Todos los telediarios cuentan con un espacio de previsión meteorológica. Son unos pocos segundos en que nos enteramos sobre la probabilidad de que llueva, nieve, haga frío o calor. Puede que sea un estereotipo, pero me atrevería a decir que la información suele ser presentada por una chica atractiva que añade encanto a lo que normalmente es una trivialidad. En todo caso, prefiero cuando es así.
Este personaje, la presentadora del tiempo, es la co-protagonista de La fille coupée en deux. Ludivine Sagnier interpreta a Gabrielle, una chica que esta vez no desaparece tras la previsión del tiempo, sino que se convierte en el eje central de la más reciente película de Claude Chabrol. El romance entre Gabrielle y un maduro escritor de éxito se convierte en pasión, de ella hacia él. La relación es motivo de escenas muy interesantes sobre la subjetividad de la atracción, sobre todo porque hay otro personaje involucrado, joven y rico, enamorado de Gabrielle, pero con suficientes complejos de inferioridad y traumas psicológicos como para que a ella le resulte indiferente.
La fille coupée en deux puede llegar a ser, según como se mire, cruel, reveladora o excitante, posibles lecturas que se mezclan en variaciones de lolita o la creación de un Pigmalión cínico y decadente. Claude Chabrol añade al viejo tema del talentoso intelectual que seduce a la, quizá mediocre, pero sensual y deseada joven, una contrapartida: el pretendiente heredero de una gran fortuna, aunque totalmente sometido a su inseguridad y “falta de orgullo”. Posiblemente sea un esbozo de explicación (¿justificación?) de esta relación entre sensibilidades y vidas tan dispares (chica del tiempo-escritor reconocido). La libertad económica es como mucho un pretexto para aquella otra que la incluye y la trasciende, la libertad de los actos, de ser lo que se es. De alguna manera esto parece ser lo que pretende “enseñarle” Charles Saint Denis (el escritor que interpreta François Berléand) a Gabrielle: la libertad del espíritu, los códigos del buen vivir. Hacer ver que la experiencia y el talento son superiores, o en todo caso portadores de atractivo y seducción, es un motivo que ya fue tratado en la Antigüedad. Es un desplazamiento interesado del objeto del deseo que aleja el erotismo del dominio corporal.
A punto de cumplir los 30 años es difícil pensar en Ludivine Sagnier como una lolita cinematográfica, pero todavía puede presumir de personajes frescos y desinhibidos por la inocencia. Hace ya seis años, en Swimming pool, demostró que para ella es muy fácil seducir sin apenas proponérselo, y en La fille coupée en deux sigue siendo esa chica que por alguna razón (no es necesario racionalizar demasiado) atrae casi como una necesidad. Sin duda alguna es por ello que los directores se fijan en ella para estos personajes tan diferentes y a la vez con algo que los une: la personalidad de una actriz que se ha ido construyendo a sí misma (actua desde los 10 años), que sabe lo que quiere y lo que se espera de ella.
En La fille coupée en deux se ha puesto en manos de un director de amplia y muy valorada cinematografía, Claude Chabrol, con quien alcanza otro tipo de consagración y entra en el dominio de los clásicos del cine francés. El personaje de Gabrielle Deneige le da la posibilidad de exhibir sensualidad y dramatismo, es una chica cortada en dos por varias razones, aunque al final del espectáculo reaparezca con una sonrisa que parece esconder más dolor que alegría. La chica que presentaba el tiempo al comienzo de la película casi se convierte en otro personaje al final. Quizá haya aprendido algo del “espíritu libre” de su amante-maestro Charles. La lección ha terminado trágicamente, o en todo caso, con desilusión y gran dosis de desgarramiento. La fille coupée en deux es una historia cínica que se mueve entre el fuego de la pasión y la prueba del tiempo, la ingenuidad y la plena conciencia. Es, posiblemente, una nueva ola de pensamiento e inquietud, la más frívola de ellas una razón para seguir una carrera femenina que desde hace ya tiempo provoca culto y fascinación.

“Saladus”, 2007. Rež Claude Miller, osades Cécile de France, Patrick Bruel, Ludivine Sagnier, Matthieu Almaric jt

Claude Milleri “Saladus” on selline film, mis võiks samahästi olemata olla. Eriti kuna see põhineb Philippe Grimbert’i autobiograafilisel romaanil. Raamat, mille olemasolu on ilmselt õigustatud, juba on, milleks siis veel see. Filmi saatis Prantsusmaal loomulikult edu, sest on vajutatud kõiki õigeid nuppe. Traagika jaoks on sisse toodud holokaust, prantslasliku rahvustunde üleskloppimiseks toimub tegevus okupatsiooniajal ja kõik see on kaetud romantilise vahuga. Prantslasi on kujutatud kõigi juutide sõpradena, lisaks kõlavad sellised laused nagu “Me elame Prantsusmaal. Teate küll, vabaduse maal” jne. Paistab, et kaks perioodi lähiajaloost – Saksa okupatsioon ja 68. a üliõpilasrahutused – on need, mis publiku Prantsusmaal alati kinno toovad. Lugu saab alguse enne Teist maailmasõda ja jutustab ühe juudiperekonna loo kuni tänapäevani. Jutustajaks on pärast sõda sündinud François (Mathieu Almaric), keda lapsest peale kummitab tunne, et tema perekonnas pole asjad päris korras. Filmi kulgedes hakkab ta suurele saladusele jälile jõudma, aga kui see on välja tulnud, suubub film nõretavasse melodraamasse. Eriti kohutav ämber on originaalkaadrid vangilaagritest ja inimeste ühishauda ajamisest, mida noor François ajalootunnis vaatab. Justkui tahetaks vaatajale selgeks teha, et filmil on tõsi taga, ja kas te ikka saate aru, kui õudne see kõik oli. Mina loen siit välja ainult seda, et holokaust on tulus rahateenimisvõimalus. Kui Adorno arvas, et luule kirjutamine pärast Auszchwitzi oleks barbaarne, millena siis seda tõsiuskset filmilugu määratleda?

Nemico pubblico N. 1 – L'ora della fuga (Mesrine: L'ennemi public n° 1) è un film del 2008 diretto da Jean-François Richet, seconda parte di un dittico formato con Nemico pubblico N. 1 – L'istinto di morte (Mesrine: L'instinct de mort), che racconta la storia vera del gangster francese Jacques Mesrine.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Azione | Biografico | Drammatico | Jean-François Richet | Ludivine Sagnier | Mathieu Amalric | Vincent Cassel

L’ennemi public n°1 (Mesrine: Part 2 – Public Enemy #1) is part two (of two) of a biopic about Jacques Mesrine, directed by Jean-François Richet and starring Vincent Cassel, Ludivine Sagnier and Mathieu Amalric. [Review of the first movie here.]

Plot:
L’ennemi public n°1 starts with Mesrine’s (Vincent Cassel) death, then goes back for a while and unroll things until he dies (again). This time round, we see trials and prisone time for Mesrine, but also break-outs and political activism. There’s a little bit of Catch Me If You Can going on with police officer Broussard (Olivier Gourmet), and other stuff.
[If this plot summary sounds a little flighty, it is... but more on that later.]

The first part was good, though it had some problems. The second part was problem, though it had some goods. The cast is still strong, but the plot was all over the place, the pacing was off and I was more bored than anything else. Maybe that’s because they were trying to go for a light-hearted movie [at least compared to part one] with a really heavy-hearted topic. Just didn’t work.

Where I was full of compliments for writer Abdel Raouf Dafri for the first part, unfortunately I have to withdraw all of that for part two. There didn’t seem to be a stringent narrative in this movie, more like cool but only losely connected scenes glued together.

That’s also why my plot description sucks that much – there really isn’t much plot to describe. And what little there is, I have forgotten. [And that shouldn't have happened yet. I mean, I had no problem remembering Enfin veuve and I saw those movies in the same week.]

I remember scenes – like the one where they torture the fascist journalist or the interview Mesrine gives, but for the life of me, I couldn’t piece together a story…

I quite liked the Mesrine-Broussard dynamic, but we didn’t get to see much of it. And in the end, I still don’t know – was it Broussard who ordered Mesrine’s death? [If it wasn't for wikipedia, I'd still be doubting that it was the police who did this, btw., judging from the movie alone.]

Now they’ve shown his death three times in those two movies and they couldn’t make a clear point about who was responsible for it? I mean, what the hell?

And as I said before, the pacing was off. There was never any tension, not really.

The cast was good, though none of the actors got enough time to actually develop their characters – except for Vincent Cassel of course. It was a pretty big waste of a fine secondary cast.

Especially Sylvie (Ludivine Sagnier) just kind of shows up and then she’s there and after that she’s like a piece of furniture, shown when needed but not really integral to anything. Which was pretty disappointing after the strong (female) characters of the first movie.

Well, summarising: watch the first one, but skip this part. Unless you’re a really huge fan of Vincent Cassel. Because everything else falls short in this movie.

Ludivine Sagnier soaking up rays at the edge of a pool in a two-piece bikini.

Blonde French femme fatale makes waves by a pool.

She hasn’t been in much, but Ludivine Sagnier always manages to make scenes steam!

Read more about her at Times Online, see more at CelebsCentral.net.

Ludivine Sagnier topless during sex scene with Vincent Cassel
Florence Thomassin topless

I stared at the screen – the final scene – a close up of dripping blood from Mesrine’s head.

If you salute to Godfather and its sequels, you will take your hats off to this brilliant gangster film of the year.

Jean-Francois Richet’s second-part biopic of Jacque Mesrine is even more exciting! More bank robberies, more prison breaks, more escapes, at one point Mesrine was holding a judge as his hostage – one of the many highlights in the film. Kidnapping, car chasing, gun shooting, bang! bang! bang!

This installment revealed more the psychology behind Mesrine’s acts – how did he use mass media to get his household name status in France and how he fell out with the media and thus became a notorious criminal and finally gunned down in the street of Paris by a carefully planned police operation.

Mesrine’s charisma was brilliantly captured by Vincent Kassel, who obviously gained quite a bit of weight for playing the role. Mesrine ’s multifaceted personalities – violent, ruthless,  smug,  humorous, and yet he loves pretty women. They found him irresistible – women!

The music just added more excitement to the incredibly swift pace. I was fascinated by the stylishness and the thrilling sequence throughout the film.

Finally, Ludivine Sagnier   was sensational – she was naked again. “But I didn’t get naked in cheap movies. It’s not in order to tease the audience and it never got obscene……” She said in an interview.

“Molière”, 2007. Rež Laurent Tirard, osades Romain Duris, Fabrice Luchini, Laura Morante, Edouard Baer, Ludivine Sagnier, Fanny Valette jt

Selles Molière’i elu käsitlevas kostüümikomöödias võib näha kolme väga head Prantsuse komöödianäitlejat. Romain Duris ja Fabrice Luchini saavad küll sama hästi hakkama ka draamadega, Edouard Baeriga (“Ma olen alati tahtnud gangster olla”) käib aga alati kaasas mingi huumoriaura, nii et ta isegi draamades kuidagi koomilisena mõjub. Näib, et aeg-ajalt on vist kohustus oma kultuuri suurkujud kapist välja võtta ja nad tolmust puhtaks kloppida, kuid õnneks pole “Molière’i” näol tegemist mingi tõsismeelse kummardusega suurele geeniusele, vaid puhtakujulise fiktsiooniga tema elu ainetel, mistõttu jääb mulje, et ka näitlejad tunnevad end vabamalt. Lugu algab raamjutustusega, kus Molière (Romain Duris) naaseb pärast 13 aastat kestnud ringsõitu provintsides Pariisi , kus ta Louis XIV loal ühes teatris komöödiaid võib etendada. Tagasi jõudnud, kutsutakse ta külastama surevat pr Jourdaini (Laura Morante), kelle voodi juurde jõudes meenub talle 13 aasta tagune aeg, kui nad kohtusid. Tollal 22-aastane Molière kadus siis mitmeks kuuks ning tema käikudest ja tegemistest nende kuu jooksul pole midagi teada. Film täidab selle lünga, ja nüüd algab puhas väljamõeldis: Molière satub võlavanglasse, kust ta päästab rikas, kuid tiitlita Jourdain (Fabrice Luchini), kes palkab ta endale näitlemisõpetajaks. Nimelt on Jourdain armunud noorde leske (Ludivine Sagnier), kelle võlumiseks ta nüüd kõvasti trenni teeb: maalib, luuletab, näitleb, ratsutab, vehkleb jne, kõike umbes üks minut päevas.  Nüüd on ta võtnud nõuks kirjutada näidendi, mille ta kavatseb lese salongis ette kanda, ja selleks ta Molière’iga lepingu sõlmibki. Oma abikaasale pr Jourdainile ütleb ta seletuseks, et Molière on vaimulik õpetaja, kelle ta nende nooremale tütrele palkas. Tark pr Jourdain näeb aga Molière’i teeskluse kohe läbi ja nende vahel tärkab armastus…

Filmi tuleks kiita heade näitlejatööde ning teemasse vabalt suhtumise eest. Dialoogides ja süžeekäikudes on sageli kasutatud karaktereid ja fraase Molière’i näidenditest: näiteks Jourdain on tegelaskuju “Tartuffe’ist” ja Tartuffe’i nime all esineb ka Molière ise Jourdaini pool viibides. Kaunis luuletus, mida Jourdain ette kannab, on pärit “Naeruväärsetest eputistest”. See on niivõrd suurepärane, et pean selle siinkohal ära tooma: “Oi-oi! Kui ettevaatamata, / jäin teid ma vahtima nii pahaaimamata, / ja teie pilk südame mult salamahti haaras: / Oh, võtke kinni varas! Varas! Varas! Varas!” (A. Sanga tõlge)

Sääraselt üles ehitatud komöödiaga käib Tirard sama teed, mida alustas John Madden mitmete Oscaritega pärjatud “Armunud Shakespeare’is“. Molière’ist on tehtud tegelane tema oma näidendites, justkui oleks kõik, millest ta kirjutas ja mida ta pilas, tema endaga juhtunud. Kuid sealjuures ei tohi ära unustada, et ajalooliselt sel tõepõhja all pole, kuna Molière’ist on vähe säilinud – kaasaegsed temast palju ei kirjutanud ja tema oma käega kirjutatust on alles vaid mõnikümmend allkirja. Niisiis polegi see muud kui müstilisele suurkujule kaasaegses võtmes eluvaimu sisse puhumine, millele lisatakse puhuti mitte väga sügavaid arutlusi kõrge kunsti (tragöödia) ja madala kunsti (komöödia) vahekorrast ning jõutakse järelduseni, et ka komöödia võib olla kõrge kunst. Kuid eelkõige on Tirard’i “Molière’i” näol tegu meelelahutusega, mis ülihea komöödia mõõtu siiski välja ei anna.

DADOS DO ARQUIVO
Formato: RMVB
Qualidade: DVDRip
Áudio: Francês
Legenda: Português
Tamanho: 311 MB
Divididos em: 3 partes
Servidor: Rapidshare

Sinopse: Ismaël (Louis Garrel) perambula sem direção por Paris. Erwann (Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet) apressa um pouco seu passo. Já Jeanne (Chiara Mastroianni) é condenada à imobilidade e Alice (Clotilde Hesme) anda ao lado de Ismaël, mas ela resolve se afastar do seu caminho para seguir outra história, agora com um rapaz bretão que acaba de conhecer.

DOWNLOAD:
Parte 1
Parte 2
Parte 3

Hot town, summer in the city. Yep, London’s in the midst of a heatwave and The Movie Overdose has not been spared its wrath. In the sweltering studio, the gents have a chat about Sunshine Cleaning, the trailer for The Invention of Lying and the teaser for M Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender. They decide whether they care about extending the Best Picture category at the Oscars, the storytelling abilities of Kevin Smith and the astounding filmmaking of Fritz Lang. Finally, they conclude with the return of the list, recounting their five most beloved female crushes.

Download The Movie Overdose Episode 24

Check out all the links on the side of the page to follow us on Twitter, email us, become fans on Facebook or subcribe to the show on iTunes.

“Pooleks lõigatud tüdruk”, 2007. Rež Claude Chabrol, osades Ludivine Sagnier, François Berléand, Benoît Magimel.

Vanameister Claude Chabrol, kes kuulus ka nouvelle vague’i režissööride ja mõtestajate tuumikusse, on filme teinud juba õige mitu kümnendit, kuigi tema viimase aja looming erilist tähelepanu ei köida. Nüüdsel ajal teeb ta klassikalise kirjanduse ekraniseeringuid või (kerge) kriminaalse alatooniga filme, armastades sageli kasutada mõnd päris elust võetud päevauudist, mille ümber ta oma loo punub. Nii on ka selle filmiga. Süžee aluseks on 1906. a USAs aset leidnud vägivaldne vahejuhtum, millega olid seotud noor tantsijanna, tema miljardärist ja pleiboist abikaasa ja kuulus New Yorgi arhitekt Stanford White, vanem meesterahvas. Tegelikult on sellest loost inspireeritud armukolmnurk leidnud juba varemgi tee filmilinale, nimelt Richard Fleischeri 1955. a filmis “The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing”. Kuigi kaasaegse versiooni režissööri sõnul oli tema eesmärgiks käsitleda perverssust ilma seda näitamata ja samuti osutab ta filmi puudutavates sõnavõttudes näiliku-tõelise vahekorrale (filmis on palju peegleid, televisiooni, lõpus ka tükk mustkunsti, mis käib samasse simulaakrumite lahtrisse),  siis seekordne filmiversioon on ikkagi peaaegu et mõttetu. Ainsana jätab mulje Ludivine Sagnier, kes suudab tõesti mängida täiesti süütut neiukest ja tema ääretut piinarikast kasvamise lugu, mõjudes alati usutavana. Omamoodi huvitav on jälgida selle noore daami rollivalikuid – sageli on need seotud (naiseliku) seksuaalsuse, häbi ja alanduse piiridega, ning tagajärgedega, mis kaasnevad nendest üleastumisega. Benoît Magimeli nartsissistlik tegelaskuju mõjub aga uskumatult tühjana, muutes filmi kohati iseenese haledaks paroodiaks. Idee oli ju enam-vähem, aga tundub, et Claude Chabrolilgi ei õnnestunud vältida vanade režissööride lõksu – pahatihti on nii, et mida vanemaks saab režissöör, seda noorematest ja süütumatest naisisikutest tema filmid räägivad.

Inspired by the autobiography of Jacques Mesrine, these films span twenty years in the life of France’s self-styled public enemy number one.

Apparently, Vincent Cassel signed up for the project at an early stage, but as he became unhappy with the direction the script was taking, withdrew. Having replaced director Barbet Schroeder with Jean-François Richet (a man who cites as his inspiration several years spent working in a factory; hot on the tail of his ’success’ with the Assault on Precinct 13 remake), Cassel returned alongside screenwriter Abdel Raouf Dafri. The latter (clearly quite talented, as writer of the original screenplay for Cannes favourite Un Prophèt) was reticent because of the role the Algerian conflict played in Mesrine’s story. However, these three men went on to develop an interpretation of the material of a depth and scale apparently demanding two films.

Part One goes a little something like this. Mesrine (Cassel) returns from military service in Algeria and gradually resolves to embark upon a life of violent crime. There is some kind of interaction with his parents, his mate, his new boss Guido (a phoned-in Gérard Depardieu), a prostitute, a Spanish girl he falls for, impregnates, moves in with, and swiftly forgets; there are robberies, of homes, of banks, of clubs, with loud noises and blood; there is punishment, and escape from prison, repeated escape from prison; followed by exile to Canada with a new wife and partner in crime. Within an hour, it has become frustrating. Half an hour later, boredom sets in. Any depth to L’instinct de Mort, any connections between events which suggest a meaning, must be painstakingly reconstructed from the fragmented pieces. What was supposed to be a commentary on the amorality of ambition, the thin line between fame and infamy, becomes a garbled struggle to squeeze in more than the film can accommodate. I couldn’t wait for Part Two.

In L’ennemi public n°1, Mesrine continues to rob, abduct, evade, get caught, bust out, again and again. Half an hour in, and I’ve given up hope. What is supposed to keep it fresh is his developing obsession with celebrity and writing his own myth, amongst other methods of challenging his valueless and cyclical existence. And there is something of a physical metamorphosis in Cassel, who grows noticeably fatter as time goes on. Supposedly, Richet shot the film in reverse, enabling Cassel to shed rather then put on the pounds. But Mesrine doesn’t seem to change at all, or at least has no chance to demonstrate through character interaction whatever metamorphosis he has undergone. In fact, whatever character development does take place is instantly forgettable in the face of all that misogyny, crime and fancy dress (the evolution of Mesrine’s costumes, wigs and beards is the best indicator for the passage of time). Opportunities to play Mesrine against foils are squandered (and we cycle through many partners-in-crime with varying degrees of forgettability), with the possible exception of François Besse (the splendid Mathieu Amalric). And by the time the inevitable, rehearsed and long-overdue conclusion comes around, who cares about the death of Mesrine? It’s a race to get out the theatre.

Dafri has written an adaptation which, despite occasional and brief flourishes of wit and drama, has become terribly uninteresting, unstructured and undramatic. Scene sequences are so poorly executed that all pace, thematic continuity, and editorial elegance are lost. This creates the strange impression of over a dozen different little films rolled into one. There is the Badlands pastiche, the Hunger-esque prison abuse sequence, the heist movie, and so on. Mesrine seems to be written as though it were a contemporary hyperlink drama, but instead of weaving together multiple plot lines and finding meaning in their comparison and intersection, its stitches cover up gaps in just one story, missing out every opportunity to develop characters through dramatic interaction. Those scenes which ought to add some dimension or other to Jacques Mesrine are neutered and effectively redundant (for evidence, see any scene with his parents or lovers). Perhaps it makes more sense through the cultural background knowledge with which some French audiences may approach the films; perhaps this is like watching a Harry Potter movie without having read the book. It not only fails to generate momentum from personal drama, but also to capitalize on the potential intrigue of the Mesrine myth – all we catch of this central theme are a few snatched headlines and news spots, a brief aside on the publication of his book, and a newspaper interview toward the last act. Where are the followers of his cult?

The adaptation makes it difficult to separate judgements on the treatment and on the subject. This crypto-tautology serves to illustrate the difficulty I may have with assessing these films fairly, given how loathsome Mesrine becomes. It is part of their essence, as is made clear when Jacques Mesrine laughs off the notion that the crimes in his autobiography are accurately chronicled. We are witnessing the creation of his myth within that myth. In an attempt to capture this paradox from the beginning, there is a foreword, roughly translated: “No film can faithfully reproduce the complexity of a human life. To each, his point of view.” Nevertheless, L’ennemi public n°1 depicts Mesrine beyond the remit of his own work, and both films try throughout to let the abhorrent side of the man surface from time to time. Responding to his wife’s threat to call the police while he’s on a job, Mesrine beats her and forces a gun into her mouth before their son. He digs a knife around the insides of an Arab man he has gagged and stripped naked beside a shallow grave. He kidnaps a right-wing journalist who has publicly dismantled the Mesrine myth, makes him strip and beats him to a pulp, settling in for a good torture before being forced to finish him off. All of this, and more, on camera. On the occasions when Dafri and Richet seem to depart from Mesrine’s canon, it is no less difficult to pin down whether it is Mesrine or the film which is at fault. Is the consistent denial of any real substance to the female characters, other than physical and instrumental, an expression of Mesrine’s misogyny (for which his insertion of a pistol into his first wife’s mouth is an excellent symbol), or another fault with the film?

Might there be salvation in the minutae of the performances? Cassel is a tremendous actor who can seem to effortlessly evoke danger and charisma. His talents are almost wasted on a character chopped to pieces by poor composition. For all his immersion in a complex mind with a rich backstory, at no point does the audience have a chance to develop any degree of empathy, let alone sympathy, for Mesrine. And what is the point of all those action set-pieces when no one gives a toss about the characters? And listening to the audience in the interval, no one did. But since these films follow Jacques Mesrine for over 240 minutes, without ever diverting to a subplot, this is no tragedy for the formidable Cassel. It just means that his performance is reduced to a positivist account, a studied exhibition of behaviour with little meaning communicated to the audience. Perhaps Cassel’s Mesrine is supposed to be oddly static (a man who cannot grow, whose motivations are in stasis, caught between vicious pride and anxious self-doubt). Those who really suffer are the extensive and incredibly talented cast of supporting actors who are completely wasted: whether it’s Amalric as the one robber with a personality to counterpoint Mesrine (I’d rather watch a film about Besse); Anne Consigny as the attorney who smuggled pistols into prison to facilitate an escape, but whose lines make this seem entirely implausible; Ludivine Sagnier as a crumpet who doesn’t really get many lines between her initial sweaty, naked conquest and her first beating (at which point we are supposed to give credence to her feelings for Mesrine).

Richet is certainly more of a stylist than an aesthete. Might we find redemption in technique? He makes a series of stylistic choices which are flashy but ineffective. Why, every single time he films beside a car, must we adopt an awkward angle parallel to the side doors? Why split the screen to show several similar shots which add no dimensionality, or as an act-opening bookmark? Why make an already repetitive film worse by replicating the same shot and cut sequences over and over again? Why splice so much irrelevant material into a work already overlong? It comes across as heavy-handed to the point of ham-fistedness. And the violence? The representation of violence in the film, according to the EIFF website, manifests a “cold, brutal realism of which Hollywood can only dream”. But this is a realism which comes straight out of Hollywood: shaky fast-cut camera work for the tediously explosive action “set pieces” having evolved from Saving Private Ryan; graphic, ultra-realistic and technically complex on-screen wounds, stabbings, bludgeonings that could only happen on this scale after A History of Violence and Eastern Promises (although Europe does get a look in, with an incensing torture scene near the end of Part Two that calls to mind the fire-extinguisher attack of Irréversible). As I left the cinema, I heard several people comment on this violence. They seemed to think it was too hard, too real. I think they missed the point. I’d rather have an honest depiction of the trauma inherent to violence. But it needs to have a point: it needs to serve some purpose, even if it’s an aesthetic one; and it is outrageous to use it as a tool of emotional manipulation. The torture and murder of the journalist in the last thirty minutes seemed to be just that: a way of building a horrific down beat to lend Mesrine’s death some kind of resonance, even if it must be a vituperative, vengeful satisfaction of justice. Although a necessary part of Mesrine’s life story, I thought its instrumental presentation crass.

I’ve read comparison to Raging Bull, Once Upon A Time In America, The Godfather: Part II, and Scarface. At times, Jacques Mesrine seems to borrow features from Tony Montana, Michael Corleone, even Kit from Badlands. But these are unfair comparisons, because Jacques Mesrine is in no way as cohesive and developed as any of those criminal characters. A more apt comparable might be found in the recent Der Baader Meinhof Komplex, ironically called to mind by one of Mesrine’s quips. It seemed to suffer from a lot of the same faults. Mesrine is boring, obnoxious, broken. But I know there is the kernel of a good film lurking somewhere. Many passages, taken in isolation, could be part of a much better whole (consider Cassel and Amalric’s journey following the casino heist; the Canadian prison break; the courtroom drama). But these films completely fail to reproduce the complexity of a human life. They are, at best, a catalogue of events. I would put to them, as Amaric’s Besse put to Mesrine: “you are a spinning top, and the worst part is that you don’t even know about it.” Cassel is the one thing preventing it from spinning apart.

Mesrine: L’instinct de Mort // Mesrine: L’ennemi public n°1, Dir. Jean-François Richet, Writ. Abdel Raouf Dafri, Edit. Bill Pankow & Herve Schneid, Star. Vincent Cassel, Cécile De France, Gérard Depardieu & Ludivine Sagnier, Mathieu Amalric, Anne Consigny, etc, Momentum Pictures, France, 2008

Dear Reader,

We have this special channel here in Australia on our TVs, called SBS: Special Broadcasting Service.

See? I told you it was special. It even says so in the name.

It caters mostly to the homesickness and nostalgia needs of our vast multicultural community, and also to those in the borader community with an obsessive interest in the history of the Nazi era.

The other component of their scheduling is “world movies”, which means movies from… the world.

That is, not from Hollywood.

The best thing about the world is that they have sex and nudity there, and they’re not scared of filming either and putting the resulting footage into a movie.

Good on you, the world.

In Hollywood, they have this thing called the MPAA number, which they place at the end of all their movies. It’s very important, the MPAA number, as it means that the movie has passed a number of Amexican government censorship tests, including tests that reassure movie-consumers that the movie contains:

• No favourable depictions of socialist or communist lifestyles;
• No animals being actually (as opposed to apparently) harmed or injured (insects and terrorists excepted);
• No sex acts or nudity, unless highly stylised and gratuitous, and balanced by acts of random senseless violence at a ratio of 5:1 (i.e. five acts of senseless violence to every one act of nudity or stylised sex).

Now, i understand why they can’t show socialism and capitalism to be way fun, and i whole-heartedly endorse them not killing or harming animals for our entertainment, but i’m a bit sick of on-screen sexuality being either glossy soft-porn or snickering infantilisations.

Aren’t you?

Luckily, SBS shows these world movies, where characters fuck the way real people fuck. That is, without all the bullshit that Hollywood uses to mitigate using sex cynically, to sell their two-dimensional endorsements of the Amexican way of life.

And now we have a brand new SBS channel, called (imaginatively enough) SBS2.

At the moment it’s scheduling mostly parallel programming and repeats of movies that were on just a few weeks ago. Surely this is just while they wait for everyone to get their tuning right.

Then, if there’s any sense to anything or justice to be had, they’ll be screening continuous world movies.

Hurrah!

I reckon this means that they can leave the Indonesian news and the docos on Goebbels to SBS1.

All those in favour?

Yours,
Gullybogan

Un secret is a French movie by writer/director Claude Miller, based on Philippe Grimbert’s [French] autobiographic book [French] and starring Cécile de France, Patrick Bruel, Ludivine Sagnier, Julie Depardieu and Mathieu Almaric.

Plot:
The movie tells the story of François [in order of age: Valentin Vigourt, Quentin Dubuis and Mathieu Almaric] and his parents [Cécile de France, Patrick Bruel] in the 50s, 60s and today, respectively.
He always was a small, rather sick child and harshly felt the disappointment from his father, an athlete himself. To compensate for that, François imagines to have the perfect brother, who achieves all the things he doesn’t dare to.
But more things are going on in this family than just an overcompensating little boy in past-war France. And François slowly uncovers the secrets that are kept from him.

This really is a well-written, well-acted and well-made movie that I thoroughly enjoyed – after it stopped trying to surprise me.

[SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS]

The big revelation of “the secret” was “yeah, so it’s pretty much what I thought it would be, can we get on with the story now?”. I mean – look at the plot description I gave you and look at the poster and then let me tell you that they are Jewish. What do you think happened?

If you say that there actually was a (half-)brother and a former wife, who got deported – BINGO.

Of course, there are more details to the story, but these basics were clear after about 15 minutes into the film.

Once the film maker revealed the secret (about 45 minutes in) and got the whole “do you know what happened? [yes] I bet you don’t! [but I do] Wait here’s another hint. [STOP THAT!]” thing over with, you could concentrate on the story itself and, more importantly, on the characters.

And what characters they were!

Cécile de France looks like the tall, blond sister of Penelope Cruz.

First of all, I haven’t seen a movie in a long time that passes the Bechdel test as easily as this one – despite the main character being male. Plus, there’s a lesbian character, which in itself is already an achievement.

And then every single one of the protagonists is a fully rounded human being, not a stereotype. It is wonderful to watch, especially since the acting is phenomenal. It really was such a joy to watch that I can easily forgive the problems with the story telling I had.

And the directing really was very good. I loved how Miller showed us the fantasies of the boy by given us glimpses of scenes that we later saw in their actual setting. This juxtapositioning added a lot to the complexity of the story.

It’s a difficult story to tell, full of moral ambiguity. Therefore it is especially disappointing that the film tries so hard to surprise the audience. But apart from that, I really enjoyed it a lot and can recommend it to anyone.

Gouttes d’eau sur pierres brûlantes

Francois Ozon :: France :: 1999 :: 1h30

Young Franz follows the fifty-year-old Léopold home and surprises -even himself- when he lets himself be seduced by this older man. Franz slowly finds himself transformed into a submissive role, catering to ever more whimsical Léopold. Franz accepts his fate out of love. Six months later, and half way through the film, Franz’s long-time girlfriend Anna shows up, leading to a scene not quite as you would imagine. And to add onto the already curious and estranging situation, Léopold’s old love Vera turns up as well, having just completed a sex change(!).

The movie opens with 1970s coloured postcards of Berlin, with the sounds of cars and church bell towers worked into the accompanying music, as if you are watching a film. The absurdity of hearing sounds linked to a stationary image is one which is upheld throughout the work. It is an absurdity which pushes the characters to say and act in unexpected ways, as if they are re-writing a code of conduct applicable only to the sealed off test tube world in which they live.

Based on an unpublished play by Fassbinder, Water Drops on Burning Rocks, the movie holds on to its air of theatre, taking place entirely in bachelor Léopold’s pad with only the 4 characters. The details on this stage are telling, so accurately done it is hard to believe the film had been made in 1999. The apartment is decorated in a 1970s brown, grey and orange, with the fluffy carpeting and modern furniture to go with it. Léopold lusts and consumes in a three-piece business suit or silk dressing gown. Franz is mostly dressed as the romantic 19 year old that he is, with turtle neck jumpers, Anna, the intrigued external party, is either naked or in bright blue lingerie and finally Vera, the ghost of love lost, is in a fur-lined overcoat. The coat of elegance to hide the tragedy.

As you would expect from an Ozon film, the images are often framed to the perfection of a photograph, moving the actors through the frame with a balance of shadow and light on their faces using whole images to convey a message. But despite the perfection of the details, and the absurdity of the presentation, you can not be detracted away from the harsh message, of romantics falling prey to sexual predators, who leave their abandoned lovers along the route in their search for gratification. Nowhere does this line hit home more clearly than in the desperate closing image, as a moving Hopper painting pushed to hopelessness. This is a unique piece of cinema and a curious element in Francois Ozon’s portfolio. For lovers of cinema, theatre and the two combined: try not to miss out.

www.francois-ozon.com

Maxime在聚會上見到美麗的Tania，互見傾心，並留下深刻的印象。Maxime已有未婚妻Hanah，不久便結婚，並誕下兒子Simon，Tania則是Hanah弟弟的妻子。雖有暗涌，但一切生活如常。Maxime非常痛惜Simon，Simon遺傳父親的運動員的體魄，活潑好動，為Maxime和Hanah的婚後生活帶來了樂趣，一家人甚和諧幸福，Tania在家族聚會中常和Maxime相見，雖然Hanah憑女人的直覺感到兩人互相傾慕對方，但是弟弟瘋狂愛着Tania，且自己和Maxime家庭生活和諧美滿。所以相信兩人不會出軌。
一場戰爭改變了所有人的命運。Tania的丈夫，即Hanah的弟弟入伍死於疾病，Tania因有猶太血統，經朋友幫忙逃到法國偏遠的地方，後Maxime也逃躲來此地，準備先安頓好接Hanah和兒子來。Hanah是猶太族人，她和家族的人頗以此為傲。當她得知新寡的Tania和丈夫同住一個地方時，失了方寸。當她和家族中其他成員偕帶假護照逃亡時，就在目的地附近遭到納粹查身分時，Hanah不知是對丈夫的絕望，還是報復竟拿出真護照。Hanah和Simon被送進集中營。

Maxime 和 Tania隱姓改名，而後結婚，並生下兒子Francos。Fransco內向文靜始終不得父親的歡心，從小就覺得活在另一個男孩的陰影里，所有認識他們家的人都拿他和另一個人比。Maxime雖然和Tania相愛，感情很好，但兒子Simon的死成為這個家的一條裂縫。

導演是從Francos從小的不愉快，失寵於父母來慢慢發現這隱藏在家庭的秘密，而最後諒解了父親。

二次世界大戰帶給人的痛和家庭的傷彼彼皆是。法國電影拍得溫和神秘。女主角Tania的驚艷，和男主角的瀟灑給此片增添不少看頭。

Titolo originale: L’Ennemi Public n.1

Regia: Jean-François Richet

Cast: Vincent Cassel, Ludivine Sagnier, Gérard Lanvin, Samuel Le Bihan, Mathieu Amalric, Olivier Gourmet, Georges Wilson, Michel Duchaussoy, Myriam Boyer, Alain Doutey, Anne Consigny, Laure Marsac,  Alain Fromager,

Distribuzione: Eagle Pictures, Francia-Canada, 2009

Guarda il trailer

Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) torna in Francia, dopo anni di esilio in Canada. Qui si allea con Michel Ardouin( Samuel Le Bihan), un  killer soprannominato “La portaerei”,  e insieme mettono in atto una serie di rapine nelle banche francesi. Arrestato dal commissario Broussard (Olivier Gourmet), Mesrine fa amicizia con l’astuto François Besse (Mathieu Amalric), e insieme mettono in atto un geniale piano per evadere e compiono vari crimini insieme. Grazie all’impresa diventa una celebrità, scrive un’autobiografia, sfrutta i media a suo vantaggio e cerca di dipingersi come un estremista di sinistra grazie all’aiuto di Charlie (Gérard Lanvin) portavoce della sinistra. Tuttavia, la polizia francese e alcuni suoi vecchi “amici” sono sulle sue tracce e vogliono fermarlo una volta per tutte…

Nemico Pubblico N.1- L’istinto di morte  era stata davvero una pellicola ben realizzata e questa seconda parte non è affatto da meno, anzi. Jean- François Richet si supera e realizza un film adrenalinico, appassionante, dal ritmo serrato, il cui mattatore unico e insuperabile è un Vincent Cassel strepitoso, ingrassato ben 20 kg per vestire i panni di Mesrine in questa seconda parte.  L’ora della fuga vede emergere altri aspetti e sfaccettature del Nemico pubblico n.1 che si erano solo intraviste nella prima parte, in primis il desiderio di fama e gloria di Mesrine, che ama essere alle luci della ribalta, sui giornali o alla tv: bellissima la scena nella quale lui appena tradotto in carcere, si indigna perché in prima pagina sui quotidiani è riportata la notizia del colpo di Stato di un “certo Pinochet” e non la notizia del suo avvenuto arresto.

E’ un personaggio sicuramente spietato, un criminale, ma ha una sua etica e dei suoi valori, e li afferma apertamente quando può farlo, ad esempio in tribunale, mentre si difende dalle accuse del giudice.  Il suo amore per il successo e la fama lo porta a scrivere un’autobiografia romanzata, nella quale si autoaccusa di molti più crimini di quelli effettivamente commessi, e a sacrificare tutto, in primis la sua famiglia, poi la sua stessa incolumità, cercando colpi sempre più sensazionali e rischiosi, fughe rocambolesche e romanzesche.  Il suo obiettivo è distruggere il sistema e per questo si avvicina alla sinistra estremista e pensa ad un’eventuale alleanza con le Brigate Rosse. Tuttavia la polizia è decisa a fermarlo in tutti i modi e così si arriva  alla scena finale del film, che riprende la scena inziale del primo capitolo, semplicemente da antologia.

Inutile dire che Vincent Cassel, in questo secondo capitolo, metta in ombra i suoi colleghi, ancor più se è possibile che nella prima parte: semplicemente giganteggia, in una delle sue migliori performance di sempre. Eppure il cast non è affatto di scarso livello, anzi, ci sono comprimari molto quotati e importanti, in primis Mathieu Amalric, lo stupendo protagonista de Lo Scafandro e la Farfalla,  nel ruolo di François Besse, compagno di fuga e di crimini di Mesrine, ma anche Ludivine Saigner bella e pluripremiata attrice francese,  nel ruolo di Sylvia Jeanjacquot , l’ultima compagna di Mesrine, Gérard Lanvin nel ruolo di Charlie Bauer,  Samuel Le Bihan e Olivier Gourmet, solo per citarne alcuni.

In definitiva, una pellicola imperdibile. Mi dispiace che il nostro Paese non abbia saputo apprezzarla  appieno e quanto avrebbe meritato,  così com’era accaduto già alla prima parte… Ci sarebbe molto da scrivere a tal proposito, ma mi impongo di tacere…

Conclusione: Assolutamente da vedere.

Voto: 9

Un autre film de Christophe Honoré que j’avais adoré au cinéma, qui ce soir va permettre de ramener la pression dans mon cerveau à un niveau normal avant de me remettre à mes révisions de chinois (que diable allais-je faire dans cette galère ?).