jklugman Blog

Under discussion:

The Bubble  (2007)

I guess I did not find The Bubble very compelling mainly because for the first 90 minutes it felt like a Friends episode, as it follows a group of good-looking, young friends who live in Tel Aviv.  These stories always kind of aggravate me, because it is as if I was part of a larger group of friends who have their own in-jokes and expect me to laugh and play along because they're so hip and cool. I guess Fox is trying to be critical of these people for not doing more to break out of their "bubble", but I felt this got overshadowed by the romantic and sexual shenanigans of the protagonists. 

To be fair, the actors playing Noam (Ohad Knoller), Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and Ashraf (Joe Sweid) did a good job fleshing their characters out and making them likeable and sympathethic.

In the last twenty minutes the film dramatically switches gears as it lays bear the tragedy of the characters' lives--and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--with the subtlety of a jackhammer.

Under discussion:

Under Capricorn  (1949)

While the film throws out a few red herrings at the beginning to make the viewer believe that this is a Gaslight-type thriller, for a Hitchcock film the mystery and suspense elements are quite subdued, making this more a historical drama than anything else.  The plot is propelled not so much by the actions of malicious characters (although there is some of that) but also by the misunderstandings among the non-bad characters about each other's past and intentions.  The movie frustrated me because these non-bad characters seemed to deliberately mislead other characters and the viewer for no other reason than to propel the plot along, so the ensuing tension feels artificial, as does the you-can't-run-from-the-past theme.  This isn't helped  by the forgettable performance of Michael Wilding, who frankly is a rather bland hero.  

 Under Capricorn is unusual for a Hitchcock film in that it explicitly  takes on the role of class  and examines how class distinctions can trap people and make them unhappy.

The setting was also very drab--the colors, especially in interiors, felt washed out.  I don't know if this was the fault of the filmmaker, or aging, or that of the transfer ( I saw the Image DVD edition of this film).  Because the plot is so boring, I don't think Hitchcock was able to flex his directorial talents very much.  The only thing that really stands out is an impressive long take where the camera follows Wilding around Joseph Cotton's estate as he is introduced to the other guests.