Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

KevynKnox Blog

  • TAKING WOODSTOCK a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Taking Woodstock  (2009)

    (This review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 08/30/09)

    Perhaps Ang Lee’s new film is quite the idealized look at its Woodstock subject. A dream of what it was instead of what it really was. An almost too-perfect look back at the seminal rock concert event of forty years ago. And perhaps too, Lee’s film is riddled with cliched caricatures. Emile Hirsch’s flash-backing Vietnam vet. Imelda Staunton’s Ukrainian battalion of a mother. The tough-as-nails ex-marine drag queen played with a nudge and a smirk by Liev Schreiber. The gaggle of flower children actors living in the barn and all those acid-eating hippies a half a million strong. But none of these flaws, mostly of the superficial variety, manage to change the fact that Taking Woodstock is a fun movie to watch.

    Perhaps Lee’s choice of far-off idealization was a conscious choice. After all, this is not the story of Woodstock itself (for that go and rent the 1970 documentary on the concert – it is a well worth choice) but more the story of the periphery of the event. Taking Woodstock is less about the concert (we never actually see any of the performers and that may be a blessing in disguise as I dread the idea of someone 'playing' Hendrix or Joplin or the Dead as if this were an Oscar hopeful biopic) and more about those who surround it. To partake of a line from the film, Taking Woodstock is a film about those who surround that center of the universe that was Woodstock itself.

    What Lee’s film is, is something a bit more intimate than a concert populated by nearly half a million stoned flower children, a couple hundred helicopter-riding organizers and thirty-some musical acts. What Lee’s film is, is the story of Elliot Teichberg, played with a surprising candor by stand-up comic Demetri Martin (having only a couple of bit parts under his acting belt) and his inadvertent importance in the making of a milestone in music history. Taking Woodstock shows how a young man trying desperately to save his parents run-down, out-of-the-way motel from sure foreclosure, manages, through sheer happenstance and maybe a bit of fortuitous will power, to become the catalyst for the concert event of all-time.

    After making two openly gay films, the early Taiwanese rom-com The Wedding Banquet and the stoically tragic Brokeback Mountain (not to mention the homoerotic tension in Lee’s version of Hulk!) it is somewhat surprising to see Lee downplay the homosexuality of his lead protagonist. Though this choice, along with the quite matter-of-factly portrayal of Schreiber’s drag queen (he never even makes an attempt to act lady like) may be a conscious effort on the filmmaker’s behalf to make the film not about sexuality but about how it doesn’t matter what your sexual preference is. An ideal that goes along with the whole idea of what Woodstock was and what the Woodstock generation stands for.

    Sure the story may be full of obvious stereotypes and dumbed down cliches, and this may not be Lee at his bravest (leave that for Brokeback Mountain and The Ice Storm) but that shouldn’t stop this film in its tracks as it would with many other movies. Lee’s use of split screen to evoke Michael Wadleigh’s original documentary style as well as his creatively placing amongst the half a million strong moments that seem like they are actually lifted straight out of that aforementioned doc works as an artistic flair that gives the whole shebang a sense of nostalgic awe. His use of long tracking shots (the most memorable being the motorcycle ride through the throngs that evokes the traffic jam shot from Godard’s Weekend) adds to that awe as well. What Lee delivers here is something more akin to what those aforementioned half a million concertgoers probably felt while muddily occupying themselves with three days of peace and music. A sense of bewildered awe.

    All in all, the film works (to an extent) not only in spite of its flaws, but also sometimes because of them. Aside from the surprising turn by Martin, Eugene Levy as the iconic Max Yasgur (in the film's most honest, sincere performance) and Schreiber as the drag head of peripheral security (coming right off playing the feral Sabretooth in Wolverine – from X-Man to ex-man!?) both the film’s most ludicrous and most endearing caricature is the smiling horseback-riding knight in suede vest organizer Michael Lang, played with a preening aplomb by Jonathan Groff as if he were portraying a mythical hero (which to some he may very well be!). Perhaps then the whole trip has been an attempt at a certain kind of mythology. Joni Mitchell wrote that we are stardust, we are golden, and we’ve got to get ourselves, back to the garden. This may not be the actual garden, or even a realistic facsimile of the garden, but this is Lee’s mythology of how it all came to be. Idealized warts and all.


  • EASY VIRTUE a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Easy Virtue  (2009)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 09/01/09)

    Pretentious, acerbic English wit Noel Coward has always been known as a diva of sorts - the first pop star if you will - so the quite frivolous air of Stephan Elliott's cover version of the playwright's Easy Virtue should come as no surprise indeed. Playing as some sort of strange melange of sit-com, music video and heady satire of the rich, Elliott's film, though a bit too obvious and fluffy at times (too many problems are left unresolved or resolved without explanation) is wracked with fun, flippant frivolity. And at the heart of all this biting burlesque are a trio of performances that run the spectrum from hilariously vitriolic to delightfully unexpected to surprisingly endearing.

    First up is Jessica Biel as Larita, an American racecar driver and adventuress who is running from a shady past into the arms of a well-to-do young Brit named John Whitaker. Their quickie surprise marriage is sure to upset John's upper-crust stuffy family and therein lies the premise of the parody. Biel, who is best known for her ten seasons on 7th Heaven and being the sexy chick who gives Leatherface a run for his chainsaw-wielding money in the slasher remake, gives a most unexpectedly wry turn as the crass American invading the staunchy Brit family. Who would've ever guessed she was more than a pair of lips and a hot ass.

    Larita's nemesis, as is to be expected in such a story, is her over-bearing, dictatorial, supercilious new mother-in-law-from-hell, played with the most sardonic of aplomb by the always wonderful Kristin Scott Thomas. Thomas does cynical bitch-from-hell so well she could leave everything else behind and make a living out of just playing thus. Her despotic matriarch, destined to come out the winner in the power-play between domineering mother and freewheeling new bride, never waivers in her blatant disregard and constant contempt for the (ugh!) American and all she stands for. Biel may be a surprise here but even so she is still no match (in character or actor) for Scott Thomas and her queen of the court.

    The real stand-out here though is Colin Firth as the screwed-up, war-raged, despondent father of the groom and would-be disenchanted king of the manse. A frittering, sometimes doddering man of jaded leisure who wears his war wounds and psychological scars for all to see and feel either pity or disdain for, Firth's father-in-law is, save for the prerequisitly droll butler, is Larita's only real ally amongst this house of ill-welcome. Never a big fan of Firth's acting prowess - more indifference than any real criticism - he is at his most charming, his most endearing in this quite sympathetic role.

    Granted, Elliott is far from a great filmmaker - Priscilla, Queen of the Desert being the only other worthwhile film of note in his short and unspectacular oeuvre - and he drones on here with unresolved, dangling participles, but the three stars of the film pull the proverbial fat out of the proverbial fire enough to allow us to enjoy the sarcastic barbs and jabs throughout Coward's quite biting play. Elliott's bizarro musical choices, blending Coward Cole Porter numbers with strange jazzy remixes (partially sung by the cast) of such modern pop songs as Car Wash, Sex Bomb and When The Going Gets Tough, The Tough Get Going, also lend a fun bubble of the aforementioned frivolity to the proceedings. It is all enough to make Easy Virtue much more enjoyable than it probably would have been otherwise.


  • SUMMER HOURS a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Summer Hours  (2009)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 07/22/09)

    There is a moment in Olivier Assayas' Summer Hours when a father is showing his teenage son a pair of paintings hanging in his mother's country home. To the father's chagrin, the boy reacts by saying they are from another time. This too can be said of Assayas' new film. It is of another time. Away from the maddening present, Summer Hours is of another age, and it could be argued that the film is also of another director than Assayas. At least of what we know of Assayas.

    Starring the intense triumvirate of Juliette Binoche, Charles Berling and Jérémie Renier, Summer Hours is an almost complete departure of sorts for the director. Usually delving deep in the quite claustrophobic industrial urban techno-thriller of the modern Parisian underground, both of its outcasts and of its artists, he hands us instead a beautifully and elegantly shot, lushly panoramic vista of a family, already disheveled by modern society who must witness the disappearance of their childhood memories, and thus, of their childhood.

    But what Assayas leaves behind in wanton flush and youthful verve, he gains in a masterly stroke of impressionistic austerity. Not to knock his earlier films - both demonlover and Boarding Gate are intensely erotic films that border on some sort of metaphorical cyberporn wavelength and Irma Vep, the auteur's greatest work, is a luscious ode to cinema in the vein of Truffaut or Rivette - but here Assayas has changed gears from expressionism to impressionism. In this wake he may seem a bit out of place at times, wandering along lazily, without a care in the world, but it works for the most part with a film such as this. His lazy wandering in a film like Boarding Gate for example, ends up much more noticeable and thus much more disastrous. Summer Hours, despite this out of place strangeness, is a gorgeous pictorial on the breakdown of familial connections that borrows heavily from the visual legacy of Monet. In cinematic terms, it is like Rohmer without the burden of a morality lesson.

    In another cinematic take, Summer Hours can be seen as an updating of Ozu and his gloriously moribund Tokyo Story. Lyrical yet purposefully claustrophobic in many ways (perhaps Assayas hasn't gone that far astray after all) Summer Hours can work as dual tragedy. Both the tragedy of losing the family matriarch, both mother and grandmother, and the tragedy of not being able, or willing, to deal with said death. Just like Ozu, Assayas uses his idea of modern society to show the devaluation of family ties. A time and place where we have no time to live and deal with life. We are too busy avoiding it altogether. If anything, Assayas has created the very antithesis of the family tale - the breakdown of the family done as elegant tragedy.

    Whatever Summer Hours is - loving tribute, complacent homage, auteuristic off-topic treatise, autobiographical sketch, misplaced wandering - one thing is for sure - it is Olivier Assayas at both his most tender and, despite his past sardonic nature, his most subtly biting. Whatever it is, it is worth whatever time you can put into it.


  • DIED YOUNG, STAYED PRETTY a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 07/21/09)

    Eileen Yaghoobian's doc about the underground art movement that surrounds a group of unknown graphic artists who create rock posters for unknown (or at least once unknown) bands is scattershot, disorderly and a wholly erratic clusterfuck of a movie. And that is exactly what it should be.

    The interestingly titled Died Young, Stayed Pretty is the story of a very loose band of underground rock poster artists throughout the continent - in places like Seattle, Austin, Chicago, North Carolina, Minneapolis, Canada - and their ideas on not just the rock world (or the death of it as some will rant on about) but also society, politics and the theory that Elvis was a raging queen who wanted to be Captain Marvel. The film is an array of misfit talking heads telling their stories to Yaghoobian - and anyone else who will listen. The lines of communication work like a stream-of-consciousness rave and Yaghoobian uses this disarray to her best and slickest advantage.

    Yaghoobian shows these artists in their own light. In the very style they themselves use to ply their own art, and for the most part it works to highlight such a lifestyle. Other times though it seems to just give a platform for these post-punk societal rejects to espouse on whatever socio-political rant they deem fit for the day. Some interactions are fun - and seemingly heartfelt (one person takes the anti-fogie approach and laments how kids today do not rebel against anything!) - while some verge on the dangerously inappropriate. One poster proclaims that Eddie Vedder is merely a poser until he "pulls the trigger" while another openly mocks the events of September 11 complete with explosion sounds. At one point 9/11 is called "punk rock". These incidents are what make Yaghoobian's doc work.

    Much of the naive waxing political gets tiresome after awhile, but when Yaghoobian focuses on the posters themselves and the design and desire behind them her film works. When she doesn't, it doesn't. The film plays out as anthropological peepshow and punk rock in its own way, but drags too often when the subject veers away from the titularly-edged subject matter and heads into the realm of rant.


  • THE HURT LOCKER a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Hurt Locker  (2009)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 07/19/09)

    There has been a veritable onslaught of Iraq war movies over the past few years. Both of the dramatic variety (Jarhead, The Kingdom, Redacted, Stop-Loss) and the documentary (Fahrenheit 9/11, Voices of Iraq, No End in Sight). Some have been pro-America. Most have been anti-war. Some gung-ho chest-thumping, some thought-inducing and philosophical. The one thing they all have in common is their attempt to document, from a non-fiction or fictionalized viewpoint, an event so fresh in moviegoers minds that it is still actually going on to this very day.

    What Kathryn Bigelow's new film, The Hurt Locker does, is take a completely different stand on the subject. Without seeming to be pro or anti anything, The Hurt Locker acts as a completely apolitical war film. What Bigelow shows is a group of three men, a bomb disposal crew, going through their daily routine in the craggled streets and bombed-out countryside of Baghdad. Three men who could at any moment, via an explosion, be sent to the "hurt locker". More than war, this film is about the psyche of human nature. We barely even get to see either a US or an Iraqi flag. If not for our pre-conceived knowledge, these men could be from anywhere. This movie could be from anywhere. It could be about anywhere. But this is Iraq and it is real. At least in the sense that it is something going on right this very moment. After all this, The Hurt Locker may well be the most personal war film I have ever seen.

    As far as the story itself goes, The Hurt Locker stars Jeremy Renner (a relatively unknown actor who is hopefully going to finally get the recognition he deserves with the release of this film) as Staff Sergeant William James, a wild cowboy soldier who dismantles bombs as if not having a care in the world. One general praises him for the 878 bombs he's defused so far as if he were a sports hero of some sort. The Babe Ruth of Baghdad. He is a gung ho redneck who thrives on the adrenaline that pumps through his veins as he is dismantling bombs. Refusing to wear the protective suit (it's not going to do anything up close and personal anyway) or heed any warnings from his anxious teammates, Sgt. James is a renegade out to prove something to someone, if only to himself.

    But James' loose cannon does not play well with his two teammates played by Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty. To these two, their brazen team leader seems the most dangerous man out there. There is even a conversation about killing their superior. It is a strange mix of anger and hate, with a sort of obligatory adoration, that serves these two soldiers only thirty-eight days from going home when they are assigned together. The love/hate tension comes to a boil in the relationship between the racist redneck James and Mackie's African American comrade. Eventually coming to a head the only way it can with men such as these. Mano y mano in a punching contest that, thanks to James' insistence on going too far, ends up with a knife at someones throat.

    I could, as many critics have, gone the route of highlighting the (quite obvious) fact that Kathryn Bigelow is a woman. A woman who has made a career out of playing with the boys in the usually male-dominated world of action cinema. With such testosterone-laden films as Point Break, Strange Days, Near Dark and K-19: The Widowmaker, not to mention her 1978 student film The Set-Up, which was a thesis on why violence is so seductive (plus she directed a few episodes of the gritty TV drama, Homicide: Life on the Streets) it is almost obligatory to question how a woman filmmaker can make such films. The question is unnecessary though. Male or female, one can have an eye for action. An eye for bravado. An eye for the bonding of men (or women). Bigelow seems to take us to the very edge of cliche but then turns us on our heads instead.

    Bigelow may be a pioneer of sorts, paving the way for future female action directors (if they ever show up), but to delve too deeply into such a theme only sells the filmmaker short. First and foremost, Bigelow is a director. A director who knows how to show action without it seeming comical. Something her male brethren like Michael Bay and his ilk cannot seem to do. Yet it is not this boys club her film seems in simpatico with. The filmic connections to John Ford's The Searchers is rampant throughout The Hurt Locker. So much so that Renner's Sgt. James could be seen as the evolutionary eventuality of John Wayne's iconic Ethan Edwards. Even Bigelow's final shot has Sgt. James, just like Ethan, turning his back on hearth and home and walking into the sunset with his demons.

    It is this bravado of character, this seeming death wish attitude that is the focal point of the film. As Renner's Sgt. James goes about his business, done in the most methodical manner and therefore spiking the tension level up to about 11, he is like a machine that can do no wrong – or more appropriately, a machine that, just like Ethan Edwards again, doesn’t care if he does wrong, as long as he gets the job done. It is this very adrenaline rush that he needs to keep on surviving doing what he is doing. There is a scene in a supermarket (while James is back home for a while) which shows this misplaced soldier in an unknown world, his eyes dead to the sterile environment around him. His eyes only alive when he is surrounded by war and getting his fix of action. Just watching this highly intense film is enough action for this critic. I'll leave the high risk jobs to the likes of Sgt. James and his real-life heroic ilk.


  • CHERI a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Cheri  (2009)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 07/18/09)

    There is a shot at the very end of Stephen Frears' Chéri, where Michelle Pfeiffer stares into the camera, not a discernible speck of make-up on the 50 year old actress's face. This final shot, before the credits roll, sums up all that this film could have been, if only Frears' wasn't afraid to take his characters to the brink and back - just as Colette had done almost 90 years ago. The film's poster tagline asks us to engage in a wicked game of seduction. If only Frears had the nerve to allow us to do so.

    Based on the Colette novels, Chéri & The Last of Chéri and set in pre-World War I Paris, Frears has the great opportunity to delve into the biting, acerbic mannerisms of said Parisian society just as he and screenwriter Christopher Hampton had done so shrewdly with their eighteenth century-set Oscar-winning Dangerous Liaisons some 20 years ago. Unfortunately for us and for the actors (and for Colette who most likely is spinning around in her grave at Père Lachaise right now!) Frears chickens out and hands in instead, the blandest of period pieces. The giddy, subtle mastication that is Colette's novel(s) - where everyone has a hidden agenda and no one says what they really mean except in snide undercurrents - is barely visible here. Frears' assumption that Chéri is a romance and not a tragedy leads him into creating the most typical of typicalities. Enough to make even the most ultra-staid Merchant/Ivory seem wicked in comparison.

    Sure, many filmmakers have altered a novel when transferring it to screen (it would be next to impossible to leave an entire book intact and still have a film that could be played in one sitting) but to miss the very essence of a story is nearly inexcusable. Yet that is exactly what Frears and Hampton do here. Where Colette wrote of an aging Parisian courtesan who hands over her young boy toy for the proper marriage that has been pre-arranged for him, Frears and Hampton twists their film into something akin to two long-lost lovers running at each other on the beach with a swell of cloying music behind them. Change the aforementioned beach to a lushly draped Parisian boudoir and that is what this latest version of Chéri ends up being.

    In fact missed opportunities abound in Frears' movie. Well acted by both Rupert Friend as the titular Chéri and Pfeiffer as his aging paramour (though Kathy Bates is a shrill cartoon in her portrayal) it is Frears' lack of courage that is the real downfall of the film. Not only does he lose his nerve when it comes to the droll, yet scathing dialogue of Colette's characters (the writer said of her book, "For the first time in my life, I felt morally certain of having written a novel for which I need neither blush nor doubt.") but Frears stumbles at the perfect opportunity for showing how women in today's society - and especially those in Hollywood - are treated after a certain demarcation line of age. Though looking as gorgeous as ever (even maybe more lovely than ever) Pfeiffer would be the perfect subject to breach such a thesis, but instead Frears lumbers along oblivious to the whole theme of what Colette was writing.

    Frears' most memorable films, Dangerous Liaisons, My Beautiful Launderette, Prick Up Your Ears, The Grifters and The Queen do all bear the weight of a certain amount of depth and quite a bit of underlying danger, but here the filmmaker falls flat flat flat. An admittedly pretty film (some scenes elicit memories of Monet and the impressionists) and with two strong, if quite cliche'd performances, but still a film that never goes anywhere and while not going anywhere tends to fall out of fashion even with itself. Add to all this the strangest "international" melange of accents (even among mother and son) and a completely unnecessary, and quite annoying series of haphazard narration, and you have Stephen Frears' Chéri. Even on its own, when not compared to the original novel(s), Frears' film fails on most levels.

    Perhaps a French version (there were four other versions made previously, two French, one Brit and one Italian - none of which are available today) starring Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garrel, and directed by Catherine Breillat would have better suited Colette's story. Instead all we are left with is that haunting final image of Pfeiffer, aged or not, that only makes us wish Frears had allowed her to give us so much more.

     


  • TEETH a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Teeth  (2007)

    (this review was first published at Plume-Noire on 03/02/09)

    Teeth is a mish-mash of genre monikers, from female empowerment movie to coming-of-age saga to black comedy-horror to rape & revenge drama to Lynchian suburban melodrama. Pop artist fil Mitchell Lichtenstein gives us the story of Dawn, a white picket fence pretty young girl coping with growing up "pure and virginal" in a world obsessed with sexual innuendo around each and every corner. This includes her own house as her lecherous big bad wolf epitome'd stepbrother sniffs after her with tongue a-flicking. After a date gone horribly, horribly awry, Dawn finds out that she is cursed with the mythical mutation known as "vaginal dentata" - aka she's got razor sharp teeth in her pussy, yo! The result is that Teeth ends up being a quirky (how could it not be?), sunnily macabre work of neo-candy pop horror that can in no way whatsoever be watched by anyone of the male gender without constant squirming and shuffling about in what are suddenly very uncomfortable seats.

    Opening in the suburban shadow of a nuclear power plant with towers billowing grey choke from their gritty Teeth as if a nod-and-a-wink absurdist homage to The Simpsons. Teeth struts out with a creeping small town menace overlying everything and proceeds down a road of desperate reciprocatory acts of the most bizarre nature. With the perils of male violence festooned within every darting-eyed nook and cranny moment, Teeth takes place in a world completely ensconced within one of those old sex ed filmstrips made to keep junior high school girls legs clamped shut until their wedding night.

    Dawn, played with a scared forest animal comic frenzy by Jess Weixler, looking every bit the girl next door on the verge of bad girl in the basement is spokesperson for a promise ring wearing teenage purity movement - a movement lampooned on Family Guy but given real "teeth" here. Dawn is seen as the ultimate sexual goal-****-prize by just about every male classmate in her school, as if every teenage boy is some sort of licentious lycanthrope ready to pounce and deflower every pretty girl they come across at the drop of a hat - or any article of clothing. Dawn sees herself as such too and fights even her own naturally budding urges (a scene showing our intrepid heroine in bed "thinking" about a boy she longs for attests to such) to keep her vow of chastity upright. That is until one fateful swimmin' hole romp that ends with the lake being dredged for the body of Dawn's unfortunate date sans one pretty important body part.

    Once the newly deflowered Dawn throws away the moniker of curse and looks upon her mutation as a rightful empowerment to avenge her becoming the victim of the seemingly rampant male violence of this strange new world the film goes from anti-sexual to proto-sexual. With Dawn going from Little Red Riding Hood to the Big Bad Wold herself, the film here turns from strangely charming fantasy to something straight out of a seedy dogeared pulp fiction paperback. It is at this point that Teeth philosophically joins in with such rape & revenge films as Abel Ferrara's Ms. 45 and its more recent counterpart The Brave One from Neil Jordan. Teeth though is a much less mature, more light-hearted film that the aforementioned. After all, horror-edged or not, Lichtenstein is going for laughs here. Leaving a hilarious slew of severed penii (as well as four fingers of a rather over-amorous gynecologist) in her wake, Dawn strews her victims "better halves" across the landscape like discarded cigarette butts in the early dusky morning after a concert in the park.

    One scene, inevitably choreographed, involves Dawn's salacious step-brother (played with a grim concupiscence by snarky Nip/Tuck regular John Hensley), his pet rottweiler and his freshly decapitated member half eaten with its pierced tip discarded like so much gristle. Though obvious in its outcome, this scene is certainly the pièce de résistance of this giddily twisted fairy tale of female empowerment overtaking a male dominated society of sexual despotism. On a whole, Teeth is funny, though a little bit crotch-writhing for those of us so engendered. Lichtenstein's film is a delight of, albeit stereotyped caricatures, fumbling their way through a darkish suburban nightmarescape that combines the punchy humor of a youthful Almadovar with the clean efficiently disturbed Middle America of a budding David Lynch. This critic for one, looks forward to what will come next.


  • REVANCHE a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Revanche  (2008)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 06/21/09)

    With its moody temperament and (almost) Eastern European roots, Austrian filmmaker Gotz Spielmann's Revanche plays out as high tragedy worthy of Chekhov or Turgenev, or perhaps Tarkovsky or Bresson (or Cassavetes in an American turn) but always with a seeming oblivious wink toward its audience. This wink (intentional or not) works both in the film's favor for a while and as the ultimate let down when all is said and done.

    Though the story of two low rent lovers (played superbly by Johannas Krisch and Irina Potapenko) trying to escape the mundane humiliations of their urban lives by robbing a bank and heading for the proverbial hills, Revanche, as its title suggests, is essentially a tale of inevitable revenge after the aforementioned robbery goes tragically awry. This revenge theme works throughout most of the film, and through the glassy eyes of its antagonist, in perpetual foreshadowing motion, we see the ugly taste of that same said revenge piercing the flesh of all those around him. The film works on such a level, sort of a blend of Assayas and Ceylon, and the pacing and photography just add to the intensity exponentially building throughout.

    Once the finale comes, though well played, it is the farthest thing thing from a surprise as one can possibly get. This isn't necessarily a large flaw, for so many movies, both good and bad and everything in between, have quite predictable endings, but it still puts such a damper on an otherwise though provoking film as this. Perhaps it is not revenge, but forgiveness that humanity needs and therefore it is a moral tale of sorts - and I suppose it is - but nonetheless, Spielmann's precalculated coda falls a bit short of the rest of his coldly calculating tragi-drama. Perhaps this is mere nitpicking and not actual criticism, especially since I liked and recommend the film overall, but there you have it anyway. I suppose forgiveness is not my foray.


  • 28 WEEKS LATER a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    28 Weeks Later  (2007)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 05/13/07)

    Many have queried "Why even make 28 Weeks Later?", comparing it to the original 28 Days Later, these naysayers have called the film exploitive and pandering. Well, duh?! What else is a good flesh-eating zombie flick other than exploitive and pandering? Hell, the very genre itself could be parenthetically subtitle (Exploitive & Pandering). So I don't know what they are talking about with their criticisms, because exploitive and pander, well that's what it's all about kiddies.

    Taking up the story line of the first film, where, while attempting to liberate a lab full of test monkeys from man's oppression, a group of animal rights activists unwittingly unleash the experimental Rage virus upon the island of Great Britain and 28 days later, a coma patient awakes in an abandoned hospital ward only to find himself running from gangs of flesh-devouring monstrosities who are really really really fucking hungry, 28 Weeks Later, opening upon the allotted time frame, gives us a newly virus free London being reinhabited by those lucky (or unlucky) enough to have survived the last 7 months or so.

    Meanwhile, taking over for the hyper-kinetic Danny Boyle in this hyper-kinetic sequel to the hyperkinetic original is the equally hyper-kinetic Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (best known for the cerebral yet quite hyper-kinetic itself mindfuck Intacto) and exploitive pandering withstanding, he makes a film nearly as strong-willed and terrifying as the first. Remember, this ain't your mama's flesh-eating living dead movie. This isn't the lumbering drama of George Romero's grandaddy flesh-eaters wherein the back-against-the-wall tension comes not so much from full on onslaught as from what-will-happen-next nail-biting. 28 Weeks Later (as was its predecessor, as well as Zack Snyder's own remake of Romero's Dawn of the Dead) is a new kind of zombie movie. A post 9/11, ADHD-addled, Rage-riddled full out batshitcrazy nightmare of a motion picture. In this new incarnation of the living dead (okay, not exactly living dead so much as virus-infected humans, but they still do love to eat other people), you can no longer outrun the "dead" like in the "old days" of Romero's classics, and I don't know about you, but the scares the bejesus out of me.

    Full of allusions to Iraq with its constant military patrols and segmentation into the safe "green zone" and the dangerous "red zone", 28 Weeks Later, as is the case with Romero's originals, shows not only its bloody flesh-filled teeth but its socio-political fangs as well. Opening with one of the most heartbreakingly I-can't-believe-it shocks in recent memory, Fresnadillo's film, as frenetic and zeitgeististic as it is, is still a loving testament to the ideas of family and survival and all that comes inbetween that Romero first set forth in 1968 with his original Night of the Living Dead. In fact Robert Carlyle's cowardly husband and father is the cinematic offspring of the little girl eating her own parents in the basement of Romero's classic. Perhaps not as intense as the original (I suppose there is some validity in critics' questions, but instead of "why?" they should be asking "why not something a bit different?") 28 Weeks Later still wallops quite a brutal punch, from its blitzkrieg beginning to its somewhat too obvious finale (which even more obviously sets the stage for the inevitable 28 Months Later) and in doing so, earns a spot in zombie movie lore - no matter how many genre-purists scoff at the idea of "fast zombies". I suppose, being what may, 28 Weeks Later is just what its critics say it is, exploitive and pandering - and one Hell of a job of it too.


  • WENDY AND LUCY a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Wendy and Lucy  (2008)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 12/17/08)

    Kelly Reichardt's latest ode to the Pacific northwest, Wendy and Lucy, much like the filmmaker's previous work, Old Joy, is a veritable paean to the disenfranchised of America. To all those who are eaten up by the system and who never, for whatever reason (and none is ever given here) become what society expects them to be. To those on the fringe of America. Outcasts and throw-aways. Not bad people. Not lesser people. Simply people who do not know where they belong, where they fit in. This film, like Old Joy is a sad love song of sorts, sung to those for whom the idea of the American dream simply does not exist.

    It is one of these wayward "untouchables", a young woman named Wendy, who we follow along her path of disillusionment. With the most grotesque and quite perverse curiosity, like watching a strange exotic animal in a zoo, never daring to think, there but for the grace of God go I, we watch. We watch as she meticulously, and quite methodically, keeps track of every cent she spends in a pocket notebook, only to see it all be for naught once her car, the very thing she has been living in for God knows how long, breaks down and she becomes trapped once again by society. We watch as Wendy is nabbed for shoplifting by a strangely overzealous stock boy and in the process of being arrested and booked, loses the one thing that means more to her than her car, her faithful companion, her dog Lucy. We watch as this lost little girl searches for her Lucy in what seems like such an overpowering, suffocating world full of profiteering auto mechanics and bureaucratic red tape - as well as one of the most harrowing dog pound scenes I have ever seen (this critic had a hard time making it through as those sadly hopeful eyes peered out at us from behind their chainlinked cages). The very society from which Wendy is supposedly making her escape is the very society that has again ensnared her within its web. Though we may feel like voyeurs at first, like ravenous vultures impatiently awaiting their inevitable carcass, in time, Reichardt's film ensnares us within its web as well, and we to are trapped.

    Where Old Joy kept a rather safe distance from its audience, almost as if viewing a sad but mesmerizingly intricate impressionist painting within the relatively safe confines of an art museum, Wendy and Lucy, much in the vein of the expressionist school, becomes all the more personal and up close. Where we merely sat back and absorbed the oft-silent chirpings of Will Oldham's Kurt in Old Joy, we are pulled in as close as we can get, and are forced to get, to Michelle Williams' brilliant turn as Wendy - almost as if we ourselves are an actual participant in her bitter, lonely reality. Where Kurt was lonely and lost, his hapless hippie throwback is seen in an almost comical way at times - the sad clown so to speak, easy to stay detached from - Wendy seems all the more real and therefore all the more terrifying to behold. And it is the bravura performance of teen TV star turned alternative actress par excellence Williams that captures this terrifying emptiness, this desperation as it were, and makes it such an intimate connective to the audience, whether we want it or not. Remember, there but for the grace of God, go we.

    Though filmed with the sublime picturesque, and quite auteuristic eye of Ms. Reichardt (no one in American cinema today does better the haunting melancholy of the disembodied outdoors than Kelly Reichardt), this film is tripled, quadrupled, quintupled even, in blatant puissance by the subtly explosion-precipiced performance of the Oscar nominated former Dawson's Creek star. An actress who over the past few years, in films ranging from The Station Agent, Land of Plenty, Brokeback Mountain, The Hawk is Dying, I'm Not There and Charlie Kaufman's current mindfuck, Synecdoche, New York, has become the veritable darling of American independent cinema. It is Williams' ascendancy to this preeminence, her Vormachtstellung if you will, that takes an already exceptional film and raises it to a whole other realm completely. For Williams gives the most heartwrenching performance by any actor, male or female, since, ironically enough, her former love and father of her child, the late Heath Ledger handed in the performance of his sadly shortened lifetime in Brokeback Mountain near three years ago.

    The final scene, wherein Wendy is forced to make a decision that will seriously impact two lives, though rather obvious in its forthcoming, is still quite more than enough to tear a person to pieces. To leave them a shattered, withering husk on the figurative theater floor. The scene, emotionally speaking, is much like Ledger's own heart-breaking epic closure to Brokeback. This is the power of Reichardt's film and this is the power of Williams' performance.


  • CARGO 200 a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Cargo 200  (2007)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 01/06/09)

    Positioned somewhere between the dank environs of Tarkovsky and Michael Haneke and the torture cinema of Eli Roth and his "Splat Pack" brethren, this based-on-real-events political allegory-****-horror story of 1984 USSR, replete with Huxley's squat gray buildings and a properly proportional festooning of decaying landscapes and milky omnipresent clouds, Aleksei Balabanov's Cargo 200 is at heart, an anti-communist era diatribe, showing with a matter-of-fact realism the ugly corrupt nightmare world that was the Soviet Union (Balabanov said in a 2007 Wall Street Journal interview, "I show what filth we live in. Society was sick from 1917 onwards.") but can also feel right at home, thanks to its severing second half, as some sort of Soviet Chainsaw Massacre.

    Not to give away to much of the plot - the gradual build-up to the terrifying final act is part of the fun (though fun is hardly the appropriate word when describing this bleak and harrowing film) - let us just say Cargo 200 is the interconnected stories of several Soviet citizens - an atheist professor, a cult-leaning bootlegger, an enterprising and quite cocksure young capitalist dressed in instigatory CCCP tee shirt, a corrupt (and quite insane) police official and the requisite horror story scantily clad (at least eventually) teenage virgin - in small town Russia in the wake of the Soviet/Afghan war and their disparate views on politics and society. At least that is what the first half of the film is, the second half is another thing altogether, falling into a disturbing world of rape, murder and necrophilia - sometimes all three at once. And, to make things even more uncomfortable, as desolate as anything coming out of the Romanian Black Wave with that nation's iron-curtained anti-sentimentality, Cargo 200 also manages, inexplicably enough, to play out as black comedy, with much of its laughter held in nervously stilted inner chuckle.

    Disallowing any sort of cathartic denouement, or at least teasing us with such only to pull the rug out at the moment just before, we watch as society, already rotted to the bureaucratic and spiritual core, falls deeper and deeper into an abyss that is also the allegory for not just a corrupt aging Communist system in wintry decay, but for most of Western society as a whole. There is a scene midway through this film of coffins being taken off one side of a military plane (the "cargo 200" of the title) while fresh-faced new soldiers march on to the other, like a tragic cartoon factory cycle. This is a world where the weak are preyed upon and never saved, and though the forces of evil may eventually fail at times, the more conniving forces of indifference and injustice are ultimately triumphant. Though lacking in any real originality save for its odd juxtaposition of genres (the dark, dank Eastern Bloc thriller has been done to death, but at least here there is a twist - and that is what makes the film) Cargo 200, with its strange melange of sociopolitical allegory and black comedy B-terror may be a warning of what we might become one day. Or have we already become it?


  • LET THE RIGHT ONE IN a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 12/07/08)

    With a chilly Scandinavian breeze blowing across the screen, and a haunting cinematic foreshadowing rap-rap-rapping at our brain, we see a pale young boy watching from his window as two mysterious figures, an older man and a young girl about the boy's own age, exit a cab and enter his apartment building late at night. We find out later, though it comes as no surprise since the film is billed as such, that the young girl is a creature who subsists on human blood (she refuses the moniker vampire) and the older man is her father/caretaker, doomed with the dubious task of procuring "food" for his hungry daughter. This is the start of a surprisingly simple yet overtly complex little film that both charms and thrills, lulls and titillates, snugs and bugs throughout.

    Layered with the frosty moodiness one might expect from the cinematic northern environs of Sweden - not far from the Danish homeland of Dreyer and his very own melancholy Vampyr - Thomas Alfredson's Let the Right One In, the story of a twelve year old boy who is bullied at school and who is befriended by the mysterious new dark-haired neighbor girl. Almost immediately the boy falls for this strange girl who only comes out in the dark of night, and finds in her what little happiness his dank life appears to know. It is in this girl, who is "more or less" twelve and for that matter possibly not even be a girl at all (in the book the character is said to be neither boy nor girl, genderless, a self-described "nothing" - something only alluded to in the film itself) that he finds, in essence, like the wizard was to the lion, his courage. And suddenly this sullen child finds in this alluring enigma of tween desire, a compatriot, a friend, a lover, albeit chastely so, and, in the end, a champion.

    Alfredson's film rolls along at the most leisurely pace, yet manages to keep you on the very edge of your seat with his subtly stark photography and quick, thunderous flashes of bloody revelry, vanishing as quickly as they appear. Yet no matter how cool and crisp Alfredson's cinematography and editing are, it is the two young first-time actors (Kåre Hedebrant as Oskar, the bullied little boy with a barely hidden violent lust and Lina Leandersson as Eli, the youthful bloodlusting beast in sheep's clothing) that hammer the final nail into the coffin, so to speak, and through their childlike exuberance (Oskar flashes his knife with the most innocently sinister of smirks upon his face and Eli's vicious, almost perversely sexual, attacks on her fellow townspeople is quite the disturbing little treat) make the film both the delight and the terror that it is.

    Now, to bring up the inevitable comparison, concurrent with the American release of this diminutive, almost completely overlooked and overshadowed Swedish vampire film, there is the ultra generic young adult book series turned ultra generic Hollywood teen blockbuster Twilight and everyone is going all swooney over themselves at the mere mention of it. It poses itself as the new it thing for tweens and teens (and the occasional like-minded adult who has nothing better to do than inexplicably fawn over something meant for someone half their age) and in doing so, it makes one think that something, somewhere, has gone utterly and completely madhouse bonkers. Perhaps, as I suggested last year concerning the rapturously stoic 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days and the half-brained mockingbird fallacy Juno, for every person who buys a ticket for Twilight they should be made to sit through its very antithesis, Let the Right One In instead. To finish with a pun of sorts, and perhaps channel Gene Shalit from whatever floor of the Rockefeller Center he is currently canoodling one, perhaps they too, should let the right one in.


  • RACHEL GETTING MARRIED a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 12/05/08)

    With allusions to Dogme filmmaking (if the dialogue were in Danish, one would swear this was a film by von Trier or Vinterberg) and brimming with the most Altmanesque of mechanizations, Jonathan Demme has taken a script idea that could have so easily fallen into an oversentimentalized vortex of banality and mediocre obviousness, and handed us something not unlike a cinematic punch in the gut, but with beauty, sublimity and a certain realistic dream quality, all stuffed to the veritable rafters with an unquestioned multi-cultural melange of just about everything from whitebread Connecticut sterility to afro-carib-centric chest-thumping to repressed unanswered anger to far eastern new age lama chanting to cold hearted rehab mantras to erupting unbridled sadness to Robyn Hitchcock and Fab Five Freddy, all of which is as much Jonathan Demme as Italian family squabbles and bloody mob beatdowns are Martin Scorsese or creepy pseudo-suburban underground netherworlds are David Lynch.

    In essence, Demme has combined his deft handling of undesirable filmic material, as in his own Oscar-winning psycho warhorse Silence of the Lambs and his frenzied enthusiasms for world music, as seen in his myriad of music videologies and documentaries, and has created this upliftingly horrifying (or is that horrifyingly uplifting?) hybrid of disenfranchised stereotypes and oft-claustrophobic human drama all rolled into the story of one big slap-happy miserable dysfunctional family get-together, which under a lesser, or should I say more mainstream comfortable director could easily have been a disaster of well-intentioned yet ill-conceived plebianistic movie-making.

    Like a Benetton ad without the hype, Demme's world book wedding celebration, replete with just about every genre, from alt rock to African drumming to country twang to rap, jazz, classical and even a brief peek at some sort of south seas something, imaginable and the unquestioned interlocking of the four corners of the Earth, is nothing shy of pure unaffected entertainment. With this being Demme, the idea of a black man marrying a white woman never becomes the story. We are never bogged down with the oft-cliche-riddled inter-character fighting over racial disharmony that many a lesser director (or one working for the studio system of eternal political correctness eggshell walking) would have so blatantly stepped waist high in. It is never brought into question. It simply is. Not for good nor for bad. It just is.

    Perhaps this is a ripple effect of the post-Bush worldwide election elation that gave us all hope for a better world ahead (even if Demme finished his film well before the unprecedented happenings of November 4, 2008) or perhaps it is some sort of Utopian hyper-reality that hovers just below the surface of our own world (made all the more bitter lo these past eight years) or perhaps it is just Demme being Demme, and wearing upon his sleeve his natural and genuine love and passion for cultural diversity and racial indifference. Then again, perhaps it is not the case of black or white or red or brown or yellow (to use the simplicities of a Crayola box as metaphor) but simply the story of real people with real problems. Perhaps this is not a tale above or below racial and cultural questions, but one much beyond them altogether.

    But enough about all that, for then there is Anne Hathaway. Beautiful alluring sexy Anne Hathaway. For, title notwithstanding, and keeping with her character's own self-absorption and narcissistic tantrum-setting, cultural harmony aside, this is invariably Hathaway's stage to strut and fret her hours upon as recently rehab-released blacksheep sister-of-the-bride Kym. Entering her family home like some sort of half-cracked disquieting gila monster of apprehension and anxiety with a huge chip on her shoulder and an even more humongous monkey on her back , Kym manages to disrupt the feted proceedings with a self-centered mockery of everything her family - and especially her sister - hold dear. At the rehearsal party dinner, Kym begins her bridal toast "I am Shiva the destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening" and she may not be far from the truth. Kym is angry, bitter, jaded and quite often the most unpleasant person in the room yet at the same time she is obviously terrified of life and everyone around her, acting the fool to hide the secret shame she has carried around for many years. And all this is done with the most cunning of aplomb by a surprisingly gritty Ms. Hathaway.

    Yes, this is the same Anne Hathaway who was the very epitome of teen angst-****-innocence in the Princess Diaries movies and yes, this is the same Anne Hathaway who played dress-up in the fluffy yet quite entertaining The Devil Wears Prada - and yes, this is the same Anne Hathaway who can be seen in a trailer before the film trading pillowy gossamer Hollywood barbs at Kate Hudson. But this is also the same Anne Hathaway who has taken on roles in Brokeback Mountain and the recent, albeit it rather forgettable thriller Passengers and she has begun work on Tim Burton's live-action Alice in Wonderland. So perhaps this is the Anne Hathaway that should be, and could be, and hopefully will be. A subtly nuanced actress (was Prada co-star Streep any influence one must surely wonder?) with both the fortitude and the character to pull of what could easily have been nothing but one gigantic cliche under the auspices of another actress. Perhaps this is the Anne Hathaway of the future.


  • 300 a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    300  (2007)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 4/1/07)

    From the very first moment, as the Warner Bros. logo flashes and slashes its way across the darkened screen, as if forged by mighty Hephaestus himself, we instantly know that Zack Snyder and his X-Box-weened posse of computer geeks, graphic novel junkees and comic book fanboys are about to mightily thrust upon the unsuspecting public a vast and mighty display of ultrasupercoolawesomeness to the very freakin' tippy-top apex-eroding grody-to-the-max. Of course, for those of us who are not brought to the very precipice (or beyond) of orgasm by the thought of a CGI-created universe full of rabid bare-chested oiled-up steroid-pumped half-men half-beast warriors led by a pompous half-man half-pariah (all bad actor) who is just one note (and a lot less work-outs) away from a certain White House residing war monger of our own, fighting an equally rabid über-army of glimmer-masked maurauders, gigantic Frankensteinian monstrosities and a few big-ass battle elephants led by some sort of mascara'd crossbreed of Marilyn Manson and Rupaul, way beyond Thunderdome, this film, full of lusty vim and vigor and spewing ultrasupercoolawesomeness out its proverbial watusi, gets real tired real soon - and I got real pissed off real freakin' fast.

    Now to begin, please allow me to say that if your artistic sensibilities are not totally grossed out within the first ten minutes or so, as if someone had just thrown-up big fat chunks of falafel and moussaka all over you, then this is surely the movie for you - vacuous, demeaning, completely devoid of any substance whatsoever, repleat with all the idiotic, brain-numbing, Nietzsche-praising video gaming geekocity one could ever dream of while sleeping snug and cozy at age 37 in their mommy's basement rec room, copy of Maxim under their pillow and thoughts of Pamela Anderson floating like sugar plum fairies throughout their heads. If this is you, then nothing I can say or do will ever sway your opinion away from the ultrasupercoolawesomeness of this computer designed crypto-movie atrocity that blatantly spits in the face of cinematic integrity, and perhaps you should just stop reading right now and go finish that saved game of Warcraft you've been so buggin' to get back to. Meanwhile, everyone else, my faithful readers perhaps, please read on, for I truly scathe only very few and far between and you wouldn't want to miss any of the mordacious tongue slathering that is sure to follow.

    Based upon Frank Miller's graphic novel about the 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae, where the King of Sparta led his meager army of 300 strong against the interloping throng of the mighty Persian horde, which in turn was apocryphally based by Miller upon the 1962 film, The 300 Spartans, he saw as an impressionable (if not a bit ADHD) child, Zack Snyder, who gave us all quite the surprise with his quick-witted Dawn of the Dead remake a few years back, tries to have his cake and eat it too by attempting to recreate the feeling of cinematic overzealousness and pop-pulp flim-flam that was the last Frank Miller penned adaptation. Yet Sin City, even with all its many flaws, still managed to hit its intended target at least half the time, while Snyder's overwrought mega movie just falls deeper and deeper into the inevitable chasm of CGI-induced banality, ending up nothing shy of a deadened, terrifically dull, plodding slab of man meat-****-action figure tableaux, perfectly in tune with the Maxim reading machismo of modern "man".

    Snyder's film may indeed have its momentary visual exaltation of larks, but once one gets beyond such slapdash smattery and one-dimensional eye porn, one must surely see 300 for what it truly is - a simultaneously homoerotic and homophobic testosteronic monkeyshine, full of so much hokey ham-handed faux pixilated battle scenes, one trick pony actors-****-glistening torsos, slathered in enough body oils to simultaneously and permanently ejaculate each and every last gay porn connoisseur from P-Town to the Golden Gate, naked writhing slave-girl oracles straight off of a Maxfield Parrish calendar and enough level-ending melees with every fanged, clawed and muscled monster this side of the Khyber Pass, to nearly eradicate the ever-blurring fine line between modern mass market movie making and the benighted art of video games, not to mention giving every person over the IQ of drooling monosyllabic Spartan, a headache the size of the Persian Empire at its glorious behemothic height.

    As our mighty Spartan heroes, led by the churlish Gerald Butler, not even attempting to disguise his thick Scottish burr, form an "impenetrable phalanx at the hot gates" and the equally mighty 8-foot-tall man-muffin god-king Xerxes sends wave after wave of circus sideshow lallapalooza at them, one can not help but notice the totally ludicrous identity crisis this movie has in spades. Both sexually confused (this entire freakin' shama lama ding dong is full of enough beefcake bunnies and chest-piercing blood-n-gore for both the leather-boy and the frat boy to be both aroused by and bothered by) and politically metaphored (aka macho jar-headed white guys vs. interloping terroristic golden brown guys), Snyder has pounded every square peg into every round hole he could find and in doing so has let loose a Pandora's box of phallic Freudian psychobabble and right-winged rhetoric spin-doctoring unto an already applesauce'd burlesque of inanity. Ultimately, Snyder's sophomore (and sophomoric) film plays out as an excitably unexciting yet hilariously hysterical (as Nathan Lee of The Village Voice has called it) mélange of utter flapdoodle and mad cow-riddled absurdity - all fried up in a synthetically manufactured landscape of digital drudgery. Run, don't walk from the blob that is 300.


  • MARIE ANTOINETTE a film review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Marie Antoinette  (2006)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 10/12/06)

    What does one get when one combines postmodern pop sensibility, French Nouvelle Vague philosophies and eighties new wave music and pour it all into an 18th century period piece already stuffed fat and full with ravishing costumes, luscious set pieces and sexually decadent behaviour? One gets Sofia Coppola's best film yet!

    Opening with a wink and a nod, and full of candy-coloured confections of awkward yet graceful charm and wry wit, Marie Antoinette perhaps is not as surfacely deep as her two earlier films, but it does share with her predecessors a claustrophobic sense of entrapment and unheeded privilege. Like Scarlett Johansson's Charlotte in Lost in Translation, afraid to venture pass the lobby of her plush Park Hyatt Tokyo, and Kirsten Dunst herself as Lux Lisbon in The Virgin Suicides, a languorous kitten trapped by society inside her own imagined world, Marie, just fourteen when sent to marry the Dauphin of France, Louis Auguste, is like a lost little bird trapped inside the gilded cage that is Versailles. These girls, squelched by the strangulation of privilege, are what Coppola does best - for obvious autobiographical reasons - and she does it with her most grandiose hand yet in Marie Antoinette. Do not let yourself be fooled, for this is not your mother's historical biopic - it is frivolity underscored with seriousness.

    Instead of faking the mannersims of a staunchy haughty period piece - so overblown by many a great director in the past - Coppola sends Dunst out with the voice of a mall queen with daddy's credit card in her Prada bag - princess of the all-nite rave. Many critics have said Coppola and Dunst portray the teen queen as an 18th century Paris Hilton - and this is probably true on many fronts - but they also show that being Paris Hilton (or any other rich bitch prima donna) may not be all that great a thing to be after all - you just might lose your head over it.

    Full of music two hundred years out of time, this pomo set piece plays out as if The Cure or New Order are perfectly in sync with an 18th century masqued ball or a royal coronation. One number in particular, Bow Wow Wow's I Want Candy booms across the soundtrack as Marie and her ladies-in-waiting go on a shopping spree full of decadent wardrobes, delicious shoes (including a pair of purple Converse snuck in for flair) and resplendantly ridiculous hairstyles - never once seeming out of place. The modern music and period setting may be rather similar in vein to the films of Baz Luhrmann, but Coppola manages to weave her way past the overly trite style of a film like Moulin Rouge and belts out a film not only full of magniloquence and pretty party pieces, but also of a subtly meaty political underpining beneath the pink frosted exterior that is this pop star Versailles.

    Peripherally responsible for the starvation of France which in turn led to the French Revolution which in turn led to the beheading of both Antoinette and Louis XVI, Coppola's queen is played more for sympathy than sneer (which assuredly led to the few boo's it recieved from the Cannes balconies). Showing instead, Marie Antoinette as an apathetic hautier that more likely than not never even came into contact with the "people of France" let alone was in any capable state to rule them. The scapegoat of history - her crime being perhaps more an innocent indifference than a calculated reign of terror - Marie Antoinette was more the giggling schoolgirl of privilege than anything else. Not that this is any excuse for what the French citizenry endured during those days before the revolution (remember when George Bush the Father could not even fathom a guess on how much a quart of milk cost?), but it is most likely the most accurate way to look at this child queen.

    Even the surely apocryphal "let them eat cake" quote (the comment that launched a thousand guillotines) is played at by Coppola as if it were a snide little remark to be manipulated and teased - and Dunst's Marie, a pretty powdered present from Austria to France is commented on as "a piece of cake" early on in the film. All this leading to a pop film that seems at first glance nothing more than confectionary sugar and pink and blue sprinkles, but on deeper reflection can be seen as a politically charged dress-up film of revolutionary standards. A film that is set between 1765 and 1793 with music from 1980 through 1985 and is postmodern enough to have the heart of the cinematic future beating beneath its ostentatious chest.

    Finally, in the end, although we all know the outcome (and if you do not then read a book once and a while) we still feel a kind of sadness at this fall of eden - a child's eden at that.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<November 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345


Categories
 


Advertisement