it is, for magnificent acting and beautiful music.

Whilst it was a clever angle from which to view Callas, and it worked simply
as that, I felt that the film covered some interesting themes. The question
of artistic integrity may not be commonly discussed, but it is an
interesting part of aesthetics. Is the original painting intrinsically
different in a meaningful way from an identical copy, a first rate print or,
indeed, from a perfect photograph of the painting - and if so, in what way
and why? The obvious answer is that habit, tradition, existing practice
gives it a higher market value proving that it has intrinsic value isn't
really an answer, but, rather, the reason that the question is asked in the
first place. The film examined this from the point of view of music, and
opera, but it was the same question and it provided an intriguing answer.

I felt that the film also provided powerful perspectives on fame and
meaning. It is pretty obvious how fame can give meaning to the lives of
people who feel that their lives would otherwise have none and how
destructive this ultimately has to be when it is lost - certainly when a
career has a physically imposed limit. It is, for obvious reasons, less
clear how those who choose (or feel forced) to live a solitary existence
after a famous career see the matter. I felt that, though it was fictional,
Callas' choice was portrayed as being redeemed by the course of the plot -
something that rang more truly to me than the idea of being along inevitably
implying being lonely.

As a Prima Donna, Callas certainly lived down to the stereotype, as one
would expect. I think that it was unkind, as was suggested at one point, to
imply that she only knew anything about Faust because he appeared in Opera -
I'm sure she must have spent some time on Onassises yacht reading, if only
to fend of boredom. There was genuine pathos in the wonderful portrayal of
Callas as if revealed, like the Wizard of Oz, to be a smaller person than
her persona, but it was a shared pathos and a profound one - particularly as
she triumphed over it by virtue of her integrity to herself, not to her
persona.

--
I know why I hate integrity. It is nice for those that have it, but utter
hell for those who have to live with them - Larry in 'Callas Forever'

Hide and Seek (2005)

'm quite keen on horror films. Actually it's a bit of a tedious hobby as most of them are so utterly dreadful and not the least bit horrific. It pays off from time to time though, I thought that 'The Blair Witch Project' was a masterpiece, for example.

I, consequently, had extremely low expectations when I went to see 'Hide and Seek' today. Verity, as usual, refused to join me, she sees no point in ersatz fear. www.IMDb.com gives this film a very low rating and it is usually reliable so I expected even less - in fact I only went to see it because there was nothing else on at the time that we happened to be in Cavendish for other reasons.

I was very pleasantly surprised. Robert de Niro is an excellent actor who gives a good performance despite it being such a hackneyed genre. His performance is considerably weaker towards the end, but it doesn't matter much at that stage.

The plot is unusually intelligent with fewer of the 'why be so stupid as to split up when in the haunted house' moments than usual. The characters who are the usual red-herrings are more plausibly drawn than usual and the sets much less spooky - a benefit in plausibility.

The little girl Dakota Fanning (a peculiar name, if ever there was one!) acts well despite the rather confining nature of her character.

The psychological parts of the plot line are indeed rather thin and the aetiology of the bogeyman's pathology not explored at all. Disappointing as this was, it was probably wise as any increase in psychobabble would have been considerably distracting.

The suspense is well presented, it is convincingly scary at times, to me the ultimate test of this genre. The musical score isn't that original, but I didn't think it overplayed.

If you have a penchant for horror flicks, a very minor vice in the scheme of things, I'd recommend this film despite its poor showing on IMDb. I don't think that I was alone in enjoying it, there were some full-blooded shrieks from the audience a number of times and no snigger's.

Moeder Dao, de schildpadgelijkende (1995)

This cleverly produced selection from over 200 films made of colonial Indonesia has some fascinatingly memorable bits. The crocodile hunt, the shot of the baby smoking a cigarette and sucking his mothers' nipple alternatively and the making and shipping of tobacco.

It is clearly a pinko attempt to get you all shocked about colonialism, but ends up being interesting, informative and a contrast to Indonesia today. The poetry read over the scenes is suitably lefty, and not very good, it is black & white. If you have a better film in mind, see it.

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999)

There ought to be a compulsory warning for all films that are over the standard two-hour limit. Actually, all directors who are tempted to produce such films ought to be reminded of the letter that started, 'I didn't have time to write a short letter to you, so here is a long one'. Joan of Arc could be vastly improved by heavy cutting - about an hour would be pretty good and an hour and a half better.

Though the film does borrow much from George Bernard Shaw's magnificent play 'St. Joan', it doesn't borrow enough. Much of the dialogue is leaden and completely anachronistic - if the film didn't take itself so seriously and was supposed to be Monty Python and the Holy Grail or Men in tights, these jarring anachronisms wouldn't be too bad, as it is, they jar horribly.

I thought that things were not looking good in the first few minutes. Not only did we have a potted history of France at the time - al la the opening of 'Star Wars' - but we also had shots of the young Joan [carefully called Jean by all the actors] running through fields of flowers. First she ran through a field of red poppies, fair enough, I thought, maybe something symbolic about blood to come or something. Then it was a field of yellow flowers, rape maybe, again some possible imagery. Then we had her running through a field of blue Lavender - I began to fear that I had walked into a French version of 'Run, Lola, Run'.

It did get better then, it certainly didn't plumb the depths of the ghastly 'Titanic' bore! The battle shots were nicely realistic and gory. Siege engines were shown in use very effectively and the Dauphin was every inch the one portrayed by GBS - if you could describe such a wimp as being 'every inch' of anything!

Probably the most tedious of the film was a long series of scenes where Joan chats to a Yank in a hooded cloak with a deep voice who was obviously supposed to be deeply profound and impressive. If a five year old had the patience to sit through all these scenes, then he might have understood a little more about the moral dilemma involved in being against the killing of people, whilst being keen on leading huge armies into battle. It was an insult to anybody else to suggest that such trite moralizing was interesting, useful or informative.

The film made it clear that the director was as against the church as he was against the English. This is fair enough, given the subject matter. However, the ham fisted way in which this message was rammed home again and again was enough to make the most hardened anglophobe atheist see something laudable in the English Cardinal getting tired of the hysterical girl. Though a measure of the plot rested on Joan wishing to have a last confession, the reason why the Cardinal couldn't give it to her was never explained - it seemed that it was enough for us to be informed that her ecclesiastical prosecutor was not a nice chap. Clearly we were not supposed to imagine that he had to go through any moral, or other, thought to decide to betray her. This poor exposition was particularly unfortunate given the fine acting that brought the Cardinal to life - it certainly wasn't forgivable on the grounds that there wasn't enough time to make this point clear.

So if, one day, a short version of this film comes out, with the tedious and unhelpful stuff removed, it might be worth watching on a wet evening. If I were you, though, I would rather wait until a local Amateur Dramatics Society puts on a production of St. Joan. You will find it a far more uplifting, entertaining and well-balanced experience.

Happiness (1998)

This should be a recommended text for philosophy I morals/ethics courses. The contrast between the morality of particular situations and the currently politically correct view of the matter is magnificently exposed. Anybody being shocked or upset by the film should think hard about where they get their moral values - their shock would almost certainly suggest that they picked them up second hand somewhere and hadn't really thought them out.

Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975)

This is a real let down if you are expecting a real bit of Sadean fun. Instead you have a middle class suburban mini orgy. It would be nice to see this film made properly one day, on a reasonable budget, but it probably won't be soon.

U-Carmen e-Khayelitsha (2005)

Carmen is one of the best known and widely loved of all operas. Some see opera as a rather distant and high-brow entertainment. This film is quite a different experience! The singing is sublime, the acting dramatic and filled with energy and enthusiasm. The location is grim and poor whilst brimming with life.

I look forward to the DVD where it would be possible to turn off the subtitles - they are well done, but it would be nice to watch it a second time without their intrusion.

It is remarkable how Xhosa lends itself to operatic singing - particularly with such gifted opera singers.

I'd recommend it to anybody who loves music, enjoys a spectacle or is interested in South Africa - well, Cape Town, or a part of Cape Town, at any rate!

The Libertine (2004)

I enjoyed the film very much! There were lots, as you say, of anachronisms 'shag', for example, meaning 'to copulate' originates from 1788, nearly a hundred years later. They mispronounce both 'flaccid' and 'trait' - common enough errors, both, but they really shouldn't occur in a film of this nature.

Even the conceit of the film was something of an anachronism - why on earth should the Earl of Rochester give a fart whether people like him - particularly those with modern sensibilities? I thought him an amusing and engaging figure - pity about his deathbed infection with religion, but his brain was addled with tertiary syphilis, so you can hardly blame him. I thought him remarkably un-debauched, actually, a trifle over-indulgent, certainly, but not debauched in any sensible meaning of the word - at least that's my view! John Malkovich is considerably less irritating than usual - probably because he is trying to speak English (he doesn't do too badly, though he makes some errors that no Native speaker would and that ought to have been corrected by the producer).

The lighting is nicely atmospheric and the sets pleasantly sub-fusc. There are some witty exchanges and enjoyable visual effects. It must have taken them ages to set up the scene where the spaniel shits behind the King's back.

I thought his wife was portrayed as a bit slow - surely she wouldn't have been so thick as not to have understood his point about the monkey.

I liked his servant - though I fear that he took more of his character from Baldrick in 'Black Adder' than from any historical Alcock.

I think that the film would be improved if the spoken introduction and epilogue were removed - as I say, I think that the view is anachronistic and the arch post-modernist attempt to have us see the film as an auto-biography is silly, vain and fails.

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

We went to see this film today.

Wow! What an experience it was. Usually Verity and I discuss a film after we've watched it and compare our reactions. After watching this today we found not a word to say.

It is profoundly moving in many ways. I enjoyed the main protagonists ability to negotiate so cleverly from positions of utter powerlessness. I felt the build up of hatred realistic, tangible and terrifying. There were few cardboard characters, even the motivation of the most brutal, avaricious, vengeful and cruel was believable. The frustration felt at the utter indifference of the west by those who were betrayed, coupled with their helpless dependency brought a vivid light to what it was like to be utterly ignored by those believed to be friends.

The stark moral choices were those that I think most of us would fear ever to confront, knowing how little how we would actually behave in that situation.

The acting was superb.

I think that everybody ought to watch this film - not least to learn more of just what it means to be human.

--

It is an unalterable law that people who claim to care about the human race are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of individuals - Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien *

Titus (1999)

If you see any film this decade, see 'Titus'!

It explores human relationships in the raw. If you don't understand hatred, honour and love, this is the film that will help you learn about these difficult matters.

It is not an easy film. It is directly as Shakespeare wrote it in 'Titus Andronicus'. However, it is so brilliantly performed with such excellent sets, scenery and imagery as to be a very, very rare delight.

Feast on this spectacle of both the eye and the mind and leave both humbled, refreshed and enlivened to a better understanding of the human condtion.

V for Vendetta (2006)

This is a most enjoyable re-hash of the '1984'. One of my long time heroes, good old Guy Fawkes gets a fitting memorial - though, as a point of accuracy, he wasn't hanged, he was hanged, drawn and quartered.

The film does have some other problems with accuracy. The descent into fascism, seen in the UK, has been a major part of Phony Tony's control-freakery and the New 'error of judgement' Labour puritanism - the film, at one stage, appears to suggest that such fascism might arise out of a Conservative government, the proof is, of course, in the pudding - ID Cards, trying to get rid of trial by jury, abolishing constitutional checks, running the government with a group of low-life cronies rather than parliament etc. etc.. Still, they probably couldn't have got the funding if they'd made the truth plain!

The film echoes some scenes from Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' very well - but the music is, of course, much better. The 1812 finale is quite magnificent, a scene of great delight, the sooner life follows art in that regard the better!

It is a nicely stylistic film, also literate in its references - if a bit self-consciously so, in a sort of sixth-formish manner.

It knocks the pants of the portrayal of Capote as a piece of entertainment. Also, unlike Capote, you can hear every word, which makes a film so much less self-indulgent.

One of the humorous vignettes was Stephen Fry admitting that, well, yes, he might be a bit of a pansy if you put it that way - beautifully done!

It should be required viewing for anybody who hasn't seen the picture of the way in which New 'error of judgement' Labour has screwed the country.

Oh, yes, and the bits about dealing harshly with the ex-colonies is very funny.

Birth (2004)

This film just goes on and on. It hints that it is going to have an interesting resolution, but it never arrives. If you cut out the long, meaningless pauses it would probably be a half-hour film, but still an utterly silly conception.

There are interesting backgrounds at times, which is a good thing as it gives you something to look at. I find it odd thought that people who evidently have lots of money have so little taste that the live in places that look like cheap hotels.

The genuine husband in the film is such an unappealing character that it seems odd that anybody would wish to marry him, let alone the actress who is quite attractive.

The film is also utterly lacking in any humour. It is a silly conception but a few, even bad, jokes would have made it less like a lead balloon.

Don't watch it.

L'Enfer (2005)

We enjoyed this this evening, though it is, I think, true to say that it wasn't fun. It's stylish, as you'd expect from a French film, but bleak. The three sisters really do take their tragic childhood very seriously and seem determined to have it copulate (imdb is prudish about reviews) their lives up as much as possible - strangely they don't take the opportunity of a shared childhood with each other to try to get over it, but rather indulge in gloomy comparisons with Medea.

Professorial comments in French classes, if this is anything to go by, are truly risible. The idea that, whether life is deterministic or not is simply a matter of aesthetic appeal is truly adolescent. Still, the way he says it, it makes it sound profound - but, as Henry Higgins pointed out a long time ago, that's the French way, it doesn't matter much what you say as long as you pronounce it correctly.

I wasn't sure quite why there was the homage to the three colours films. In all of them, an old woman has trouble getting a bottle into a bottle bank, and in this another old woman has the same problem. Maybe it isn't homage, maybe French bottle banks are a notorious old woman trap, but I doubt it. Is it just that this is also supposed to be part of a trilogy of films?

There was a very good line early on in the film that I thought that I ought to remember, it sounded exactly right to me. Sadly, though, it can't have been that good (or the rest of film was so absorbing) that I can't remember what it was. Anybody else who has seen it might be able to help, it was an amusing line - somebody, a chap, said it in a hall way, if that helps.

I liked the cuckoo sequence - though it wasn't that clear who was supposed to be the cuckoo and who the children turfed out of the nest, particularly when you knew all the facts. I suppose that it fitted well with the defenestration, if nothing else.

Evian being, vaguely, naive in mirror writing was a nice touch - it is, of course, naive, or something, to spend money on water when you can get it from the tap for next to nothing, but the makers of Evian mightn't find it the best advertisement ever.

Is it really true that you can keep a headless chicken alive for several months? I doubt that. Almost a thousand people seem a lot for a cannibal to eat, even over a lifetime, even a cannibal chief, especially if he only avoided eating the completely indigestible bits. But then, I suppose that it must be true.

I'd recommend it, though, as a fairly intelligent evening out. It isn't as good as one of the thee colours films - I've watched each of those several times and I'd only consider watching this again to pick up the bon mot in the first ten minutes that I've forgotten. I did like the kaleidoscopic images, though, I suppose that it is noteworthy that they have three mirrors...

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Don't even think about going to see Brokeback Mountain - it is certainly the worst, most boring, film of the year. It might even be the worst film of the decade.

I hardly ever walk out of films, but I had to walk out of this half way through. Watching paint dry would be more exciting.

It is a complete con. Not only are the cowboys not homosexual (they just f uck each other out of boredom - it is odd that the audience didn't do the same, really) but they aren't cowboys, they're sheep herders. There is hardly any dialogue and what there is is utterly unconvincing. The acting could be done as well by tailor's dummies.

I'm not really sure if I should say more about how bad it is because it might make you think that it is one of those films that are so bad that they are funny. Nope. This one is the utter dregs of film making - I seriously thought of asking for my money back.

I'm cross. I've wasted good money and a whole hour of my time hoping that it might improve.

The cinema was packed too - quite wicked. All those people diddled out of their money.

The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)

This is an entertaining film that is only, it seems, to be seen on DVD. It was made in 2004, but I don't recall it being on the circuit. The acting is good and it has such a well created period feel that I thought that it was an old film.

It relied rather too much on plebvision cuttings from the period to create that feeling to be judged an excellent film, but it was so much better than the than the recent goatherd film or the one about the sex change that it is worth mentioning. Besides, I suspect that, as a critique of plebvision watchers it rather succeeded.

If people were a little puzzled as to why Arabs should have wanted to attack Yankland with aeroplanes(and only the very thick and ignorant can be so puzzled) then this is a film that usefully explains why Yanks with any sort of imagination should be keen to destroy the place too.

It is a rather sad film. Sad that only one depressive, low-lifer should have hit on the idea that Tricky dickey dead would have made for a nicer world than him alive (and remember that Yank presidents have consistently got worse since Tricky - a quite remarkable achievement considering his extremely low standards, one that has indeed required limbo dancers of depravity). Sad too that the poor bugger fails - but then, I suppose that any competent person would move countries long before being tempted to such lengths.

I'd recommend the film, though. It is pleasantly amusing and manages an amazingly realistic picture of the Land of the 'free' and the 'brave' - and it is a picture that hasn't changed much since the '60s. One of the nicer lines is 'Slavery never really ended in this country. It just gave it another name. Employee.' - I suppose that might lead some to read it as a Pinko film.

Anybody who does enjoy this film would probably love 'Starship Troopers' - another film that understand the ethos of the place, but, in that case, had to be made by a foreigner.

As an elegant graffito had it, this film could be summed up by the line: 'Lee Harvey Oswald, where are you when your country needs you?'.