AMOUR 2/3/13

Amour directed by Michael Haneke is a movie that is very hard for me to review objectively. My father had a serious stroke and my mother at 80 years old was his main care-giver for two years along with wonderful 24 hour live-in help, and my sister and I. It was wrenching to see my father who was a retired Architect not able to talk, barely move one arm, have a feeding tube because he was unable to swallow, etc. confined to a wheelchair. He would scribble down letters that were almost indecipherable in an effort to communicate, words sliding up and down the paper. And in spite of the tragedy of this situation, I cherished those last years. My parents like the couple in the film were a very close, devoted couple. My father as opposed to the heroine in Amour wanted to live one more day just to catch another glimpse of my mother - his eyes following her around the room– that says it all.

Therefore I was surprised at how dispassionate I felt seeing this film which portrays the reality of approaching death and how it pits the will to die vs. the will to keep someone you love alive as long as possible. We first meet the two retired music teachers, entering their elegant apartment and seeing that the front door lock has been tampered with – indicating an attempted “break-in”, a bit too obvious a metaphor for all that follows. There is also a pigeon flying in and out of a window – another patent metaphor about allowing in or shutting out the vitality of  “living.”

The story continues the next morning at breakfast when the couple’s contented lives are upended by the wife (Emmanuelle Riva) staring blankly into space not responding to her husband’s questions - most probably she had a TIA (Transitory Ischemic Attack) - a forerunner of a stroke which shortly thereafter becomes a full-blown stroke paralyzing her on the left side. Though confined to a wheelchair she is still able to talk, eat and communicate, but the narrowing of one’s life that illness can envelope you with continues; soon after she experiences a more devastating stroke and this time the wife is confined to bed frustrated by her inability to communicate and her deteriorating circumstance. The tug-of-war between living and dying now seriously begins. Isabelle Huppert, their daughter who is a musician, and is constantly traveling, comes in and out of the picture with unwelcome (to her father) advice; her character gives us a more rounded picture of the “family” – grandchildren, etc as well as getting a peek at mother-daughter issues.

I found both Emmanuelle Riva’s and Jean-Louis Trintignant’s performances to be delicate, sensitive, and physically convincing. The acting was superb with its attention to exquisite non-verbal details. A halting step moments before an oncoming stroke revealed the cataclysmic brain storm ahead. Attempting to lift his wife out of her wheelchair, Trintignant holds her tightly to his chest a beat too long, speaking volumes about their past and the present. When communication is reduced to pleading looks passing between them, and the gutteral sound of a voice uttering seemingly meaningless words, we know that separation is inevitable.

On reflection, I realized that the gist of the movie is not only a penetratingly honest study of the last years of life, but also a study of a claustrophobic love relationship, and both Riva's and Trintignant’s “pride” that bordered on martyrdom. Even in a crisis the husband decided to do all the work that a nurse, physical and speech therapist  should be doing, and I tired of hearing  “pardon” (sorry) constantly being uttered by the couple to one another because naturally guilt and resentment arise out of this devastating tragic occurrence. The initial humiliation and pride in having to rely on others to tend to our most  basic needs is a fact of end-stage of life for many people. What frustrated me most with Emmanuelle Riva's character was when she was still clearly able to communicate, could read, eat, listen to her beloved music, etc. - she still wanted to die. I thought of all those people with disabilities confined to wheelchairs who go through much more than she did at that stage, but eventually accept their situation and live full intellectual and productive lives. 

 In conclusion, despite all that I have written,  I salute this film for its ruthless honesty and have to remember that  each individual copes with the abyss of the unknown in his/her own way. My response to Amour cannot be separated from my own family’s personal experience and while watching it I conceded that I was too clinical and angry. Any other emotional reaction might hit too close to home so I preferred to remain detached.

QUARTET 1/27/13

I am of the age where I am very sensitive to Ageism and what I consider stereotypical portrayals of the elderly and their mental “failings”. One in eight seniors – particularly “upper seniors” (above 80 years old) has Alzheimer’s disease or Dementia.  Forgetfulness has become a joke in many films and people in the audience have a good chuckle over "memory loss" humor. Quartet, a slight film, affectionately directed by Dustin Hoffman, though well intentioned, takes advantage of this aspect of “amusement” through the behavior of some of his personalities – lively but also predictably typecast. A sadness pervades the movie, even if laced with comic situations and light-heartedness.

The drama takes place in Beecham House for Retired Musicians and involves the need to raise money through a Gala Event to keep the Home solvent for the residents to continue living there. The Quartet in the film are made up of four opera singers who were luminaries in the past planning to sing Act 3 quartet (“Bella figlia dell’amore”) from Verdi’s “Rigoletto.” Part of the plot revolves around getting one egocentric diva, Maggie Smith whose presence is a catalyst for emotional disruption, to join the other three in this endeavor, knowing that her presence would bring in patronage and much needed funding.

The movie focuses on professional and personal relationships past and present – the vagaries of aging and the sentiment that there is a need for camaraderie and supportive relationships at the end years of one’s life. The inhabitants are all getting older, but of course there is still a future ahead of them. Most of the residents are opera singers and classical musicians, and one of the most enjoyable highlights of Quartet was listening to them rehearse and interact with one another in a very idyllic physical environment which often belied their own physical impairments.

Dustin Hoffman is now 75 and this movie addresses the passing of time, often with sympathy but also too often with banal characterizations. He has compiled a terrific cast of actors – Maggie Smith, the imperious Michael Gambon, an excellent “still-wild-after-all-these-years” Billy Connolly, the perky Pauline Collins, and Tom Courtenay who made a powerful impression on me when in 1962 I saw him in  Loneliness of The Long Distance Runner. To be honest I would not have recognized him today had I not known who this actor was.  And that is the crux of Quartet. Does being advanced in years erase the memory of our achievements? I don’t think so. I believe that our life stories change and alter who we are, bringing us  new challenges, richness, and  the  pathos that every one of us must struggle with.

56 UP 1/18/13

I am an inquisitive person who loves to hear and view the arc of people’s lives. I wonder what they were like as children, imagine them as teenagers, young adults, arriving at middle age, etc. Now that I am older I look back and see life as a narrative that has its high and low moments – surprises, delights, tragedies and emotional trajectories. Michael Apted the director of 56 Up took on this challenge with his Up Documentary series following a group of 14 individuals from differing backgrounds and regions of the United Kingdom from the age of 7 in 1964 – interviewing them and coming back to film them every seven years – so we are now in their 56^th year.

Expectations and regrets are tied up in this amazingly ambitious undertaking. I am in awe of the scope of this project that is astonishing in its wide-ranging breadth of investigation. Apted’s revisiting his subjects, viewed by some with ambivalence, and others with delight, or as an intrusion, can be both boring and mesmerizing. Depending on the interview-ee, a few were witheringly honest with the film-maker about the distortions (after editing and cutting) that the snippets/synopsis of the hours of footage of their lives, during these 7 year summary intervals, projected about their personal existence, often resorting to sound-bites without delving into a deeper understanding of how singular a life is lived.

Class distinctions were evident in the language, the clothes, the schools and Universities that the subjects did or did not attend. The World’s economic downturn impacted the working class much more than those who went to Universities, particularly the single mothers who had the hardest time coping to provide for their offspring, but had a resilience that was quite stirring and impressive. The family unit was a source of joy in almost every instance. The impact of how one’s life is lived is seen on their physiognomy as well. Some aged more attractively than others; life’s richness and disappointments are patina-ed and burnished on their faces and bodies. But what I found wonderful to experience is how some of the participants’ lives were more deeply realized at the age of 56 than they had ever envisioned.

I recommend this Documentary – despite Michael Apted’s often cursory and “pat” repetition of the same basic questions addressed to each subject. The gracefully edited flashbacks from previous films helped make sense of the years gone by, and were brilliantly interspersed with present-day footage.  This is a movie that reinforces the speed of life’s passing… time does go by quickly and unrelentingly which can be both depressing and invigorating. 

ZERO DARK THIRTY 1/13/13

Zero Dark Thirty directed by Kathryn Bigelow, is basically a penetrating film about a woman's  obsession and her part in the dramatic search for Usama Bin Laden (UBL).  The movie starts at the beginning of this country's pursuit of UBL and travels through time showing us the manpower, intelligence, interrogation and physical means used to eventually capture “the mastermind” of the September 11, 2001 attack on the USA. To say that this is a film about torture or condoning torture adulterates the vast scope of this massive and critical undertaking. Torture is treated realistically – not gratuitously and in the film is revealed to be both salutary and non-beneficial often resulting in false leads and baseless information. Though there is a documentary aspect to the film – we must not forget that this is an exciting, action MOVIE vividly and artfully dramatized. Time is capsulated, torture is distinctly displayed referencing images that were already familiar to most Americans  from the many photos we had seen at Abu Ghraib which “shocked” our nation around 2004-2006.  Water-boarding, dog collars, humiliating degradation of the detainees were all part and parcel of the news which captured the headlines daily.

The trail starts early - beginning with the attack on 9-11, we hear voices of the people who were trapped in the Twin Towers crying for help. There is a blank darkened screen with no visuals or gut-wrenching images of the coming tragedy.  We then proceed to meeting the young CIA operative, beautifully and cooly acted by Jessica Chastain, who becomes the film's focus. Her quest to capture UBL, which includes pursuing him by finding his associates and getting the intelligence that is needed to link to Bin Laden is her single-track preoccupation. Chastain is fixated on capturing Usama Bin Laden never deviating from her instincts. According to the film – it is her unyielding passionate certainty that propels the movie into the final apprehension and death of UBL. The storming of his compound is electrifying and stunning visually, and the resulting destruction is disastrous and as often happens, innocent lives are tragically lost.

This movie is not as emotionally wrenching as was The Hurt Locker, which fixated on the psychology of those fighting in Iraq and how that War penetrated their very beings and revealed who they were to themselves and their families. Rather this film is about the mechanics and methods used by a US Agency – CIA to carry out the biggest manhunt in American history. It is almost clinical in its depiction – we don’t get intensely involved with the individual characters, but rather we see a Government in action and the individuals who motivate, impel and drive the narrative to get what they feel they need to “protect” our country no matter how ruthless the struggle reminding us that war is hell.

THE PROMISED LAND 1/6/13

The Promised Land is a simplistic film which does not live up to any promise. It will be welcomed by those who are against "fracking", but it turns out to be purely propagandistic cinema - good vs. evil - starring MattDamon, a representative for a major Gas Corporation, who when we first meet him has been promoted to a high position in that company. Damon is so wishy-washy a character that I found him totally unbelievable having difficulty articulating his pro-fracking position as well as his shaky moral values. His partner in manipulating the populace is Frances McDormand - who is on her cellphone throughout most of the film, and does add a comedic presence to the movie, but not much more. I have heard better balanced anti and pro-fracking arguments on NPR than anything I learned in this conventional tale of righteousness.

The debate pits an ex-engineer, MIT graduate, greatly admired schoolteacher- Hal Holbrook as the voice of the fracking opposition who makes much more sense explaining the insidious consequences of fracking than poor Matt Damon who in his one intense scene speaks to local townspeople about "fuck-you" money which he doles out to farmers who allow the Gas Company drilling rights on their lands. The Fuck-You money Theory (if you have money then you can say "fuck you" to obtaining student loans for your kids, "fuck you" to having a mortgage, etc) speaks to money buying you that freedom. Damon's other "nemesis" is an "environmentalist" (John Krasinski) who starts a grass-roots campaign to make the townspeople aware of the dangers to their farms, their livestock and the drinking water, etc.

The plot is predictable with a predictable love story thrown in, and a narrative that has to resort to a "deus ex-machina" ending that is manipulative, unrealistic and totally out of character with the earnestness of Damon's early beliefs.

I was groaning and muttering under my breath, not only with the lame dialogue but with some of Gus van Sant's cinematic techniques that were so hackneyed that I could not believe that this was the same Director who did Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho, films that I have loved in the past.

DJANGO UNCHAINED 12/27/12

I loved Django Unchained - my favorite film by Quentin Tarantino since Pulp Fiction. It is a "genre" film - as he has described his movies in a recent interview - this time taking the Italian Spaghetti Western and setting it in the South in 1858 - two years before the Civil War complete with music that is quirky and wide ranging including James Brown, Johnny Cash and the composer Ennio Morricone (he was the composer of many of those original Italian Westerns directed by Sergio Leone such as The Good The Bad and The Ugly and Once Upon A Time in America.)

This movie views slave culture as seen through the eyes of an "unchained" free-man Django and the man who "buys his freedom" and becomes his "partner" a German-born bounty hunter. The two are a terrific team. This movie gives us an un-expurgated brutal vision of overweening racism, the slaves and the plantation slave owners as well as a look into the hierarchy of slave society and their roles vis-a-vis their Masters. Employing the bitterly ironic humor, theatrical violence and over-the-top Tarantino style, the dialogue is often humorous and campy but deadly serious and always refreshingly original. This is very much a tale of revenge and of a love which will not be erased by horrific obstacles. It is beautifully acted by Jamie Foxx as a soft-voiced, never distracted from his mission Django ("The D is silent",) Leonardo di Caprio - the heinous slave owner, Samuel L. Jackson as the wily House slave who helped raise Di Caprio and is his advisor, and the sophisticated might-be considered a scoundrel German Christopher Waltz who tells Django the story of Brunhilda and Siefried cementing our hero's determination to fulfill his quest in spite of the most dire circumstances.

This movie is filled with choreographed violence - literal blood baths but the history of slavery was one of power and raging cruelty so it all fits together.

Great discussion on Django on NPR with Michel Martin and her weekly group called The Barbershop. Start listening to Podcast at 8:19 sec.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/28/168202846/is-em-django-unchained-em-the-blackest-film-ever

THE HOBBIT 12/25/12

Very simply The Hobbit is a tale of a displaced people (in this case Dwarves) struggling to reclaim their Lonely Mountain Kingdom; in doing so wandering through the lands to reach that home. There are trials by fire and the "help of Wizards - one being Gandalf The Gray - subtly and merrily not-so-subtly played by the wonderful Ian McKellan and Galadriea the fairest and most powerful Maiden in Elve Land acted by the beautiful Cate Blanchett. I regretted not seeing more of her as she is such an aesthetic feast for my eyes.

That this adventure takes place in Middle Earth - prequel to The Lord of the Rings does not change a basic tale of mankind's journey and fight for their homeland. I found the early scenes in the Hobbitshire charmingly fairytale-ish and the dialogue between Bilbo Baggins ( a well-cast Martin Freeman) and Gandalf quite amusing and also touching on another universal theme - the quiet, unassuming home-body who goes on an adventure and steps out of his/her "ordinary" life and thereby changes him/herself and the "world."

I must admit to terrible boredom with fight scenes between goblins and various creatures on scary wolf-like animals and wait for those scenes to end-my only fascination with them is how they are choreographed.

The pivotal and most moving scene in the film is between the wonderful Andy Serkis as the schizophrenic Gollum (fighting between his dark and light side - evident by his eyes and facial expressions) and Bilbo who discovers more about his own character through this encounter.

This film also uses special effects, and all that CGI can do to make a small lovely book The Hobbit, into a 3 part movie - with all the money that it will rake in. So a day fairly well spent but not great by any means...though the spare ribs I had right afterwards were delicious and satisfied a rib yearning I had for a long time