Jump Cut

Into the Abyss

2011-11-09T22:32:00.000-08:00

I have been so busy during the Master's program at USC that I hardly find time to write on this blog anymore except about films that really move me in some way. Perhaps it is a sign of how good Werner Herzog's new documentary "Into the Abyss" is that I am inspired to post a review even though I have not done so in so long. But the feeling I left with after this film is one that I would like others to experience, so I am encouraging you to go and see it.

To say it is a film about the death penalty is, I think, to miss some of the point of the film. It is about so much more. It is about an inmate on death row, and the circumstances surrounding how he got there--a senseless crime, families affected, the general nature of the death penalty in the state of Texas. However, one of the things I admire so much about this film is Herzog's respect for his subjects within the film, and the lack of pontification the film shows. Herzog does have a point of view, and in the style that is uniquely his, it comes across strongly through the film. So many documentarians seem to hide behind "facts", or let the facts tell the story because they think it will make their film less biased, or more interesting or something. However, anyone who thinks that any film can be made without a point of view is simply wrong. There is no way to divorce film maker from film entirely, and trying to remove yourself as a documentarian to prove the validity of the film only seems to me to make it weaker a lot of the time. Herzog does not give easy answers to the questions he poses. The perpetrator on death row is obviously guilty. However, Herzog refuses cheap tricks of vilification. We do not need emphasis on their villainy to feel for the victims' families, or understand the senseless nature of the heinous crime. However, the refusal to see the perpetrators as other than human adds layers of meaning, depth and truth to the film. One of the wonderful things about "Into the Abyss" is Herzog's presence within the film. Not quite a narrator, he still gives us a center from which to view what he is showing us, and shows the care that he has for filmmaking and the interest he has in this subject.

In what for me was a very great treat, Herzog was present to answer questions after the screening of the film at USC, and one of the points that came up was the revelation of truth vs. the spewing of facts. Because facts are not truth--I suppose in cases they can help lead you to it. However, truth is deeper, less tangible and more engrossing than mere facts. It is here that the power of Herzog's latest documentary lies. He does not seek facts, but truth--raw, emotional reality beyond questions of blame and guilt, beyond the espousal of political ideologies or the support of issues. "Into the Abyss" feels balanced in this sense, and does not feel that it must beat its audience over the head with its message. It (and Herzog) trusts the audience to bring themselves to the film, and draw what they will from it. While this is not to say that Herzog does not have an agenda with this film, for the point of view he takes comes across through his construction of the film, I think the respect Herzog shows with his subjects he extends to his audience. If they are coming to see the film, he respects them (and his own film-making) enough to let the story unfold visually, and cinematically without the need to beat an ideological standpoint into the ground.

This is not to say that that type of film-making does not have its place as well--however I find the story of "Into the Abyss" far more compelling and truthful than these films. The film is raw and real, and seeks out truth instead of seeking blame or guilt. The authorial presence lends a humanism to the film, and even in surprising moments a touch of the humor that Herzog often infuses into his films. I went into the movie expecting it to be depressing--how could a movie about the death penalty not be? While the movie is desperately sad, and deals with many of the worst events imaginable, Herzog deals with the subject so skillfully that I did not leave the theater feeling the impossible weight of the world bearing down on me as I have from documentaries about much less serious topics. Herzog weaves in small stories of hope, stories of heroism, and stories of love that are beautiful to behold. See especially, the story of a young man in a bar fight, stabbed with a long screwdriver, who didn't pick up a knife tossed at him to retaliate because he wanted to be able to go home and see his children that night. Look at the man who worked strapping down inmates to receive lethal injections, and after 125 could not justify a belief that anyone should be able to take a life any longer. And in the end, it seems to me that while the story is about death, it is also about life, and the importance of life. And this is what is inspiring about it even in its darkest, most abysmal moments.

Fish in the Toilet of Love

2011-03-17T10:54:00.000-07:00

Look out for spoilers! (Also, title is nothing but a reference to the brilliant British show Coupling, however I think it is apt for this post).

Well, after seeing Jane Eyre, spring break turned into a Fassbender fest for me, and I watched everything I could get my hands on with him in it that I hadn’t already seen. While watched last year’s Fish Tank, I was struck by its similarities to 2009’s An Education. Similarities abound--disaffected youth, instability of a family unit, affair with an older, married man. It was quite surprising how similar they are in ways. However, Fish Tank is a far superior film, and far less pretentious about being so.

Carey Mulligan was called the next Audrey Hepburn by someone after her role in An Education, and she is quite stunning in the movie. The film is well written, well acted and keeps you involved. It takes place in 1960s England, and takes great care to let you know how cool it is (she likes French New Wave cinema, and all the ‘cool’ trappings that go with that supposedly ‘anti-bourgeois’ art crowd. However, of course, An Education itself is not concerned with questions of class or race at all. Some mention of financial hardship is present (oh dear, how shall we ever afford Oxford?), however the characters lead a comfortable lives. Peter Sarsgaard is wealthier than her family, but the differences are not that pronounced, except that he can afford to take her on a trip to Paris. At the end, I couldn’t help rolling my eyes a bit as the main character says how she looks like everyone at Oxford, yet is so different on the inside. Okay, I get it, she was affected by this older man she slept with and her youthful dreams of a perfect marriage were forever shattered. However, she was able to pick herself up by her shoelaces and get back her scholarship to freaking Oxford. Boo hoo.

Fish Tank tells the story of Mia, a 15 year old girl who lives with her incredibly young mother and little sister--all of whom appear to hate each other, and are constantly yelling and cussing each other out. They are incredibly poor (“those track suits cost 20 quid”), and Mia is about to get sent to a referral school because her behavior is so out of control. Mia’s mother brings home a new boyfriend, Connor (Fassbender!), and from the start, a great amount of sexual tension dances between them. The film is wonderfully shot and has an incredible soundtrack that amps this all up, until the inevitable happens. The difference, and more believable/miserable reality of this film is that Mia has nowhere to go; it exposes the fallacy of class mobility (sure, it happens once in a blue moon I suppose, but not nearly so much as we would like to think). She tries to get ahead through the one thing she loves, dancing, however her opportunity here too turns out to be a cruel joke by the universe. Similarly, the class struggle of the film is heightened by the fact that Connor(spoiler) really belongs to the middle class, even though you don’t know this for most of the film and read him as part of the working class, like them. There are uncomfortable connotations of his “slumming” with Mia’s family, and her reactions to this knowledge are uncontrollable and frightening. While not a film about race and class, the racial aspect of class is not ignored such as it kind of is in An Education, and presents itself through Mia’s choice of music and dance styles, which have linked black and working class populations in Britain for decades (see Dick Hebdige’s work on subcultures for greater analysis of this). While the end of the film does resolve her struggles with her mother and sister, and she escapes the building she’s in, she doesn’t get to escape to one of the world’s finest educational institutions, but to Wales. Her’s isn’t a vertical track, it’s horizontal. You can’t help getting the feeling too, that her sister will end up trapped just like she is in the end.

Katie Jarvis is absolutely wonderful as the prickly, aggressive and defensive Mia, who is angry at the world that ignores and doesn’t care about her. Michael Fassbender is wonderful as Connor, who doesn’t seem so bad, is wildly charismatic, but turns out to be scum. While I enjoyed An Education, Fish Tank is unquestionably the better and more meaningful film, that feels like it’s about actual people, vs. that film that you know you’re supposed to like, but it can’t quite escape the feeling of staged-ness, or the feeling that it really should be a book (which it is).

My favorite movie for the Oscars!

2010-12-25T18:27:00.000-08:00

Any movie that uses Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 in A major automatically goes into my category of excellent films. I thought that I would take a moment to discuss a movie that I just saw, and is likely to be up for best picture at the Oscars. It has already been nominated for a Golden Globe, and I must say, it is one of my favorites of the year as well.

"The King's Speech" stars Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as his elocution and speech 'teacher' Lionel Logue. Like all movies I end up loving, it took some forcing myself to go see it. I was much more excited about the tense, anxiety inducing thriller "Black Swan"...which I also loved. However, Colin Firth in particular (but also Geoffrey Rush, who I don't think has ever given a bad performance) is so incredible, I found myself mesmerized by a person I have never had any interest in whatsoever. In the film (and perhaps in real life? I confess to not being familiar with much about this era of British history), King George ("Bertie") talks funny--and I don't mean the stammer (perhaps some of you are familiar with the distinct manners of elocution around that time...several Hollywood personalities talked in a similar manner). He has a temper, cowers at times in the face of his brother and father, and is like much royalty, reticent about his emotions, past, and much about himself.

It is a testament to Colin Firth's extraordinary performance then, as well as the direction of Tom Hooper and screenplay by David Seidler, that these elements do not come across to make us dislike the character. We are rather more endeared to him because of these traits, and the film manages to build Firth's and Rush's, characters with very little exposition (always the mark of a fine film). If anyone has ever had to speak in public, it is quite a nerve-wracking experience. For a person with a speech impediment, it must be ten times worse. The film brings this anxiety out-not with pity or derision, but simply as a hurdle this man must face to perform his job (being king...). Still, at the climactic moment (cue Beethoven!), the gravity of the situation and the importance of the struggles of the king are executed beautifully as he makes a solemn speech to his subjects on the entrance of England into WWII, linking his personal story with the overarching history to which royalty especially is invariably intertwined.

It is a movie that deals wonderfully with the subject of royalty as well, and the manner that Albert and Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter) fulfill their duties while others are not perhaps up to the challenge. Also, the manner in which commoners interact and do(not) necessarily comprehend what it still means to be the king (or queen...). "Black Swan" was wonderful for its excess, the story (even though it's not the most original idea...), and of course, Natalie Portman was wonderful. And I'm a sucker for a movie about dancing. However, "The King's Speech, with its understatement, and masterful performances, is exquisite. It deserves to win, and while it may lose out to the larger box office of films such as "Black Swan" or "Social Network", "The King's Speech" is my personal pick. At least, for now.

Master of Suspense

2010-09-09T23:18:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm finally settled here in Los Angeles, working on my Master's Degree! I realize that the consistency of my posts is shaky at best, but I thought I would just keep plugging away, and try to keep up. At least you know that the movies that I do talk about are the ones that truly inspire me to write about them. That being said, let's get down to it!

I am working for the University of Southern California at the moment, in the capacity of a 'reader' for a class taught by Dr. Drew Casper on the subject of Alfred Hitchcock. Basically, I sit in on the class, do the readings, and then I grade the papers of the undergraduates assigned to me. The class has met 3 times now, I believe. We have worked our way through Hitchcock's silet films and British sound films, and next week, we'll move on to his Hollywood career.

I wanted to take a moment though, and recognize two films that I was particularly impressed with, seeing that not many people give as much thought to his British films as his Hollywood ones. While his Hollywood classics such as Vertigo, Spellbound, The Birds, and of course Psycho remain his most popular and widely viewed work, it is the films that he made during his time in Britain that helped raise him to the level of master.

In particular, the two films that speak to me are "The 39 Steps"(1935) and "The Lady Vanishes" (1938). Hitchcock has darker films, and films that mix light and dark, and the element of slapstick that goes into these two films is perhaps what draws me, personally, to them more than his other films (which have, arguably, greater technical merit). Hitchcock was a master at blending genres, and these two films, while very different, are similar in that they are a combination of suspense, action, adventure, mystery, thriller, and romantic comedy.

We'll start chronologically, with "The 39 Steps". Starring Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll, this film centers around a man who gets dragged into a game of espionage and intrigue involving national secrets that are about to be smuggled out of the country. After assisting an agent, who then gets murdered in his apartment, he is on the flee from the bad guys, the government-everyone basically, until he can clear his name. One of the points that is continually brought up in class is how Hitchcock's stories rely on character-it is how he successfully builds suspense, and why his stories are so gripping. He often takes flat, morally ambiguous characters at the beginning and takes them on a journey towards greater humanism and personality. This film is no different, which the character of Richard Hannay (Donat) taking on multiple character roles as masks as he makes his journey through the film. Madeleine Carroll takes the role of the 'cool blond', who starts out hindering Hannay as much as the rest, but also goes through a transformation of character and greater depth as the film goes on. The best scene, in my opinion, occurs after these two have been handcuffed together, and find themselves looking for a way out of their predicament while trapped in an inn in the Highlands of Scotland. This scene is also quite risque, and extraordinary for its blatant sexuality that was quite uncommon at that time (they even appear in a bed together!).

This film is particularly remarkable in my opinion because the acting is spot on. The secondary characters are particularly well rounded and interesting, despite having very little time on screen. Donat himself is probably one of the mroe charismatic British actors of that time period. Hitchcock perhaps would disagree with the importance placed on the actors, and perhaps it is just their ability to effortlessly carry off his (and screenwriter Charles Bennett's) masterpiece. The pacing of the story carries the audience along so quickly, you barely have time to catch your breath before the next sequence occurs. I would give this movie 5 stars, and heartily recommend it, especially if you are not familiar with Hitchcock's British, or black and white work.

The next film I want to overview is "The Lady Vanishes", which actually reminded me a lot of Agatha Christie's 'Murder on the Orient Express' when I first heard about it (even though they have very little to do with one another, except for taking place on a train). This film centers on a young woman who befriends an elderly woman aboard a train while she is heading back home to be married (for $!). When the lady vanishes suddenly, everyone else on the train claims not to have seen her, even though the protagonist swears she was there. Helped by a slightly roguish man (who records folk songs to write about), she searches the train and tries to unearth the conspiracy surrounding the old lady. My personal favorite scene is a rather farcical fight in the baggage compartment.

Once again, this film is chock full of wonderful secondary characters, most interesting among them is a homosexual couple whose only interest throughout the film is cricket, and getting back to England in time for a penultimate match. Claustrophobic (the whole set was something like 70 feet), this film defines how to tell a story in an extremely limited space-indeed, one of the main pleasures of the film is where the devil could they be hiding a little old lady on this train? Once again, the characters begin as morally ambiguous, but slowly grow in our estimation through their actions and worries. It is his first politically allegorical film (taking issues with Britain's lack of a stance against an increasingly fascist rising power in Europe at the time). Also chock full of engaging and charismatic performances by Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave, this has perhaps bumped out The Birds as my favorite Hitchcock. (Also, the first of Hitchcock;s films with a recapitulation scene) Obviously, this film also gets 5 stars.

So, if you are looking for a more light-hearted side to Hitchcock, these two films are both wonderful. Perhaps they lack some of the mastery of later classics (Notorious just popped into my head...that's a wonderful movie). But these movies are full of incredible characters, amazing writing, and wonderfully paces plots with the right amount of suspense, humor and adventure mixed in to make one heck of a good time.

(At this moment, they are both available on at IMDB.com, as well as Netflix Instant Play).

Catching Up

2010-03-02T11:57:00.000-08:00

There is a saying that classics are what everyone wants to have read, but no one actually wants to read. I feel like sometimes I get that way with films also. If I know that I should see a movie because it is a classic, but perhaps I am not feeling particularly interested at the time, or there is some commercial blockbuster coming out I'm looking forward to, I will put off the classic film for as long as possible. Until somehow I am forced to see it, I push it to the bottom of my Netflix account, or check it out and return it without watching it.

Such was the case with Ingmar Bergman's classic film "The Seventh Seal". It was briefly discussed in my film history class, and I decided that I had to see it. Two years later, I still hadn't gotten around to it. Finally, last November I couldn't put it off anymore, and I moved it to the front of my list. It is the first Bergman film that I have seen, but will not be the last. IMDB's summary: "A man seeks answers about life, death, and the existence of God as he plays chess against the Grim Reaper during the Black Plague". A pretty accurate description, however it cannot capture the nature of the film, and the reason that it should be required viewing for anyone who calls themselves a fan of film.

I have never seen a film that captures more of the dismay and hopelessness of the outbreak of the black plague. Recent films try to shock audiences with scenes of violent illnesses, or grotesque, wasting diseases. Fair enough, I'm sure they're not inaccurate. However, the Seventh Seal captures a sense of abandonment and foreboding despair that feels so real that it is easier to understand the horror of this particular event in history than some vague historical description of it. Characters in the film turn to religion (often times, disturbingly, to methods such as self-flagellation), turn away from religion, and try to cope with life and death in various ways. There are characters for different sets of belief, making the Seventh Seal a sort of allegorical film. Of course, this also appears through one of the more interesting characters of the film, Death. He and the knight, Antonius Block, play a game of chess in which the outcome is life and death. Death is also in my opinion, morbidly comical at points of the film, as he suddenly appears behind a man hiding in a tree trying to escape him and produces a large saw to cut the tree down.

Even in the darkness of the film however, there is a young family, Jof(Joseph), Mia (Mary) and their young son. As a representation of the holy family, the make it through the turbulent and dangerous times and provide hope in the midst of all the darkness and death surrounding them.

Anyway, trying to keep this post a bit shorter, I highly recommend this film. It is the most interesting rumination on death and the "mortal coil" that all humans face. A masterpiece of film, excellent cinematography and superb acting. It is the only film I have ever seen where I immediately wanted to watch it again with the commentary track on. If you want to see a film that will actually make you think, and you can tell a lot of though went into, this is the one for you.

A New Dawn for Vampires-With Lots Less Angst

2010-02-21T12:11:00.000-08:00

It has been difficult for me to find time to post recently because I was working on graduate school applications, and more recently, I have just been working to make money for graduate school. There have been several films I have wanted to post about including "The Invention of Lying" and "The Seventh Seal", both of which I saw a while ago, but I just couldn't get past the basic mapping out of points that I wanted to discuss. Maybe I'll come back to them later.

This post however, I wish to devote to a movie that I just saw yesterday at the Art Theater in Champaign (previously Boardman's Art Theatre, but now under new ownership). I spent several hours there yesterday, as me and my friend went and saw the animated shorts that are up for Oscars, as well as the late night film "Daybreakers".

I want to spend a quick paragraph on the animated features up for the Oscars this year which include "French Roast" from France, "Wallace and Grommit: A Matter of Loaf and Death" from the UK, "La Dama Y La Muerte" from Spain, "Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty" from Ireland, and "Logorama" also from France. They were all wonderful, but I have to say, I'm rooting for "Logorama". While "La Dama Y La Muerte" was my favorite in terms of style and story, "Logorama" was one of the more thoughtful, critical and innovative animated shorts that I have ever seen. It contains over 2,000 images and logos from businesses and commercialized society in general, and while the story is nothing new, the fantastic way in which they have categorized and used the logos makes it this year's best animated short. Sadly, while I love Wallace and Grommit, and realize clay-mation is an incredibly intricate and time consuming art form, it is about third or fourth on my list of shorts that
deserve the Oscar.

But on to the main event!! At 10 PM, I sat down to the new release "Daybreakers", the most current film to come out in theaters about that most popular of subjects these days, vampires. Now, I'm not a huge fan of horror films in general, or of vampire movies specifically. I have been trying to rectify this with classics such as "Suspiria", so we'll see how that goes. However, I am not one of the best sources for information on vampire lore, besides what everyone knows. However, it seems to me that since Anne Rice has started writing, and really as cinematic history continues, vampirism has gotten poncy (see: Interview With a Vampire), and something that is supposed to be aspired to (see: Twilight series, any of the new vampire books, etc.). There are very few bastions left where the true horror of vampires--they feed off people people!--is left ( I have heard 30 Days of Night is a good film for this). Too often now, the fear of being an unstoppable, life-sucking force is taken out of the story ("No Edward, I want to be a vampire, because you're 'vegetarian', and we can make swoony eyes at each other forever!). Not that I'm saying teenage angst and romance doesn't have it's place, but the horror genre is not it.

Now "Daybreakers" is a film that treats vampires in an interesting, and relatively new way. The premise is that in a world where if you are bitten by a vampire you either a)die or b)turn into a vampire, the human population is dwindling. As a hi-tech company races to find a blood substitute, several of the remaining humans turn to Edward Dalton (played by the appropriately somber Ethan Hawke), a leading vampire blood scientist, a reluctant vampire (along the lines of Brad Pitt in Interview...). He doesn't drink human blood. However, in a world where the food supply is dwindling, there is the appropriate amount of terror within the vampire community as they start feeding off each other, and themselves (with horrific results).

Once Willem Dafoe shows up, it turns out that he has figured out a cure for vampirism. He used to be one himself. One aspect that I like about the direction the story takes is that it is not desirable to be a vampire, because it involves taking human life, and Edward Dalton would never bite the girl that he starts forming an attachment too (and she wouldn't ask!). There's nothing romantic about it in this film. What they can become as they slowly starve to death is grotesque.

The plot is another aspect of the film that I love, because it fuses the horror genre with science fiction. There have been many movies about the end of civilization as we know it--this film just takes a different point of view on it. The characters are suitably complex, but not so much that it requires extensive back story. There are no long expository sequences about the past, how they got this way, why they have to go back, etc. Things are the way they are, but there is a slim chance to change things for the better.

I like this film. The cinematography is very nicely done, beautiful blue filters make the night that the vampires live in as cold and lifeless as their undead hearts. The warm yellow filters of the daytime make you feel the relative safety the sun brings to humans (unlike a certain series of sparkly beings, these vampires burst spectacularly into flames in the sunlight). Some of the shots are incredibly structured also, and the inevitable presence of red in horror films always adds a wonderful color to a scene. It is gruesome and gory, however not too realistically so as go flying around, and the vampires explode in a shower of flame and sparks as they get staked through the heart.

Somehow, the actors don't take themselves too seriously, but manage to be perfectly believable in their roles. I have heard that in a movie, you can tell one big lie, and the audience will accept it. Here the one big lie is that vampires are real and they constitute the majority of society. Everything beyond that lies within the realms of believability for this one stretch of reality. At the Art Theater, the owner came out and introduced the film (which I really thought was a nice touch) and he said it was one of the more "realistic" horror films that he had seen in awhile, and I have to say, I agree with him. I give this film two thumbs up, an A, 4 stars, however you want to rate it, and I think that with its combination of horror and sci-fi, and the heavyweight actors in it (including Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, and Willem Dafoe) this movie is a must see.

As a side note, anyone in the Champaign-Urbana I would encourage to go out and support the newly reopened Art Theater in downtown Champaign. The new owner seems very nice, and you can tell he really likes the movies that he's showing. The prices are reasonable, and I am so glad that we still have an independent, locally owned theater in the area. I highly recommend this theater, it's the best in town! Plus, you don't have to sit through half an hour of commercials before you get to the actual movie.

How to Love Love Stories

2009-12-04T19:47:00.000-08:00

So I will be the first to admit that I am not as discerning as I should be when it comes to romantic movies. Call me a sap, but if there's a semblance of romance, you can usually get me to watch a movie. However, for some reason I am still extraordinarily reluctant to watch independent stories about relationships. Perhaps it's because so may independent movies seem to end up unhappily, or deal with unhappy people who meet unhappy ends, and never will be happy...ever. They try to deal with reality so much, that sometimes they miss it. Of course on the other hand, you have movies like Twilight. Enough said.

In the days where Hollywood caters to teen angst and middle-aged romantic depression by inventing grand epics of selfish people (or vampires) acting selfishly, it is hard to find romances that mean anything, or have any relation to actual experiences anymore. I am always wary of independent movies about relationships-often they make me never want to be in a relationship ever. Therefore, I was kind of hesitant to see the film "Broken English" by Zoe Cassavetes. Of course, with the talent in her family, I should have foreseen that her film would be amazing. However, this movie, starring Parker Posey, turned into a rainy day movie--one that I would watch when I didn't feel like anything else, or had extra time.

Well, as it turns out, tonight was the perfect time for a rainy day movie. Even during the credits, I was apprehensive. The music, along with visuals of Nora (Posey) getting ready for a big night had me certain that this was all a trick--that she was really getting ready to off herself because she couldn't find a boyfriend, or something silly. However, the movie progressed, and we get a pretty clear picture of her life. Boring, but not horrible. The days go by, with not much to mark the difference. I am sure that we have all been there in life. She goes through several unsuccessful dates, and finally, decides to go to a party that she doesn't really want to. This is where she meets Julian--a young Frenchman in town for a brief time. While she is nervous about forming an attachment, they are soon getting hot and heavy, and the movie progresses, slowly still, as real life would.

I don't want to give away too much about the movie, because I think that it is wonderful. Suffice it to say, it reminded me of real life very much. Even pitted against other movies that seem realistic, this movie feels like real life. The pacing of it is brilliant. The people that she meets, the men she dates, all seem like people who you have met before. There is a truth about the European characters even, that is often lacking in other films. They are not all knowing, wise-cracking people who laugh at silly tourists, or know everything about them. Having lived with a French guy for a year, I found the French people portrayed in the film, especially the main character, very life-like, instead of caricatures that usually make their way into films. You never know quite what Julian (played beautifully by Melvil Poupaud) is thinking. You're not sure how into Nora he is, what his intentions are--especially after the film gives you examples of men with problems earlier. The long silences as the camera holds on him as Nora and he are together, and she is talking, are almost unreadable. It felt very much like a date or two that I have been on. It is only infrequently that the audience gets glimpses into his own psyche and insecurities, and these moments are almost as much of a revelation to us as to Nora.

Parker Posey plays Nora beautifully as a woman who feels like she's aging, and perhaps her life is passing her by. She's not miserable, but neither is she happy. She just is existing (also a frame of mind I think some of us can relate to)--wanting something special to happen to her love life. There is a great point in the movie about wanting to be with someone so you won't be alone, and wanting to be with someone because you want something special, and I thought that this moment was also brilliantly done. It helps that there is also a contrast in her friend, who seems to be the other type of person, the one who doesn't want to be alone, and that is the only reason that she is married.

This movie is so good because it is so normal. It is slow paced, and has moments of disappointment for Nora, but what I like most about it is that there is a sense of hope about it that is essential in life if you are to have any sort of happiness. Hope for Nora, and hope for the audience. Because really, the reason why those independent downers fail in my eyes, is that there is no hope for a brighter future. And if you don't have hope, then what's the point? "Broken English" was a beautiful change, and a movie that is well worth watching, and I recommend that you see it right now.

Buffets of Visual Delights

2009-08-30T09:43:00.000-07:00

I think that movies about food are probably the best movies in the world. They combine eating (one of the basic functions and necessities of life)--one of my favorite things--with movies, my other favorite thing. I thought that I would take a moment, therefore, and reflect on several movies about food that I love. In this post, I'll be looking at 3 films: Chocolat, Eat Drink Man Woman, and Julie and Julia. I would love to write about Babette's Feast, unfortunately I have not scene it recently enough to remember it. It is going on the top of my list however.

I will begin by saying that of these three movies, I think that Eat Drink, Man Woman is my favorite. Now, I realize what you're all thinking. Chocolate is my favorite food ever, and "Chocolat" has the magnificent Johnny Depp in it (not to mention Alfred Molina and Juliette Binoche). Oh, I do love that movie, and perhaps it is only because I saw Eat Drink, Man Woman more recently. But the way in which the story is told, the absolute beauty of the cooking, and the complicated interrelations of the characters somehow made "EDMW" more real for me, and a good film experience. There is less fantasy about it than in Chocolat--this isn't good, or bad, it just is, and it has contributed to my own personal opinion about the movie.

EDMW is about an aging chef and his three daughters, and the difficulties they have relating to him, and each other. He is losing his sense of taste, and here is the problem. It's the very core of who he is, and cooking has shaped his relationships with each of his daughters--who themselves are for the most part each involved in different ways with food. The youngest works at a fast food restaurant, and the middle daughter dreamed of being a chef when she was younger, however her father would not allow it, because he thought she should make something of herself by going to business school. There are twists and turns, and ups and downs in the stories of the characters, with one major reveal at the end of the story. One of the main things that I love is the concentration on the actual food. The preparation of a sumptuous feast is the subject of the main credits, and when people are cooking, the concentration is not only on the person doing the cooking, but on the actual food.

Herein lies the difference between this movie (and Chocolat--which also concentrates on the actual chocolate) and Julie and Julia. I enjoyed J&J, but mostly because I thought Meryl Streep was outstanding. Amy Adams was good as an actor, but I did not much care for her actual character, and while there was a lot of cooking going on in that movie, and we were supposed to get the feel of how it was changing her, it was in no way as effective as the former 2 movies that I have mentioned. J&J did not focus on the actual preparation of the food--you were lucky to see her in the preparation stage, and suddenly she had a finished product. They were trying so hard to show that the process of cooking was changing Julie (and Julia), that they forgot to show the actual act of cooking, which is what was supposed to change them. There were a couple of scenes where they got close--but I've been trying to figure out what I felt was missing from the movie, and this is it.

In comparison, EDMW and Chocolat show you the ingredients, they show you the cooking being done, they show you the people as they are doing it, they show the glorious results of all the hard work. They showed the actual influence of food in these people's lives--how it shaped and influenced who they were as people. Food wasn't just a pastime, or a vehicle to tell something about the characters, and get to the end of the movie. Food IS the movie in EDMW and Chocolat, and I think this is why they are such wonderful films. The food and the characters are not mutually exclusive in these two films, whereas in J&J, I did not get the connection with the food as greatly. I'm not sure if it was the choice of concentration in the cooking scenes, but the camera did not ever focus on the actual food and cooking, and therein lies the fallacy.

Anyway, I have been a fan of Ang Lee since Sense and Sensibility, and somehow I never saw Eat Drink Man Woman. All I can say is that if you haven't seen it, you are missing one of the great films of modern cinema, and perhaps Ang Lee's best (granted, I have not made my way through all of his films yet--but so far, this is my favorite). I can't even explain how he did it. It's an amazing piece of the work, simultaneously centered around the characters and their relationships with each other (as all of his films are if you dig beneath the surface plot--e.g. Hulk) and their relationships to food. It's one of my favorite films that I have seen in this year, and I highly recommend it.

P.S. I recommend Chocolat also, as I do with any and every movie that Johnny Depp has ever been in--it is also wonderful, and about my favorite kind of food. The point is that I love movies about food and how it changes people's lives--perhaps because they are so elemental (since everyone eats--and hopefully everyone has had food good enough to change their world--and how they see it--at some point).

The Hurt Locker

2009-08-25T04:49:00.001-07:00

I went to see The Hurt Locker at the Art a week ago because I had heard via Roger Ebert that it was not a film to be missed. Normally, I am not a fan of war films--mostly they kind of bore me. However, The Hurt Locker was a drastically different experience for me. It did seem long, but it seems more like the actual tension of the film, and the depth of the characters was what created the length, rather than a plot that doesn't move, or a simply boring film.

The Hurt Locker was gritty and real, shot with hand-held cameras in the tracking sequences, and quite claustrophobic at points, especially when the main character, a bomb expert, dons his large, black, space-age suit. It is exhilarating and terrifying to watch him do his job--especially after seeing the guy he replaced go down in the first five minutes of the movie.

The performances are excellent, especially Jeremy Renner (who remembers him as awesome from S.W.A.T.!). His character seems so simple, yet is so copmlicated, that you spend the whole movie intricately involved in his character. He loves what he does--he cannot exist without it. The opening of the film tells us that war is a drug, and it is incredibly interesting to watch this film about someone who is quite literally addicted to the danger, the excitement, and the adrenaline rush from his work.

I highly recommend the film also, because, for me--who is not a fan of war films--it truly gives a sense of what it might be like to be over there. It unveiled a deep gratitude for our soldiers over their that I did not realize existed, and it made me feel more deeply connected to my own family members who have gone over there and faced all that chaos and danger. Thank you.

My favorite moments of the film:
1. An extreme close up of half the character's face as he comes in contact with a body bomb
2. The moment where the audience realizes that, like most people, he has a hard time distinguishing individuals of a different ethnic group than most Americans.
3. Anytime he is diffusing a bomb: you want tension, just put a guy trying to disarm a bomb with no cinematic clues as to what is going to happen next.
4. The moment when he is in a line trying to pick a cereal from all the meaningless brand names around him.
5. The moment when a woman's name flashes in the director's name spot. Generally, it is not a genre I associate with women, and I am glad to see a woman in a role of importance in such a good film.

Not all Indian Cinema is Bollywood.

2009-08-13T18:53:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a common misconception among a lot of the people that I discuss Indian cinema with. It commonly all gets lumped into the category of 'Bollywood'. Some people find offense at this, some don't. I think I might have mentioned this in an earlier blog, but I thought I would reiterate it here since I will be discussing a film that does not fall into the lumped up category of Bollywood.

Bollywood is categorized by epic narratives, melodramatic story lines, romance, song and dance routines, and oftentimes happy endings (however, I've found that there are more sad endings than people actually think that there are).

A recent film that I saw has few of the characteristics that many people associate with Indian film, and it is by far one of the best pieces of cinema that I have seen in a while. Now, even I have to twist my arm to get myself to watch films that are critically high rated, but may not sound like the most interesting films. Alll I can say to this is that you will be happy with the results.

"Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" takes place en route from a southern Indian town to Kolkuta. Mrs. Iyer is traveling by bus to see her in-laws with her young son. A young man named Raja is enlisted to help her on the trip if she needs anything because their families and friends are acquainted somehow. Once on the bus however, they encounter a region where tensions between Muslims and Hindus have escalated to extreme violence. Mrs. Iyer (a strict Hindu) lies in order to protect Raja (a Muslim) from the mob that boards the bus. This scene is perhaps one of the most claustrophobic I have seen in a long time, and is extremely well done. From this point, the tension of the film increases, and it is quite possible to feel the fear and panic, and the sheer danger that could occur in situations like this. It is quite hard for someone like me, who has never had to encounter terrors such as the people in this film do, to understand how scary something like this truly is. "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" however, puts even the most privileged and clueless people in the positions that I imagine are still not uncommon in countries where religious and political strife still runs high. While this films was made a decade after the Bombay (Mumbai) Riots, and religious tensions are said to have subsided, they are not impossible. "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" is a very interesting and eye-opening look at how ordinary people must deal with and live through events like this.

There are many films about terrorists, and perhaps this is the wrong label for what this film is about. But usually (and since Bollywood is my example, I'll stick with it), violence stemming from national issues, religious issues, or what have you is glamorized with fast cutting, loud MTV-style music, and James Bond-like figures who try to control the situation. The film "Fanaa", which I greatly emjoy, uses a background of the political tension surrounding the disputed region of Kashmir to set an epic romance. I admit that I love the movie (as I do with anything Aamir Khan is in), however, in comparison with a film like "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer", it is clear to see with is the better film--both in cinematic terms and narratively. The latter film also foregrounds romance, however it is a more subdued and realistic star-crossed romance, where people behave as they actually might in real life. The shots are long and ponderous, allowing the viewer to soak in the whole image, and letting the actors act, and creating their relationship through their interaction, versus through editing. The music in the film does not consist of lip-synching and dancing, but is non-diegetic and adds to the atmosphere and the reflection of the film. There are even shots that reminded me of Yasujiro Ozu's work, such as a shot of an old Muslim couple, where the woman looks at her hands after her husband mentions it's the only thing he saw of her the first time he saw her. These types of shots are not necessary to advance the plot, but instead are present to add a sense of time, an understanding of their relationship, and a sense of evanescence (hence, the connection to Ozu).

The framing of the film is also something that I found quite stunning, with careful selection going into the composition, allowing at times for beautiful symmetry and also helping construct the relationship between the two people who the film is about. Which leads me back to my final point about how the characters interact. Often in films, the meeting of two people who fall in love is fast, and suddenly they're in a montage, or are in love after 2 days, or any of that nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I think this is fine (especially if, in the course of the movie, they only spend a total of 2 weeks in each other's presence, a la Fanaa). However, it is not very realistic (call me a cynic, but I have yet to witness something such as love at first sight, which I don't think I necessarily believe in). The relationship of the main characters in "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" is carefully navigated as they try to understand one another. In a country as religiously, linguistically and culturally diverse as India, she is Tamil (I'm not sure if this is the correct term for someone from Tamil Nadu) and he is Bengali. The only common language that they share is English--a feature of the film that I also found was very interesting and that someone who does not come from a country with as many languages as India would not think about. They are from different religions, with different practices (for example, she is vegetarian, and he is not), leading to several confrontations about how they interact that are very interesting. It seems to me that in more mainstream popular cinema, this is also something that, while it is mentioned a lot (eg. "you can't get married, she's Muslim and you're Hindu!), it is not fully explored, and I think that Mr. and Mrs. Iyer did a good job of this as well.

Anyway, after a long post, and an even longer abscence, I will wrap up this post by saying that I think this is one of the best Indian films that I have seen, and I hope that I will see many more like it. I would definitely recommend it if you aren't a fan of the "Bollywood" genre, but are interested in Indian film and culture.

Still Waters Run Deep

2009-05-17T15:36:00.000-07:00

I have known and admired Sarah Polley, a young Canadian actress, ever since her days on the popular television series "The Road to Avonlea" (laugh if you want, that show is amazing!). When I saw a suggestion on Netflix for a movie that I might enjoy called "The Secret Life of Words", starring Sarah Polley and Tim Robbins, I decided to add it to my list, even though I had heard nothing about it.

The 2005 independent film is about a young nurse (Polley) who is a refugee from the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 in which approx. 100,000 people were killed, and over a million were left homeless and refugees. Working in a factory where she has never missed a day, she is forced to take a vacation by her boss, and when she hears of a chance to fly to an oil rig off the coast of Northern Ireland to take care of a burn-victim (Robbins), she takes it.

The film is slow and quiet, and the atmosphere perfectly suits the characters that inhabit it. We do not know anything about the nurse, Hanna, at the beginning of the film. She doesn't say much, and it is through her slightest actions, daily routines and small expressions that we must decipher what there is to know about her. When we meet Josef (Robbins), he is blind and bed-ridden, and tries his best to get any information out of her. As we have seen her introverted, paranoid character go through the motions of living, when she starts to unwind just a little bit, you can sense the bond that is forming between Hanna and Josef. The supporting cast also adds charm to the film, especially Javier Cámara, who plays a chef, bored to tears with the isolation of the oil rig, in contrast to Hanna's ease and comfort away from people.

This character-based film plays itself out beautifully, dealing with the aftermath of one of the more brutal wars in recent history. During the Bosnian War, the atrocities included genocide, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and psychological rape. While the film doesn't dwell on the actuality of these events, in one of the more tragic moments I have seen on screen lately, details of these events are gone into, and it is heart-breaking to think about what people can do to each other. One of the reasons that I love this film is that it was a film that truly made me think. I suppose it kicked off with thinking about the events and information of the film, but it then turned into a thinking about humanity in general, and I was surprised that a film could still do that.

One of the sad realities that this film mentions is that events like the Bosnian War are not part of a collective conscious (at least in America). I remember learning briefly about it in middle school, and I have to give credit to my teacher for bringing it up, because it certainly is not part of public knowledge in the way that the Vietnam War, WWII, and even WWI are. If nothing else, this film is important because it remembers (or tries very hard to) that there were victims and survivors of that horrible conflict, and in its own small way, it is trying to make sure that they are not forgotten, as best as it can.

More than a Buddy Film

2009-04-24T21:13:00.000-07:00

The buddy film has typically been a male dominated genre of American film (predominantly Hollywood). Iconically this is represented by Walther Matthau and Jack Lemon in "The Odd Couple", other famous duos include Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon, David Spade and Chris Farley in all their movies, even going all the way back to the days of Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy. You hardly ever see female buddy movies in the same way (note SPOILER: "Thelma and Louise" is about to ass-kicking women, however unlike most male buddy films, they are not allowed their power and end the movie by driving off a cliff--not quite the happy ending often given to men in these movies).

In my last year of college, I took a sex and gender in the media class, and we all had group projects to do. One of the groups picked the buddy film and discussed this very aspect. However, their presentation, led by one student who always kind of annoyed me for some reason, turned into an advertisement for the new at the time film "Baby Mama". She talked about how we all should go support women in film making, and how these women are more involved at higher levels than most women are in Hollywood, and how this movie was a "buddy" movie, only women were at the forefront and emancipated from their absence in buddy films except as the object of desire.

Another point came up however, during the discussion, and that was that yes, technically this movie is about the bonding of two women, and yes, they are the main characters, so technically it is a buddy film. However it is centered around one of the most stereotyped images of a woman today, and that is that a woman--even a hard-working, successful type--will always want a baby, and go to extremes to get one. Granted I am not against women having children. Where would the human race be without them? But seriously? It's almost like having a movie where the women become buddies as the plaster themselves in makeup and go out because there only goal in life is to find a husband (oh wait...there are movies like that). I know I sound a lot more bitter than I am. I like a chick flick as much as any other girly girl, and I've heard that "Baby Mama" was pretty funny (I also like Tina Fey). I can't criticize too harshly because I haven't actually seen it yet. I just think it was a mistake to say that this is the movie that will revolutionize the female buddy film and suddenly raise women's status in American Film and society away from typical gender roles that not all women fall into. (Plus this girl was really annoying!). A lot of films fail to realize complexities about women's connections to each other, to their children, and to men.

The reason I bring this all up is because of a film that I screened on my second day of volunteering at Ebertfest (don't get used to daily posts--it's just that Ebertfest movies inspire me more than most). "Frozen River" was my favorite film of the day, and the reason I bring up the buddy film is because during the discussion afterwards, the head of Sony Pictures Classics described this movie in those terms. It is an unconventional buddy film to say the least. There are moments of comedy, but over all it is a drama about two women, both mothers but not defined by their motherhood. They are defined as so much more than that, as I think most women would like to be. Sure, much of their motivation derives from their situation as single parents trying to bring up their kids on more than popcorn and Tang. They are defined by their relationship to their kids, to each other, to the law, to the frozen river they cross often transporting immigrants from Canada. They are so much more real and have a greater sense of depth than many of the female characters you see in mainstream Hollywood cinema. This film is directed by a woman, also a mother a believe, unlike "Baby Mama" which is directed by a man despite being produced by Tina Fey. This may explain why it understands these women, and doesn't seem to condemn or praise them for what they do. They're just trying to make a life for themselves and their kids. Their actions are illegal (maybe not depending on if they're on tribal land), and they can shoot a gun with surprising ease. Never once do we feel sorry for the people who they are deceiving and threatening (mostly men now that I think about it, in positions of authority--deserved or not). We never meet Ray's husband (one of the main characters)--he's a gambling addict and by the beginning of the film has taken off with all of their money. Ray's children want her to go look for him, but what can she do? She is alone, holding down a part time job at the Yankee Dollar, trying to save up enough money for a house better than a trailer. She accepts the fact that he is gone and moves on, figuring out how to do things on her own.

Anyway, I'm sure I've rambled on enough by now. I just want to say, "Baby Mama" is all well and good I'm sure. Tina Fey is a great actress (and a magnificent writer, as 30 Rock proves), but if you really want to support women in film making (especially you, annoying girl from my sex and gender in the media class), go see "Frozen River"--an independent film directed by and starring women who are much more real and complicated than almost anything you can find in mainstream Hollywood film. And not only gender issues, this movie tackles a lot of different problems such as illegal immigration, the Indian Nation, abandonment, even credit card fraud is thrown in there.

Trouble the Water

2009-04-23T22:25:00.000-07:00

"It's not about a hurricane. It's about a nation". I am fortunate enough to live in the town where Roger Ebert runs his annual film festival. May I just say that I liked all the films of the first full day, but there is one film that stood out as the best film of today, and that was the final film, "Trouble the Water". This is a film that is a combination of a filmmaker's work and the raw footage of an regular (but extraordinary) woman who shot her experiences being trapped during the hurricane, and being trapped in an entirely different manner in the aftermath of the disaster.

This film is the kind of film that opens our eyes to all that we do not know, but think we do. The atrocities committed were reported on to some extent, but it is impossible to realize the true tragedy with media that is only giving certain sides of the story. While there was information about the complete and utter failure of the government in every aspect of this crisis, this movie brings out these failures in a way that is much more real than hearing about it over the five o'clock news.

We were fortunate enough at the festival to have the the black family who survived Katrina in attendance (and they made my day when they spoke to me in passing). This film brought up the issue of race that is to a large extent still ignored in the media, and several facts about Louisiana that are quite disturbing--such as increased cuts for education, and the fact that Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the U.S. (and the U.S. has the highest rate in the world). "Trouble the Water" is the kind of film that needs to be shown in hopes of understanding class and racial issues that face this country today, especially as we go through the worst economic crisis we have seen in a long time. "Trouble the Water" depicts strong, loving, REAL people, who are not the looters and criminals that the media was so keen to depict in the aftermath of Katrina. During the discussion, someone brought up the point that at one news broadcasting, the pictures of white and black people who were holding food were shown together, and the white people "found" the bread, while the blacks were labeled as looters.

In a society where so many of the images that we see are racist and biased against the poorest citizens of our nation, how can we hope to grow as a society towards greater community with ALL of the citizens of this country. I think that this powerful film, with such admirable people--who stayed strong and optimistic and just kept pushing--is the kind of message we should be getting. I felt blessed to be in the presence of these wonderful human beings, and I think that "Trouble the Water" is an important film for anyone to see who calls themselves a part of this country.

http://www.troublethewaterfilm.com

Look at the 'fro!!

2009-04-10T13:29:00.001-07:00

Godspell vs. Jesus Christ Superstar

Well, I figured since Easter is upon us, what better time to compare two musicals about the final days of Jesus Christ. Now if you’re not religious, this post might not be for you, but if you are interested in my take on these two films, by all means keep reading.

Both of these films are based on stage musicals and were made into films in the seventies, as is quite apparent from the mis-en-scene and costuming of the films (e.g. Jesus has an afro in “Godspell”, and see Judas’s awesome fringe in “Jesus Christ Superstar”. Note also, the colors used in both). I’m not sure if these films are the subject of intense debate as to which one is better, but don’t worry, you’ll get my opinion.

Let me start off by saying that I like both of these films. Who can say that the electric guitar and range requirements for the music of “Jesus Christ Superstar” is not impressive, and quite typical of an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical? The music of “Godspell” is somewhat simpler in scope, and not quite as dramatic in a lot of ways. However, when I was living in Scotland, and was part of a Catholic Society of a local church, we did a production of “Godspell” with the youth group. We talked a bit about why we chose “Godspell” over “Jesus Christ Superstar”, and the leader of the group, Catrina, said that she liked “Godspell” better because it was closer to the Gospels than “Jesus Christ Superstar”. Some of the stories are taken directly from those four books, and it is true that “Jesus Christ Superstar” takes some liberties with the interpretation of the story. Personally I don’t mind this, because they have some interesting takes on the story, and there are some ideas that they posit that I kind of like.

However, I like the inclusion of actual parables and lessons that were part of Jesus’ teachings as they are set forward in the Gospels—it really helps give a connection to the actual religion that I like quite a bit. Also, another aspect of “Godspell” that I like quite a bit is that it somehow builds a relationship between Jesus and his disciples that focuses on his humanity and divinity at the same time, whereas I feel that “Jesus Christ Superstar” really focuses on his divinity, and his leadership. In “Godspell”, he has a much more personal relationship with the other characters around him through their interaction in the songs, with each of the characters getting their own song in which they interact with him. (Plus, in one of my own little quips with everything, there equal parts for women in “Godspell”, whereas in “Jesus Christ Superstar” there is only Mary Magdalene). The characters in “Godspell” are not set characters of the Bible—the characters are named after the original people who played them in the musical. This allows for a greater connection of the audience with the characters, and thus the story.

Anyway, to wrap up, I love both, and while “Jesus Christ Superstar” might be more challenging vocally and musically, “Godspell” takes home the prize for my favorite. I also have a special place for it in my heart because I was a part of a small production in Scotland, like I said, which was one of my favorite experiences from being over there. Opening night (the only time we performed for money), the 15 year old boy playing Jesus had a serious case of stage fright and forgot half of his lines, which ended up cutting off about half an hour of the production. We had a prompter behind the curtains of the elementary school cafeteria stage, but since every line started with “Now I tell you this”, he wasn’t that much help. Anyway, I digress. Perhaps the best way to describe it would be to say that I think “Godspell” can be watched about any time, but “Jesus Christ Superstar” really seems like a Good Friday movie to me. I like the simplicity of the music in “Godspell”, I think it fits with the story well. I like the generic nature of the setting and the characters, allowing for greater attachment to the story. I just have to say while I like both of them, if you’re planning on only watching one this Easter season, I would choose Godspell (which also features a very young Victor Garber as Jesus Christ).

Ignorance is Bliss

2009-04-09T11:45:00.000-07:00

I had been hearing good things about the new film "Knowing" starring Nicholas Cage that just came out in theaters, plus one of my friends really wanted to see this film, so last week we went to a late showing of it. I thought maybe it would be kind of a silly film (you have to admit, the trailer makes it look kind of that way), and I was pretty excited because I like Nicholas Cage, in silly films (National Treasure!) or good films (Raising Arizona, Moonstruck, he actually has quite a few good ones). About half an hour into the film, you realize that this movie is anything but light-hearted and silly entertainment (National Treasure it is not). Suffice it to say, the movie freaked me out, but the more I reflect on it, the more I am convinced that this is one of the better movies in theaters right now, and certainly it is pretty good science fiction. If you are going to stop reading know b/c of spoilers, let me say that I agree with Roger Ebert that this film deserves four stars, and Nicholas Cage is wonderful in it (he had me in tears in the end during a scene with his son).

SPOILERS! Lots of plot information follows--you have been warned (and seriously, you probably should be warned about this film, because it is pretty scary in my opinion--but then I get scared easily)

Anyway, maybe it is because I was born after the fear of nuclear war was pretty much over, but I have never seen a movie that ends in the almost complete annihilation of the human race. Usually almost everybody makes it off the planet to start a new civilization (exception, Battlestar Galactica, although they still manage to save a hefty number of people). Just to give away the ending of "Knowing" at the beginning of the post, they don't manage to save nearly this many (I'm guessing they end up saving about twenty children to restart on another planet).

The film starts off with a creepy girl staring at the sun, and the whole prologue is eerie. Then the movie progresses to the present day, the kid finds the paper with the numbers on it, Nicholas Cage figures out what they mean, etc. Then freaky parts just keep coming. There are strange men dressed all in black with gaunt faces and bleached blond hair who just keep popping up in rooms and outside windows with little black stones to hand out. My friend did not find this creepy, but one of the main conventions for horror films, and in general that are scary to the human mind is the appearance of something in an empty space where nothing had been before (think that overused trope where someone is looking in a mirror, bends down, and when they stand up there is someone behind them).

Next come the actual scenes of destruction. Let me tell you, these are not for the squeamish. Reality doesn't really come into play (after a plane crashes and blows up, how would there still be people running from it). That's not the point. The point is that it is horrible to watch, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. I have never seen a plane crash done like this, and with all the planes that seem to have been going down recently, it was almost too close to home for me (not to mention the explosions that engulfed people running and screaming from the wreckage).

I'll try not to go into too much more detail because I do think this movie is worth seeing, even though it is one of the more disturbing films I've seen in awhile. Children are haunted by "whisper people" who seem menacing throughout the film, but have secrets of their own. Probably one of the most frightening aspects of the film is that, unlike many disaster/sci-fi movies, there is nothing that Nicholas Cage can do to halt the events of the film. The ending is inevitable. Human beings like to feel like they are in control of their own destiny, and can change things if they try hard enough. This film has a debate going about pre-determinism versus chance, and what's in control of the fate of the world (if anything). I've heard that this is based on the book of Ezekiel, and that might be, but then again they might be aliens (or aliens are what the book is based on...it gets confusing and you basically have to make up your own mind).

All this being said, (BIGGEST SPOILER) the film ends with the death of virtually all humans, except those lucky few who are taken by the aliens to another planet. It was simply shocking--usually they find a way to save most of humanity. I am assuming that there were more films like this around the time of the Cold War, when the threat of complete destruction was at the forefront of many peoples minds, and it seems to me that the current war, tension and political atmosphere is again making a stand in film (although science fiction is always the best place to find this, and is why that is one of the best genres of film that you can watch).

This film is definitely worth the time, despite what some critics are saying, and the special effects are amazing, and deserve to be seen on the big screen, which always does movies like this the most justice.

I Don't Know Why You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello

2009-03-19T12:20:00.001-07:00

So I recently caught the end of the the 1977 "The Goodbye Girl"on television, and then decided to watch the whole movie again because I remembered how much I love it. I have never been a huge fan of Richard Dreyfuss, but watching this again when I am past my phase where I think in order to be hot you had to look like Leonardo DiCaprio (oh, Titanic, how you messed with my fickle 14 year old self), he is definitely rising on my list of stars. He is not what you would call really handsome I don't think, but I have to say that his role in "The Goodbye Girl" is so wonderful, and he is so charming in it, that I can see how anyone would be attracted to him (hello Elliot Garfield!). He's so cute in that movie, and you just don't expect it because come on, it's Richard Dreyfuss.

Neil Simon, who wrote the play that this movie is a version of, is probably one of the best playwrights of modern stage/film. His work is infused with wit and humor, and has an incredible sense of lightness while dealing with serious, everyday issues. It is my belief that you only get through the hard times with laughter and optimism, so obviously his work attracts me.

For example, the scene where Paula gets her purse and all her money stolen, Neil Simon lightens it up with Elliot's personality making it amusing for the viewers, even though Paula is about to break down. However, she picks herself up and tries to find a solution, which is very admirable and real for a woman in the situation she is in in the film.

Anyway, I don't have much criticism. I love this movie that is about two people who are not beautiful in the way that movies about two people starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are. They are normal people in normal(ish) situations who try so hard that you can't not like them. I give this movie 5 stars out of 5, it might become one of my favorite comedies, and is also moving up on my favorite movies list. That scene with Marsha Mason in the face mast when Elliot has just gotten punched, and he finally makes a move is one of the most romantic scenes that I have ever seen on film.

The Path of Love!

2009-03-08T21:50:00.000-07:00

I went to see Watchmen at the midnight opening this weekend. It was very good, and I recommend it. I think I would like to see it again (which is, well let's face it, not unusual for me, but still...). Good music, a wonderful adaptation as far as they go, and well performed by the actors. I actually felt more about the characters in the movie--they seemed more human (imagine that, actors seeming more human than characters on a page--I think it's because they turned up the hotness factor on everyone!) Anyway, that is all I will say about it for now, because I want to get on to more important matters, and that is Bollywood!

As you can already see, I talk about this constantly. The poor people around me must listen to me prattle on. Oh well. I just watched a film that I have not seen for about a year, and that is Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar, with who else but my favorite, Aamir Khan. I liked it a bunch more the second time around, and I know that it is on many people's top 5 list of his films. However, this leads me to a post that I was going to do earlier, but didn't have time. This is my post about Hum Hain Rahi Pyar Ke (I've heard it translated as "We Are Traveller's on the Path of Love", although I'm not positive as to how acurate this is...although it makes sense).

Anyone who knows anything about Hindi cinema knows that most films of this industry have a love story (in my opinion, they're usually pretty good, although they do veer dangerously into "cheese" territory sometimes). This story is about Rahul, a young man who has to give up his education because his sister and brother-in-law just died in a car accident, and he has to take care of their three children and the factory that they left behind. He enlists the help of a runaway heiress, Vyjantin(Juhi Chawla) with the children, and of course they fall in love! It's a loose remake of Houseboat with Cary Grant, and if you've seen Raising Helen (shudder), it's kind of the same idea.

From 1993, it is my second favorite of his films. I've read rumors that he helped write it, but again, they're just rumors. I believe this film was his fifth film with Juhi Chawla (they made seven together if my counting is correct), and they are simply fabulous in it. They were quite a popular pairing, after they both made breakout performances in the 1988 Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak. Think along the lines of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, or some other really popular pairing. Hum Hain...is in my opinion their best film together because the writing and the set design, the story and their performances all just click together beautifully. They do not live in the super rich houses of later Bollywood (see virtually all big blockbuster films today), although they are rich enough to employ a servant. However there is the ever present lurking of poverty in all that Rahul does. Also, the low budget for the film and the set design give the story a simplicity and realism that, despite the complexity of the twists the plot takes, grounds the film in a certain sense of reality (at least, in relation to films like Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham).

The hilarity of this film cannot be underestimated, especially if you are unused to Bollywood humor (it takes a while to get comedies such as Andaz Apna Apna for some people I think). Note especially the long time it takes for Rahul to discover that the kids are hiding Vyjanti in his house because he is just clueless...it's not like they're hiding her well! See also the scene where everyone somehow ends up in Rahul's house in the middle of the night chasing each other. It's classic! Lots of great musical numbers, and a happy ending make this movie nearly perfect in my opinion. I could watch it over and over again continuously.

Also, one little note...I love Aamir Khan, obviously, but the person who really makes this movie is Juhi Chawla. She's just so cute in it! Her expressions, her comedic timing, is all so wonderful that I think that she steals the show in this film. She also has to speak two different languages in it (which may or may not be impressive to you, as I believe this is common in most parts of the world except America...but I'm impressed because I'm American and can thus only speak one language fluently), and according to some web posters that I have read, she does a good job of it. Anyway, it's hard to find (although there are sites you can get it on), but I highly recommend this movie! Mostly, the feeling it leaves you with is one of pure, undiluted happiness!

P.S. Check out the three or four scenes in which giant egg fights ensue!

Skim or 2 %?

2009-03-03T12:10:00.000-08:00

And the winner for most horrid dress ever is.....drumroll...Tilda Swinton! Now I know she didn't pick it, but it was still just so bad.

Okay, so we'll touch briefly on a new film in this post, Milk, starring Sean Penn and James Franco.

I saw Milk last week after Sean Penn won the Oscar. Since everybody thought that would go to Mickey Rourke (who was very good in The Wrestler) I thought it was time to stop putting off the film and go see it (now I have to stop putting off Frost/Nixon. Why is it so hard to make yourself go see the serious, good films?)

Anyway, Sean Penn definitely deserved the Oscar. Milk was a fabulous film, and he was wonderful in it. While it's hard bringing fictional characters to life on film, it has to be even harder to try and imitate and breath life into the film projection of a real person. Sean Penn was able to do that so well. He made you care deeply about this person who was basically a regular person trying to make a difference. There wasn't much special about him (no freakish talent) except that he was a kind, decent human being willing to stand up for what is right.

Now I've heard arguments that the award was just political since California just voted down gay marriage. All I have to say is I think this is baloney. Sean Penn deserved that award. When people say "the Oscar's are political" they don't mean that the people voting are voting on a candidate or film because of the way legislation goes through in the United States. When they say that in the film industry (or in things like student elections, church elections, etc.) what they mean is that there is more involved than who deserves it: who's more popular, who scratches whose back, etc.

Anyway, I loved this movie, and hope it does well, because I believe that it has one of the most important messages of any film this year. The script is very nice, and all the actors deserve kudos for their wonderful performances. I do recommend it because it is such a well made film, although it is also very sad.

One's Too Many and One Hundred is Not Enough

2009-02-26T11:46:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note on the Oscars--pretty predictable, except for Sean Penn. I rushed right out to see Milk, and he definitely deserves is (not that Mickey Rourke wasn't great, but Sean Penn was better).

Also, bleh, did you see Tilda Swinton? Who dressed her? I think she might be the worst dressed person I've seen at the Oscars--EVER! Jessica Biel was pretty bad this year also, but no one could top the beige sack that Tilda was wearing. Shudder. Apparently she was so badly dressed that no one has dared put a picture up of her outfit that I could put here.

Anyway, on to the main post. As promised, here is my epic on BOLLYWOOD! My favorite industry in the world will take up a lot of time. You have been warned. Now, there is much debate over this name, because there are those that argue that this is merely a reference to Hollywood, and demeans the Hindi cinema coming out of Mumbai/Bombay as a shadow or copy of American film (the capital of the film world is still Hollywood). I'm not sure where I stand on this point--although there are many variations on this name, they only appear in India (Bollywood--Bombay, Tollywood--Tamil I believe, or perhaps the Telegu industry, Lollywood--Lahore perhaps?, and I think I've heard Dollywood also). Despite this argument, I am going to use the term Bollywood in my references to the largest film industry in India, since it is easily recognizable and most people in the West associate this with the type of film th

at I will be discussing.

Now, I mention that Hollywood is still the film capital of the world, and that is true in terms of budget mostly. The areas that Bollywood is stronger in is sheer number of films produced (over a thousand a year I've heard), and probably in the number of people that see these films. Amitabh Bachchan is the biggest star in the world in terms of number of people

who could recognize him, simply because Asia is the most heavily populated continent in the world, and India contains something like 1/4 of the world's population.

Now, one of the distinctions that is important to make is that not all

Indian film is Bollywood, which seems like a mistake that is pretty common I believe. When people talk about Bollywood, it is the Hindi-language film product of Mumbai/Bombay, which includes melodrama, masala plots (action, romance, comedy, etc. mixed into one), singing and dancing numbers. For example, Slumdog Millionaire (my favorite film of the year, by the way) is not Bollywood because it was made by a Scottish director with a British lead (Dev Patel grew up in Great Britain), and is much more focused on reality than your average Bollywood film. Likewise, Bride and Prejudice, while containing many elements of the Bollywood genre, is not in fact part of the genre because it is in English, and directed by a British director (even though she is part of the Indian diaspora I believe).

Focusing on the lack of reality in Bollywood films, this is not to say that there is no realism in them. There are some very good films that deal with certain subjects very realistically. The main fantastical elements come in during songs, where they are suddenly off in some foreign land/city/etc., and the regular laws of physics do not apply (someone will pop up behind someo

ne when they were just in another place, for example). In my point of view, this lack of realism only adds to the joy of the film, and since these numbers clearly do not aspire to this, there is no reason for people to get their panties in a twist when they happen. What's wrong with having a character think about a potential life that could happen. Don't you ever fantasize about what could be? And in these fantasies, are you winning the Academy Awards, frolicking with your lover in a field of flowers, or bending over a sink with dirty dishwater as the baby screams in the background?

There are also many people who say that the films are bad because the acting is bad, the stories are all the same, and they always have predictable endings. All I can say is that this is definitely not true. Going back to early Indian cinema (even before Hindi had become the main language), there are several examples of movies that do not have happy endings at all (see various remakes of Devdas, praised for their excellent scripting, in several different languages, and definitely do not have happy endings). Also, there are some great actors in the industry (Aamir Khan being my favorite actor in the world, one of the five best actors of the Hindi industry, and is quite talented). There are two reasons why the actors are not quite as good as you might find in other industries (according to my film teacher). 1) There are no/few formal acting schools in India such as we have in America, for example, to help

train. Bollywood is a star system, meaning that with many films, you get the stars before you even have a script. 2) The actors do not stick to one film at a time (except Aamir Khan!), and thus they cannot throw themselves fully into a single character--often times the characters seem much like each other.

It is true that some stars are almost unwatchable, but with the amazing music, who cares about the acting.

Which brings me to another point, and that is the complaints that there are too many songs in Bollywood. People, the music is what makes these movies great. It is truly a unique form of filmmaking that is not duplicated anywhere else in the world. Furthermore, the tradition of playback singing, going back to the 1940s I believe, is also criticized sometime. My question is, why is it important that actors sing, act and dance? Why not just stick to dancing and acting, an let people with phenomenal voices have careers also? It certainly creates jobs, and exposes some great talent. Here in America, and perhaps in other countries as well, we have a preconception that people have to do all their own work. Why? When the playback singers can become as famous or more famous than the actors they sing for, why does it matter? It's not like Singing in the Rain, where she doesn't get credit for what she does. EVERYONE KNOWS.

As for similar plots, yes that's true in some cases (see again, the sheer number of films they make every year, and most of them have really low budgets). There is a lot of copying that goes on of films, mostly from Hollywood (my particular favorite is Mann I think, the Hindi remake of An Affair to Remember). I asked my film teacher last year how this could be, and he said that basically it's because if anyone tried to sue them for breach of copyright, they wouldn't get any money out of them anyway because they don't have much. Most productions are pretty low budget unless you get an incredibly famous director or producer, like Yash Chopra. One of my favorite moments in my experience with copyright issues was during my screening of Aamir Khan's early film Love Love Love, during a fight song, Darth Vader's theme music (or perhaps it was just the theme music of the Empire) came on. I burst into laughter. It was great. Anyway, in relation to the copying of stories, I have not yet seen one that is an exact remake. Because of the cultural differences between Bollywood and Hollywood, there are always multiple elements added to make the films a unique story.

A good example of this is Dil Hai Ki Manta Nahin, a remake of the classic It Happened One Night. Who doesn't remember the scene where Claudette Colbert shows her leg off to hitch a ride? The same thing happens in the Hindi remake, however, her showing off her leg leads to the driver assaulting her (showing off her leg like that, I'm assuming, would be viewed much differently, at least when this film was made), and the reporter has to come to her rescue (in a hilarious scene, he pretends to be a crazy killer who gets people driving by on the road). It's differences like this that, to my mind, make the borrowing of basic elements not a bad idea, because they are taking stories and translating them for a different culture and audience.

As to the idea that they all have the same story, this is simply not true at all. Many of them are similar, but there are plenty that develop their own themes and stories, mostly involving love it's true. I could point out many films that are pretty unique in their forms of story telling as well as their plots, but that might take awhile.

Also, in terms of copyright, in my studies there are lots of problems with the issues of copyrighting today vs. the original purpose of copyright laws, but I'll save that for another time as the post is already reaching book length.

Anyway, since this post is already insanely long, I shall cut it short for now, although there is much more that I could say on this subject. Bollywood is perhaps not one of the most innovative forms of filmmaking in the world, but what makes it so wonderful is that most of the films are full of joy and beauty (although plenty have their share of sadness also). They leave you with a happy feeling at the end of them (except of course for the sad ones--see above note). There is a lot of sheer optimism and hope in the films, whatever you may say about classism, sexism, racism, etc. (all of which are also present in Hollywood films may I point out--they are both commercial film industries. How many art films from Hollywood do you actually see in the movie theatres?) There are those (kind of haughty in my opinion) people who will only watch films for artistic merit, or serious plots, etc. I love the masala plot--there's something for everyone! The sheer entertainment value of films such as Bollywood (and many of the mindless, happy films that Hollywood makes) is cathartic. Sometimes, you just need a break from reality. Reality is hard, and I don't think there is anyone who can argue otherwise (especially those people who like the serious, artistic films). The length adds for the ability to develop characters and their relationships more, as well as including the best part, the singing and dancing! Now, if singing and dancing isn't your thing, then why did you waste your time reading this post or watching the movie?

Roadies

2009-02-20T12:02:00.000-08:00

I lied when I said my next post would be about Bollywood--but don't worry, we'll get there eventually. Instead, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about two very good "road" movies, by which I mean they have the word road in the title. They are both about marriages on the rocks during the 50s/60s and include affairs, heartache and children (but they only appear in about one scene each).

Arguably snubbed by the Academy Awards, the recent film "Revolutionary Road" starts with the meeting of Kate and Leo (sigh....who can ever forget their debut as a screen couple in Titanic! This movie is not like that). Once again, let me point out the inevitability of spoilers in all of my posts. From their, it jumps forward in time to the middle of a very unhappy marriage. About thirty minutes in there is a bright spot, but it pretty much only covers the downward slide of this 1950's/60's suburban couple.

The film entitled "Two for the Road", released in 1967 starred Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn. I never would have thought to put them together but they are unusually effective in this film that tells the whole story of marriage that also has it's rocky points including affairs and arguments.

Each film is superbly acted and has a wonderful storyline. When I saw "Revolutionary Road" I was just blown away. I cannot understand how that film did not get any nominations, while Curious Case of Benjamin Button (in my opinion, kind of a snore fest and not as creative and original as it pretends to be) has something like 11 nominations. On a side note, Michael Shannon did get a nomination for best supporting actor I believe, and he was also wonderful. I highly recommend another film starring him, "Shotgun Stories", which also appeared at Ebertfest last year.

I was struck by the similarities in the two films when I viewed "Two for the Road" a few nights later. They both feature characters who seem for the most part not cut out for typical married life, shouldn't have children and are in general kind of selfish (not that this inhibits you from liking them, because for the most part you do). They try hard, fight, try to patch things up, fight more, and so on.

The thing that I loved about Two for the Road is that their selfishness is not all that defines these characters. In Revolutionary Road, they cannot get past their own desires and feelings of inadequacy and defeat. Most likely this is because they cannot escape the claustrophobic atmosphere that is developed so well in RR with the inclusion of the other characters who define their lives by their own shallow existences. In the end, Kate Winslet's character just doesn't care anymore about anything, least of all her husband.

In Two for the Road, the characters try to seem like they don't care, but with the films amazing editing tying the far past, recent past and present together, you can tell that they care about each other and ultimately want to save their marriage, no matter how they try to hurt each other.

Both are excellent films with similar plot lines. One ends happily, the other not so much. They are both slices of potential realities, so you can't say that one is more likely than the other, because each is so character driven that the stories changed based on the actions and emotions of the characters, and those who act around them and effect their lives.

(For a clear portrayal of possible reality, see Armageddon vs. Deep Impact. Clearly, Armageddon is further away from reality--seriously, they send Bruce Willis into space with one or two astronauts and some oil drills? Obviously Deep Impact is more realistic. Hehehehehe.)

Welcome

2009-02-18T20:30:00.000-08:00

I feel that the most appropriate way to begin a blog about films (reviews, culture, stereotypes, etc.) is with a review of the most recent movie that I have seen. Luckily enough, this film is the newest release starring my very favorite actor, Aamir Khan. That film is Ghajini--now one of the highest grossing films to come out of the industry commonly known as Bollywood in recent times.

I shall save my views about this industry until the next post, as they will take up considerable time and space. With this post we'll just stick with Ghajini. Be forewarned, there will be heavy spoilers in many of my posts.

Ghajini is a film about a man suffering from short term memory loss who is trying to find his girlfriend's murderer. Sound familiar? Ghajini is a remake of a Tamil film of the same title, which is in turn probably inspired by Memento. However, they are not as similar as they may sound. While I know some people who would rave about the artistic merit of Memento while criticizing a certain lack of originality in plotlines, I have to say that I liked Ghajini more overall.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Memento. It was incredibly creative, the acting was superb and it was wonderfully put together. However, my sister (a psychology major) pointed out that if he had short term memory loss of this sort, he would not know it, and in general there were many problems with this disorder in the film. Here in lies the ultimate difference between the two films I think. Memento is not about the story, it's about how it tells itself (look at me, I'm going backwards!), and while Ghajini's plotline is not straightforward, it is about the characters and how they inhabit the story that they're in. This is what I like so much about it.

Ghajini is a longer film than Memento (as Hindi films are wont to be), and therefore they have time to develop a backstory so that the events leading to the heros disorder effect you more. You get to see the story of Sanjay and Kalpana develop, but you know that it is doomed. Now, in some films this doesn't work at all (eg. Curious Case of Benjamin Button), however for this film it only helps add meaning to the pain and rage that is visualized and portrayed so well by Aamir Khan. You understand him more. Guy Pearce's character lost not only his memories, but many of his emotions as well. He's calm, collected, and while he's wistful and sad about past events, it's hard to feel attached to his character. While Sanjay turns into a kind of monster, you can't not like him and attach to him because you get to see where he's coming from. The characterization of her also helps with this--I always wanted to see more of his wife in Memento--how else can you understand why he's got the need for revenge so built up?

His character also leads me to another point, and that is he actually seems bewildered about his situation. He doesn't quite realize that he has amnesia--how could he, he can only remember things in fifteen minute increments? While there are a few plot holes in relation to this (somehow he knows his camera beeps every fifteen minutes), for the most part he is confused, and lost, and he has to start each day over again by looking in the mirror, wondering where all teh tattoos came from, what he's doing, etc. He has far more notes telling him things he should remember (such as one that reminds him to take his photographs with him--how else would he know after going to sleep that he had photos) tattooed on his foot, so he sees it before putting on his sock. There's just ultimately something a bit more believable about his memory loss than in Memento. You feel it more.

On an interesting note, many people are bashing it for being a unnecessary remake by the same director as the 2005 Ghajini, with the same female star. All I have to say to this is that in Indian cinema, I believe it has done that way often since the coming of sound. They would shoot the same scenes several times in two different languages (sometimes with the same cast if they were bilingual) to try and reach a wider audience. I can't say that I'm opposed to this. It's like going to see your favorite play with a different cast, or hearing a piece of music played by multiple performers. Each new rendition brings something new and exciting to the story.

Finally, the music is by A.R. Rahman--now increasing in popularity in the west because of his hit score for Slumdog Millionaire, but who has for a long time been one of the Indian film industries top composers. While the score for Ghajini has met with mixed reviews, the song Guzarish is a masterpiece, and one or two other songs are well done also. Other than that, the music is pretty standard (I think the sentiment was that standard was slightly disappointing from a composer who continually sets the bar).

Anyway to close off the blog, I'm going to list my 5 favorite and least favorite things about this film.

Loved:
1) Aamir Khan
2)Guzarish
3)The common romance plot that she tells someone she's dating a bigshot, then he comes to confront her, falls in love with her and they start dating without her knowing that he knows that she's lying...if you follow me.
4). The fact that he doesn't get to tell her who he really is before she dies--this would have made it more stereotypical of a love story, and the fact that he doesn't get to tell her just makes it so much more bittersweet and sad.
5) The bewilderment that he clearly feels most of the time (unlike a lack of bewilderment in Memento)

Did not love:
1) Too much screaming/rage--it was good for awhile, then it got to be just a bit much
2) Latoo--seriously, they were so hard up for a song that they had to have the med student ask the main character to stick around for her performance, and proceed to not spend much time on it at all? It was kind of pointless.
3) I think that perhaps it would have been a neater ending if he had died in the end (as far as I can tell, many Indian films have a very interesting take on the afterlife--eg. Mohabbatein--and then they could have ended up together!), after he got stabbed through by a metal pole. Oh well, the ending they have is still pretty good.
4) The scene they stole from Amelie (you know the one, where she leads the blind man to a bus stop and describe sights as they go)
5) The fact that he didn't get to tell her (so sad!!!)

Welcome to my blog.