En sortant d’un magasin de chaussures où elle a craqué pour une paire de pompes rouges dont elle n’avait pas franchement besoin, Marguerite se fait voler son sac à main. Quelques heures plus tard, dans un parking public, Georges tombe par hasard sur le contenu dudit sac à main que le voleur avait fini par jeter après s’être emparé de l’argent. Au fur et à mesure qu’il découvre le contenu du portemonnaie (CNI, licence d’aviation, photos, …), Georges se voit de plus en plus intrigué par l’inconnue et ne tardera pas à avoir envie de faire sa connaissance. Après avoir essayé – sans succès – de la joindre par téléphone, il se décide finalement d’aller déposer le portefeuille au commissariat de police. Le lendemain, alors que Georges et sa famille se retrouvent autour d’un repas commun, le téléphone sonne… C’est là le début d’une histoire pleine de tournures inattendues et imprévisibles qui amène les deux personnages principaux à changer de cap bien plus qu’une seule fois.

Difficile de faire un résumé sans trahir l’essence de ce film. L’histoire en tant que telle est simple, basique et n’a rien de très original. Cela dit, il est évident que ce n’est pas là l’intérêt de l’œuvre d’Alain Resnais. Le rythme est assez lent, mais le mélange entre mots et images amène le spectateur systématiquement là où il ne l’attendait pas, et c’est ainsi qu’il parvient à garder un certain suspense, faisant croire que vraiment tout peut arriver. “Les Herbes folles” propose une étude de la psychologie humaine avec ses impulsions, ses changements d’humeur assez imprévisibles, ses absurdités et ses contradictions, tandis que des petites piques d’humour et d’ironie, notamment sous forme de références au cinéma hollywoodien (par exemple la musique accompagnant le logo de la 20th Century Fox et le mot “fin” qui clignote au premier plan, alors qu’un couple s’embrasse sur une passerelle ) rajoutent une touche de fraicheur décalée aux évènements. Les acteurs sont bien choisis et convaincants dans leurs rôles, et il va de même pour la BO qui colle bien au scénario. En sortant de la salle de cinéma, le spectateur se retrouve “légèrement” paumé, la dernière réplique en tête (“Maman, quand je serai un chat, je pourrai manger des croquettes ?”) qui n’a rien manifestement à voir avec la choucroute mais qui fait son effet. Mélange entre comédie et drame, “un peu” spé sur les bords mais pas pour autant moins intéressant – le dernier Resnais vaut carrément le détour

]]> http://classyurbangirl.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/palme-dor/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:20:48 +0000 classyurbangirl http://classyurbangirl.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/palme-dor/

Palme D’Or is made of light coral coloured clay roses, green glass teardrop beads, Swarovski pearls and crystals. ~SGD$29.00~

Palme D'Or

Palme D'Or

Ok so I’ll admit I got into Haneke really late.

Hidden was the first film I saw by him but after watching more and more of his previous work I quickly realised what a distinctive and striking filmmaker he is.

So I was pretty excited about watching a Michael Haneke film in the cinema for the first time tonight when I went to see his latest, Palme d’Or winning The White Ribbon.

It’s not a film that everyone’s going to like – it’s slow paced, black & white and doesn’t offer any easy answers to the mysterious, disturbing events of the story – but by the end of the incredibly slow fade to the credits I had been completely won over.

Unsettling and spellbinding.  A feat for any director.

Selected Filmography

The White Ribbon (2009)

Hidden (2005)

Code Unknown (2000)

Funny Games (1997)

Benny’s Video (1992)

This is the new film by Michael Haneke; enfant terrible of the art cinema world and not to everyone’s taste.  He doesn’t exactly make action movies.

But the movie did win the Palme d’or at Cannes this year so certainly the critics liked it.

It’s long and it moves at a slow but steady pace.  It’s black and white (often dimly lit) but beautifully realised. In fact at times the cinematography is so beautiful that it’s like a moving Ansell Adams.  It is variously graded throughout with the merest hint of a cream or a brown creeping in from time to time that creates some variety.  It’s mesmerising.

This is the classic still from the movie. The kids all walking in a row like a phalanx of Nazi warlords approaching a concentration camp inspection. Creepy.

And it’s weird.  Really weird.

Apparently, and this is not blindingly obvious it is an allegorical take on the birth of fascism.

It’s yet another movie where the heavy hand of religion gets the blame for most evil.  The pastor of the remote German village that it is set in, in the lead up to the First World War, is a central character and is the sort we’ve seen many times before (The Magdalene Sisters being a good example).  Outwardly pious; inwardly, and to his family, a callous and viscious bastard.  Quick to blame, shame and moralise.  His presence throughout is powerful and visceral.

The dawning of fascism is  subtly portrayed because no politics enter the film overtly at any point.  Class wars and sexual poilitics do though in what is clearly a male dominated culture and one where sexual transgression is rife (child abuse, domestic abuse, illicit masturbation and secret affairs are all featured).

But it’s the children (spookily played by one and all in a sort of village of the damned way) that steal the film.  They appear to be forces of evil and if not (the plot is never explained and the strange occurrences left to hang – it is Haneke after all) they are certainly victims of it.

Haneke seems to be saying that the rise of fascism came out of this age of suppression and a sense of revenge – after all the destruction of the Jews is often taken as a form of revenge for their post WWI success.

Haneke makes films like only Haneke makes films.  Some people find them slow and boring.  I think he follows in the style of that French New Wave of the 60’s but with a better grip on audience manipulation.  He makes thought provoking masterpieces and this is another one.

Simply wonderful.

What is in my mind the finest month for the movies is almost here!  Let Marshall guide you through the best and steer you away from the worst, but most of all enjoy!  The studios have been holding back their best movies all year to dump them all here, where they can get serious awards consideration.

December 4

A major Oscars wild-card is “Brothers.”  No one really knows what to make of it.  If the movie hits big, it could completely change the game.  But it could just fly under the radar like most expect it to now.  However, the trailer makes it look as if it the movie could be absolutely mind-blowing.  Directed by Jim Sheridan, who has received six Academy Award nominations, “Brothers” follows Grace Cahill (Natalie Portman) as she and her daughters deal with the loss of her husband, Sam (Tobey Maguire), in war.  Sam’s brother, Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) comes to live with Grace to lend a helping hand.  But romantic sparks fly between the two at precisely the wrong time: the discovery that Sam is alive and coming home.  With the two brothers both tugging Grace’s heart for their share, a different type of sparks fly.

You have heard me say plenty about “Up in the Air.”  If you haven’t read my Oscar Moment on the movie or heard my bliss at the release of the trailer, let me give you one more chance to hope on the bandwagon.

But the movies don’t stop there.  ”Armored,” an action-drama that is tooting its own moral horn, starring Matt Dillon and Laurence Fishburne.  ”Everybody’s Fine” appears to be a holiday movie, so that might be worth checking out if your in the spirit.  The movie, a remake of a 1990 Italian film by the same name, stars Robert DeNiro as a widower who reconnects with his estrange children.  And “Transylmania” looks to cash in on the vampire craze sweeping the nation by satirizing it, but I doubt it will be financially viable because it is being released by a no-name studio and without any big names.

December 11

The highlight of the weekend for many will be “The Princess and the Frog,” Disney’s return to the traditional animation by hand musical.  The movie looks to capitalize on what we know and love Disney musicals for, adding some catchy tunes to a fairy tale we have known since childhood.  Anika Noni Rose, best known for her role as Lorrell in the film adaptation of “Dreamgirls,” lends her talented voice to the princess Tiana.  As a huge fan of “Dreamgirls” during the winter of 2006, I couldn’t think of someone better equipped to handle the sweet, soft Disney music (which isn’t designed for belters like Beyoncé or Jennifer Hudson).  That being said, the music won’t sound like anything you’ve ever heard from a Disney fairy tale.  It is being scored by Randy Newman, not Alan Menken (“Beauty and the Beast,” etc.), and will have a jazzy feel much like its setting, New Orleans.

This week also boasts the opening of three major Oscar players. Two have been featured in Oscar Moments, “Invictus” and “A Single Man.” The former opens nationwide this Friday, the latter only in limited release. I’ll repost the trailers below because they are worth watching. But read the Oscar Moment if you want to know more about the movies.

According to the people that matter, “The Lovely Bones” has all the pieces to make a great movie. But for summer reading two years ago, I read the source material, Alice Sebold’s acclaimed novel. I found it dreadfully melodramatic and very depressing without any sort of emotional payoff to reward the reader for making it through. But maybe Hollywood will mess up the novel in a good way. If any movie could, it would be this one. With a director like Peter Jackson and a cast including Saiorse Ronan (“Atonement”), Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, and Susan Sarandon, it could very well happen.  It opens in limited release on this date and slowly expands until its nationwide release on Martin Luther King Day weekend in 2010.

December 16

Due to the flop of “Amelia,” Fox Searchlight has moved “Crazy Heart” to 2009 in order to milk some awards out of this year (although they should have just pushed “(500) Days of Summer” harder!).  The movie stars Jeff Bridges as an aging alcoholic country singer and Maggie Gyllenhaal as the young journalist that falls for him.  Bridges has been nominated for four Oscars but has never won, so maybe the Academy will feel generous to him this year.

December 18

We will skip the big blockbuster to address what is perhaps my most anticipated movie of the season, “Nine.”  I’ve already devoted an Oscar Moment to it, but it deserves some more talk here.  I’ll just throw out some names.  Daniel Day-Lewis.  Marion Cotillard.  Penelope Cruz.  Nicole Kidman.  Judi Dench.  Sophia Loren.  Kate Hudson.  Fergie.  Director Rob Marshall.  At what name did you start thinking, “Get here now, December 18th, I HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!”?

Most sites I read think “Avatar” is going to be a huge box office success.  However, I wonder how they can think that when I have not heard a single teenager talk about the movie at all.  That is a critical demographic to the success of this movie.  It is what made “Titanic” the highest grossing movie ever (unadjusted for inflation).  And without them, this movie will flop.  A bomb is something that director James Cameron and the head honchos at 20th Century Fox simply cannot have happen.  Let me hit you with a statistic that will make your jaw drop.  ”Avatar” cost nearly $500 million dollars to make.  No, I didn’t tack on an extra zero to that figure.  Half-a-billion dollars have been dropped on this movie, so they need to make a whole lot of money to make it a profitable venture.  I’m sure with worldwide totals and video receipts, they will undoubtedly break even.  But if it is going to be a bonanza, there has to be more to “Avatar” than the coolest visual effects ever.  And I’m not getting the feeling from the trailers that it has all that strong of a story.  But at this point, no one knows.

Guilty confession: I’m actually kind of looking forward to “Did You Hear About the Morgans?” The movie stars Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker as married members of the New York elite who loathe each other. However, they are forced to spend a whole lot of time together when they see a murder and enter the Witness Protection Program in Wyoming. Sometimes these “fish out of water” comedies turn out to be quite funny. Plus, Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker usually have good taste when it comes to selecting movies.

And to help out a fledgling production company, Apparition, I’ll plug “The Young Victoria” with an embedded trailer.  If Martin Scorsese is pushing it, how bad can it be?

December 23

In order to get “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel” out of a convoluted Christmas Day openers crowd, they moved it to Wednesday, December 23.  Honestly, who wants to debate if this movie will be good or not?  I wouldn’t be surprised if it makes more money than “Avatar” the way kids ate up the first installment.

December 25

Celebrate Christmas at the movies with your family like everyone else in America!  ”Nine” and “Up in the Air” will be opening nationwide today.

Nancy Meyers, the director of “The Holiday” and “The Parent Trap,” makes movies that are just plain enjoyable to watch.  ”It’s Complicated” doesn’t look to break that tradition.  I refuse to watch the trailer because I don’t want to ruin it, but the film’s poster shows Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin bearing smug expressions in a bed with the tagline “Divorced…with benefits” written on the sheets.  Featuring a cast that also includes Steve Martin and John Krasinski (“The Office”), this could be the perfect crowd-pleasing Christmas Day movie.

Also opening on Christmas Day is a reimagined “Sherlock Holmes,” directed by Guy Ritchie (yes, Maddona’s ex-husband).  I’m all for the fresh approach, especially because it includes Robert Downey, Jr.  I loved the smug touch he added to Tony Stark in “Iron Man,” and I’m sure he will bring the same energy to the timeless detective.  The movie will no doubt benefit from the presence of Jude Law as sidekick Watson and Rachel McAdams as a love interest for Sherlock.  Although the character has lost respectability over the past few years on the silver screen, this is a version that I am more than willing to get behind.

And it is with great sadness that I have to say that Heath Ledger’s last new movie, “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus,” will be released this day.  He passed while in production of the movie, and Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell, and Jude Law stepped into finish the role.  The three stars donated their salary for the film to Ledger’s daughter, Matilda.  The movie seems to be quite a visual spectacle, and the eye-catching visuals could be a great complement to Ledger’s final performance.

December 30

The final release of 2009 is “The White Ribbon,” winner of the prestigious Palme D’Or prize at the Cannes Film Festival this spring.  The film, directed by Michael Haeneke, follows a community in pre-World War I Germany as they deal with “the origins of terrorism,” as the director puts it.  It has been selected as Germany’s submission to the Best Foreign Film category at the Academy Awards this year, so it is definitely a player there.  But with quite literal universal acclaim, it could compete in more serious categories.

So, have you started planning how you are going to fit all these movies into your holiday schedules like me?  If not, at least do me the courtesy of telling me what movie you would see if you could only see one.

Six mois après son triomphe au festival de Cannes, je suis retourné en salle voir le dernier opus de Michael Haneke dorénavant auréolé d’une palme d’or (pour lire ma petite chronique faite sur le vif, cliquez ici). Je persiste et signe, Le Ruban blanc est un chef d’œuvre, et à ce jour le film le plus abouti de son auteur. Il faut dire que notre réalisateur autrichien préféré a su nous concocter une histoire des plus intrigantes. Retour en 1913, dans un petit village protestant d’Allemagne du nord où de curieux actes de vandalisme sont perpétrés. Les motifs des coupables restent troubles et leur discrétion si parfaite que leur identité semble vouer au secret éternel. Haneke ose alors pointer son doigt sur l’impensable : et si les vandales n’étaient autres que les enfants du village ?

Le cinéaste aime à laisser planer un sentiment de doute sur la résolution finale de la pseudo-enquête policière qui anime Le Ruban blanc. Il y a pourtant matière à se réjouir car contrairement à beaucoup de ses autres films (comme La Pianiste par exemple), la clé de l’énigme nous est offerte (chouette alors) par un personnage : en l’occurrence, le maître d’école. Pas de doute, ce sont bien les gamins qui ont fait le coup ! Tous soumis à une éducation protestante plus que rigide, ils s’improvisent tout au long du film acteurs d’une rébellion silencieuse et insoupçonnée. Sans prendre leur parti, Haneke retranscrit par le biais de sa caméra statique l’atmosphère on-ne-peut plus austère dans laquelle ils grandissent. On sent d’ailleurs le cinéaste très à l’aise dans cet univers si apte à accueillir ses thèmes de prédilection, soit le mal et la violence en général (le paroxysme avait été atteint en 1997 avec Funny Games). Ici, le noir et blanc est aussi beau qu’effrayant et le retour de la langue allemande (après plusieurs films réalisés en français) s’applique à conférer à l’ensemble une sonorité des plus rêches. Tout, des costumes aux décors, en passant par les dialogues et les accessoires, est tiré aux quatre épingles. Aucun défaut technique ne vient perturber ce monde qui se veut parfait en tous points. Et pourtant !

Ce n’est pas la violence physique qui focalise l’attention d’Haneke. Bien que présente, elle est quasiment toujours traitée en hors-champ (par ailleurs l’une des spécialités de mise en scène du cinéaste). Non, c’est bien de violence morale dont il est question, à l’image du fils du pasteur ligoté dans son lit pour éviter toute tentative de masturbation. Pires encore sont les scènes d’humiliation auxquelles est par exemple soumise la fille du même pasteur en plein cours de catéchisme devant ses camarades (son esprit ne le supportant plus, elle finira par perdre connaissance). L’époque n’est pas anodine. Nous sommes à l’aube de la première guerre mondiale, les enfants d’aujourd’hui seront les nazis de demain. Je ne pense pas qu’il soit de l’intention d’Haneke de pointer du doigt les causes afin que nous en déduisions naïvement les conséquences. Si le film cherche à dévoiler les racines d’une idéologie qui n’aurait jamais eu lieu d’être, c’est justement pour dénoncer le concept même d’”idéologie” dans sa généralité et non pointer du doigt l’Allemagne tout particulièrement.

On notera qu’Haneke s’attarde à définir nombre de personnages au sein même du village. Tous sont importants et se trouvent affublés de responsabilités conséquentes, qu’il en soit du médecin comme de la baronne, du régisseur comme de la sage-femme. Tous, les adultes comme les enfants, malgré les peines qui incombent à chacun d’entre eux, n’attirent jamais la sympathie. Haneke les entoure d’une aura glaciale, démontrant par A+B comment les plus jeunes en arrivent à souiller le ruban blanc, symbole de leur innocence, lui préférant la hache qui incombe aux bourreaux. Si le choix des victimes pourrait parfois se justifier (le piège tendu au  médecin), la plupart du temps il relève de critère de “différence” : de classe en ce qui concerne le fils du baron, d’intellect pour l’enfant handicapé (Troisième Reich, quand tu nous tiens…) Quant aux adultes, ils s’obstinent à fermer les yeux, incapables de croire leur progéniture capables de tels méfaits.

Les détracteurs d’Haneke qualifient le film de “professoral”. À mes yeux Le Ruban blanc est tout le contraire : il s’intéresse à une genèse sans s’attarder à donner une explication incontestable à des évènements historiques (c’est d’ailleurs vraiment sous-estimer Haneke que de le croire capable d’une détermination aussi absurde). Le film trouve son intérêt dans les thèmes qu’il aborde en filigrane, à l’image de cette scène formidable où un petit garçon en vient à questionner sa sœur sur la mort jusqu’à lui faire avouer que leur mère n’est pas partie “en voyage”. Nous sommes bel et bien face à un film important, du très grand art. Encore faudra-t-il, ne serait-ce que pour le constater, avoir le courage d’accepter le point de vue du cinéaste Haneke, qui jamais ne cessera de voir autre chose en l’homme que la source même du mal.

v

DAS WEISSE BAND (Allemagne-Autriche-Fr.-It., 2009) R., Sc. : Michael Haneke ; Ph. : Christian Berger ; Int. : Susanne Lothar (La sage-femme), Ulrich Tukur (Le baron), Burghart Klaußner (Le pasteur), Rainer Bock (Le docteur), Christian Friedel (Le maître d’école), Ursina Lardi (La baronne). Noir & Blanc, 144mn.

Réalisé par Michael Haneke
Avec Christian Friedel, Ulrich Tukur, Michael Kranz
Film autrichien, allemand. Genre : Drame
Durée : 2h24 min. Année de production : 2009

On ne présente plus Michael Haneke, réalisateur multi-récompensé (il est un habitué de Cannes!) à l’oeuvre controversée, parfois violente, souvent dérangeante…mais toujours fascinante.  Il se dégage de la plupart de ses films une élégante cruauté, à l’égard de ses personnages (La Pianiste) ou de ses spectateurs (Funny Games). Voir un film de Haneke équivaut aussi quelque part, à voir un chirurgien effectuer une dissection minutieuse & précise; sa mise en scène, à l’image d’un scalpel tranchant, n’est que rigueur et précision implacable.

“Le Ruban Blanc”, son dernier film auréolé de la palme d’or au dernier festival de Cannes, ne déroge pas à la règle. A l’aube de la 1ère guerre mondiale, un  petit village en Allemagne  vit d’étranges accidents & méfaits qui ne cesseront d’augmenter en violence, plongeant une petite communauté rigoureusement pieuse dans un grand désarroi. La chute de cheval du médecin, puis la mort accidentelle d’une paysanne précipitent violemment les habitants dans une spirale, de suspiscion, de peur et de violence. 

Telle une ombre furtive, Haneke promène insidieusementt sa caméra dans le village & observe calmement l’hypocrisie, les névroses et les perversions cachées sous le vernis de la piété de ce petit microcosme. A travers des silences pesants, des regards coupables & furtifs, il met à nu une communauté qui se croit protégée du mal grâce à son rigorisme religieux. Le film se révèle d’autant plus inquiétant & oppressant qu’il n’épargne pas le dernier symbole possible de l’innocence: les enfants du village ne sont pas étrangers à tous les évènements qui terrorisent leurs aînés.

On pense un peu à “Dogville” de Lars Von Trier, devant ce même pessimisme affiché face à la (supposée vraie ) nature humaine; Par contre, là ou Von Trier choisit la théâtralité & la provocation dans son propos, Haneke préfère l’observation naturaliste distanciée & objective. Une manière de rendre son propos plus pertinent et plus palpable… On pense aussi un peu au “Village des Damnés” (et ses nombreux remakes) qui mettait en scène d’étranges enfants meurtriers, symboles de la transmission d’un “mal” implacable et inéluctable dans nos sociétés modernes.

Le récit s’arrête juste au début de la 1ère guerre mondiale, après l’assassinat de l’archiduc François-Ferdinand, comme une sorte de prémonition lugubre des atrocités à venir… Si la somptueuse photographie en noir et blanc du “Ruban Blanc” sert à ancrer le récit dans cette époque charnière de l’histoire, elle finit étrangement par conférer au film un voile d’intemporalité, voire presque d’actualité, qui, longtemps après la projection, glace le sang…

Cover of Persepolis (Pantheon, 2007); image courtesy of shelflove.wordpress.com

When I saw the film version of Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel Persepolis, it was a pretty rad time to be a feminist moviegoer. In the last month of 2007 and the first month of 2008, this movie came out, along with Juno and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. Having just completed a girls’ studies course, I was ecstatic that three different movies, each from a different country, were released with complex, resilient protagonists who were girls and young women.

Two of these movies earned Oscar nominations a few months later. Juno won Best Screenplay. Persepolis was nominated for Best Animated Feature, but unfortunately lost to Ratatouille. 4 Months, which documents the harrowing day of one college student trying to procure an illegal abortion for her roommate during the last years of Nicolae Ceauşescu’s in Romania, won the Palme D’Or at Cannes earlier in 2007, but failed to receive any nominations. For some reason. Perhaps it escaped nomination as a technicality, but I don’t understand why no one, particularly writer-director Cristian Mungiu or lead actress Anamaria Marinca, got any Academy recognition. Perhaps because it lacked the allegorical importance of No Country For Old Men or There Will Be Blood and cut to very real (and tremendously gendered) issues facing real people in the real world, many of whom reside in developing nations. 

But it is really no matter. No Country, There Will Be Blood, Julian Schnabel’s The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and Todd Haynes’s I’m Not There were but more examples of what a very fine time this particular two-month period was for movies. But 4 Months was easily my favorite movie of that year. The movie whose source material will be the focus of this post was a very close second.

Having seen the movie upon its U.S. release, some context has changed considerably upon revisiting Satrapi’s autobiography about coming of age inside and outside of Iran from the late 70s to the early 90s, a time period where the country witnessed the fall of the Shah (aided by the United States), the swift and crushing oppression of its citizens by Islamic extremists, a devastating eight-year war with Iraq, and the neighboring country’s launch of the Persian Gulf War. In late 2007, we were still living under the Bush Administration, so the country’s positioning as part of the ”axis of evil” was in my mind, but being pretty ignorant about the country’s political history and our involvement with it past the Iran-Contra Affair, Bush’s branding of the country read more as a promise that the United States were, in fact, going to try and spread democracy by force to all of the Middle East, snatching up its real or imagined WMDs and drain its oil resources in the process. And I knew about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and was disgusted by his views on the Holocaust and heartened by the student protests around his adminstration, but was not yet aware of just what a dangerous despot he is.     

This was, of course, before this year’s highly controversial presidential election, which Ahmadinejad “won” by a suspiciously high margain over rival candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, an Independent reformist. At the time, what seemed more present in our minds in the states was what Twitter was doing to help cover and contextualize the civic protests and how quickly mainstream broadcast news was going to incorporate the still-emergent micro-blogging site’s Tweets into their 24-hour cycle, regardless of how accurate they were. 

As a result, I was a little jaded by the “Twitter users coverage of the Iran election is going to change news reporting” angle many seemed to be taking and instead wanted to know more about how the election was fraudulent, why certain people (specifically journalists, protesters, students, and politicians) were being arrested, what the stakes were, who was doing a good job covering this news story, and, most importantly, what circumstances led to the current iteration of Iran. Remembering that local branches of Barnes & Noble were donating proceeds to the Paramount upon purchase last weekend, shilling out my money to the big box chain for the sake of preserving a historical movie theater seemed as a good an opportunity to buy the book that may provide answers.

And, I’ll be honest. Reading the book left me with more questions than anything else (a similar feeling came over me when reading Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns, two books whose timelines stretch past the 70s-90s, but contain a considerable overlap in terms of time with Persepolis, focusing on what was going on with ordinary people in Afghanistan, another contentious Middle Eastern country that borders Iran). It was hard not to check some ugly American tendencies I have toward Islamic traditions — particularly toward its views on marriage, sexuality, gender politics, and dress. At the same time, I was incredulous of how pro-West rhetoric and ideology, alongside our smuggled trinkets of popular culture, could possibly reform a nation, or at least save a person.

Luckily, Satrapi is skeptical of both and, like me and other feminists from all over the world, has a lot to negotiate. She grapples with these issues head-on. She argues with teachers against the physical restrictions and societal double standards that come with the hijab and the burka (sidenote: I know that Faegheh Shirazi, who teaches Middle Eastern Studies at UT and rejects traditional Islamic dress, has written and taught courses on gender and clothing in the Middle East, but any other suggestions for further reading are welcome). She watches her female peers grow up to only want marriage and children, in large part because these are the only things their nation’s leaders believe define their worth. Particularly poignant for this co-habitator, she regrets getting married to a man named Reza because they could not legally live together (or even walk the street) without proof of marriage, dissolving the marriage and leaving for France.

Marjane and friends reject the hijab; image courtesy of rand.org

Satrapi is a smart rebel who reads constantly, thinks clearly, and never backs down from an argument. She yells at authority figures who bully her or deny that there are any political prisoners in Iran after learning about the loss of her grandfather, who was son and prime minister to the ousted king (a tie that Satrapi suggests is not uncommon).

College student Satrapi damns the man; image courtesy of butterfliesandbears.wordpress.com

Luckily for Satrapi, she gets through all of this with the love and support of her politically aware and resistant parents, their friends, and one rad paternal grandma. Not so luckily, she also knows and meets lots of folks who suffered for speaking up, speaking out, or just living in the wrong house during an aerial bombing. Something tells me that many Iranians could recount similar tales of horror.

Satrapi also learns that the ways of the West are not always ideal, either. While a pre-pubescent in Iran, she hangs Iron Maiden posters on her wall her parents smuggle from a vacation in Turkey when the government lifted border restrictions. She defiantly walks around her neighborhood, blaring Kim Wilde’s “Kids in America” from her Walkman while sporting a Michael Jackson pin. But noting that their daughter’s rebelliousness is hardly a phase and that escalating conflict with Iraq could mean the imprisonment or death of their mouthy teen, her parents send her to live with a friend of her mother’s in Vienna.

Still from the film; image courtesy of whatsontv.co.uk

Satrapi finishes high school, barely scraping by as she finds odd jobs, dates dumb boys, takes a lot of drugs, and runs into authority figures who want her to tow the line and behave. She also falls in with a group of radical misfits who dabble with nihilism, Marxism, hair dye, and punk. While Satrapi initially finds a home with these punks and new wave kids, she soon discovers their privilege has made them cowardly, pretentious, self-righteous, entitled, and lazy. Her outsider status also makes her cool, her Austrian peers clearly jealous by what she has seen and experienced without really processing the weight of it between drags off their joints and skims through their copies of the Marx-Engels Reader in their well-appointed bedrooms. It’s small wonder that, when Satrapi finally returns home to Iran after she finishes high school homeless and afflicted with bronchitis, she washes off a punk stencil from her bedroom wall. And while she’s sad that her mother gave away her cassette tapes, she probably wasn’t going to listen to them anyway. She would’ve kept the Kim Wilde tape, however.

So, ultimately, I do feel this revisit of Persepolis helped clarify my feelings about the state of Iran. It also left me with several questions and a need to know more. Ultimately, though, it left me with the sense of universality that exists between people, especially tough, smart women and girls, while at the same time recognizing the particularities that inform their realities. And continues to inform them. Back in June, Satrapi spoke out against the election results with filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalba. Something tells me that her grandmother, who passed away shortly after Satrapi moved to France at the close of the book, would be proud.

Quality time with grandma; image courtesy of rwor.org

Peel Video by Jane Campion – MySpace Video

Jane Campion, director of the upcoming Bright Star, made this short film back in the mid ’80’s.  The film won the Palme d’Or for best short at Cannes.

Lars von Trier (n. 30 aprilie 1956) este regizor de film danez asociat cu mişcarea Dogma 95. A absolvit şcoala de cinema din Stockholm (Den Danske Filmskole) în 1983. Lucrarea de diplomă, Imagini în relief  a primit premiul Festivalului Şcolilor de film de la München. Primul său film de lung metraj, Forbrydelsens element (Elementul crimei, 1984), câştigă Marele Premiu pentru Tehnică la Cannes.

Pentru televiziune, Von Trier regizează Medea (1988) care obţine premiul Jean d’Arcy în Franţa. Breaking the Waves câştigă Marele Premiu al Juriului de la Cannes, premiul Cesar pentru cel mai bun film străin, premiul EFA, pentru cel mai bun film european, iar actriţa principală Emily Watson este nominalizată la premiul Oscar pentru cea mai bună actriţă. În 1995 se converteşte la catolicism după religia tatălui său biologic. În 2000 a avut loc premiera dramei muzicale Dancer in the Dark având-o ca actriţă principală pe cântăreaţa islandeză Björk. Filmul a obţinut Palme d’Or la Cannes 2000. În 2003 începe trilogia  „ SUA: tărîmul tuturor posibilităţilor ” cu filmul Dogville.

Sursa:  Wikipedia

Some people might mistake The Class for a documentary. It is very convincing in terms of its visual style, and careful in abstaining from film techniques that may impinge on its realism. Improvised around a script based on the real experiences of François Bégaudeau, (who actually plays the central role of French teacher François) The Class is a treatise on the day to day struggle to maintain order ‘between the walls’ of a contemporary Parisian classroom. Boasting remarkable performances from its young cast of non-professionals, its no wonder that when the film won the Palme d’Or, director Laurent Cantet made sure they all went up to receive it with him – they make this film work.

Beginning on the first day of a new year François warns his class about time wasting, five minutes here and there he says will add up by the end of the year. Of course this ironically comes to fruition as François is constantly side-tracked, thrown off on tangents, and forced to deal with the constant conflicts that occur in his racially diverse classroom. The realism and the riveting drama of The Class come from this situation and conflict. While there are clearly race, class and institutional issues specific to France at play, the film is generally universal in its themes.

I can say The Class is realistic from personal experience. I lost count of the number of scenes that reminded me of situations from my own years in high school. It is that undeclared war between the students and the teacher that is the subject of The Class, a futile war that never has a winner. This isn’t Dangerous Minds, where Michelle Pfeiffer overcomes her class of troublemakers and unites them by the end. Any victories that do occur in The Class are minor, and few and far between.

Discussing a uniform disciplinary system, François suggests it would be impossible to implement, each case must be dealt with on an individual level. When such a case does arise in the film, marking the plots apotheosis, it will undoubtedly polarise audiences. At this point the film reminds us that the decisions teachers must make are monumental, and the repercussions fundamentally life altering. Though set in France, I know this film will strike a chord with teachers and students alike in this country.  

School starts back on Monday  here at IU, and my time for cinema will be pressed even further. Here, however, is some news I’ve gathered over the last month. This is what I thought was worth checking out.

• John Hughes died, and a wealth of information showed up on the internet in dedication to him. Molly Ringwald offers her memories, NYtimes had an interview right before his death on “The Brat Pack“, and then later offered a tribute to his style.
• Antichrist has leaked two months before it’s official release date. Torrent?
• So, what’s the difference between Widescreen and Fullscreen, well, everything. Here, directors talk about how pan and scan re-directs cinema.
• There’s a Barbarella re-make, and Vulture had a bit of news about it.
• Slate put together a fantastic taste of the many voices of Maryl Streep.
• Peter Jackson produced District 9, a film by Neill Blomkamp, which I’m sure you’ve already heard about. Check out this interesting article on the meaning of the film. PJ’s also got another film to be released soon called “The Lovely Bones,” the trailers out here. However, District 9 (apparently based on this short film), tied this week (for the first time on my weekly favorite movie section) with Inglorious Basterds. The final segment of this film is simply: dope. Anywho, check out Tarantino’s top 20 films of the last decade on youtube.
• Want to test your knowledge of cinema history? This quiz from NYTimes was really hard for me, hopefully you’ll do better. I particularly enjoyed the question regarding the difference between American film markets and foreign film markets (which I got right, notably).
• Other select news from “Twitch“: Full theatrical trailer for Astro Boy is out. I still want to see Ponyo. Also, the trailer for this crazy horror film came out: Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre. Plus, Absurda (David Lynch’s production studio), is putting out a Herzog film, and the trailer is up. Say What?
• Speaking of foreign directors, Haneke’s Palme D’Or winning film “The White Ribbon,” has a trailer out now, and it looks fairly historical, enough said.
• Finally, I Watched Idiocracy this week, and enjoyed it slightly more than last time, in perfect time for the release of the “Extract” trailer. Mike Judge, thanks, enjoyed you on Fresh Air while I was serving food at Scholars Inn this past week…

And speaking of public broadcasting, I’ll be working jib for the telethon that’s going on probably near forever, or until you all pay small increments of money so that I can keep my job and you get commercial free television. Donate?

Dir: Michael Haneke

Awards: Palme d’Or at Cannes

An amazing film – many walk outs during the screening.

Shot in black and white, the film is set in small town in northern Germany just before WW2. Strange unexplainable crimes begin to happen – the doctor is tripped from his horse by wire, a woman dies from an ‘accident’ at the saw mill. The child of the towns main employer and land owner, The Baron, is found tied up with the marks of a severe lashing. As the school teacher and narrator of the the story slowly unravels these mysteries we become privy to the many secrets the town holds and the everyday cruelties that the adults inflict on each other and their children. A quiet and heavy atmosphere of horror builds as the audience blindly stares at the clues, but with so many villains in this story it is almost impossible to figure out the culprit.

The truth is too sinister to bare and the notion of justice of any kind becomes an impossibility. War breaks and the truth is never revealed; it is a mirror of the horror of war and those who are really accountable. No one is exonerated except those who search for and try to expose truth in a hope for change. An amazing exploration on how evil manifests itself in humans and is passed on like a plague.

Score: *****

Jemila MacEwan

[you're definitely a love or hate it reviewer. Passionate. -ed]

A quiet Balkan town wakes up to festive sound from a drunken stupor. The ominous brass composition is interspersed with gun shots and money is hurled in the air. The euphoria fades into the sound of war, bombs piercing the harmony of a nation. A man is seen to be having an insipid love making act in a whore house. The woman is hurriedly faking orgasm with moaning.  She escapes in horror but the man persists and jacks off to the sound of catastrophe as the town explodes.  Another man is seen to enjoy his meal while the chandelier lands on his plate with the shudder of air raids. He is clearly not moved but is worried that an elephant is swiping his shoes off the window. A retarded kid is running a zoo and is seen to be bottle feeding a baby monkey. As the commotion of war engulfs the zoo there is chaos and animals go berserk. The baby monkey’s mother is seen bleeding while the kid shuts her eyes in repulsion. Three epic wars are seen from the self-annihilating lives of three men while a nation ceases to exist. Once upon a time there was a country; Yugoslavia.

Emir Ksuturica’s Palme D’or winning epic film Underground is a poetic amalgamation of genres; socio-cultural and political satire, musicals, war-docu drama, apocalypse, comedy, surrealism and above all the human exploration of power, love and integrity.  Through the elaborate exploits of its war torn protagonists – aggressive yet naïve Blacky(Lazar Ristovski), the intellectual yet conspiring Marko (Miki Manojlovic) and the innocent Ivan, Kusturica has painted a delirious recreation of erstwhile Yugoslavia’s devastating history from being a Nazi-occupied territory during World War II, through Communist regime during Cold War, to the ugly Balkan Wars that resulted in the disintegration of the country along ethnic lines. The plot also involves the three timing Natalija (Mirjana Jokovic).

The film is shown in three episodes:  In part I, we are introduced to Belgrade at the behest of evil Nazi invasion.  Marko and Blacky are part of the anti-fascist resistance and they are minting profits from the war, and so they are able to make love and eat in peace while their country burns.  Natalija, an over the top actress at the theatre is a mistress to Blacky. Blacky is kidnapped by the Nazis during his attempt to get married to Natalija. Marko saves him but sends him underground hiding from the war while he seduces Natalija with power, poetry and alcohol.

In part II Marko and Natalija become an integral part of the communist movement under Tito. Marko convinces Blacky, his brother Ivan and others that the war is raging and makes them live underground in the basement for over 20 years. All through the while he makes them work on ammunition and weapons in order to profit from the sale.  In Part III, Yugoslavia no longer exists. Yet, Blacky is out in the world, fighting for his country and searching for his dead son; Marko and Natalija are in hiding but are still war profiteers.

One of the most significant metaphors of the film is the underground itself. It’s a sign of how people are kept ignorant, of the anarchy created by Marko in Tito’s Yugoslavia. There are interesting shots of how Marko comes to power; morphed historical footages show Marko meeting important personalities to influe

nce his carrier in the communist party.  In the underground people ride a bicycle in the air making the cycle bulb turn on and show light at a woman’s womb, waiting for the miracle of life. Babies become old enough to marry. Kids run around playing football. This is a world in itself. There is a fraternity formed by Tito’s revolution but is also orchestrated by Marko’s farce about the non-existent war.  While on metaphors, another poignant scene in the film shows a wounded tiger troubled by a bird. Finding the tiger helpless, the bird tries to poke its beak into the dying animal. The bird is finally killed by the tiger. This is an extremely complex scene which shows the fragility of corrupted power.  For me this scene is a premonition to Marko’s and Ivan’s end which the director has beautifully placed as subliminal construct.

Kusturica’s hyperbolic cinematic construct is not an assembly on political polemics but is an aesthetic meditation on human behavior. Aided by an astounding score by Goran Bergovic, the film meanders from avant-garde cinema to the realm of commercial over the top fun. The brass band compositions throughout the film alleviate the irony of war and the ignorance of the people underground. It’s relentless, uniquely Balkan energy fuels the film, functioning as an endless shot of adrenalin for both the characters and the audience. The score is made so conspicuous that the band literally follows Marko and Blacky everywhere, even when they take a leak in the woods.  The music has even inspired Anurag Kashyap for Dev.D. The initial scene where Dev returns home while a brass band follows him is a actually a homage to the opening scene from Underground.

Satire is a strong element of Underground. In fact, it won’t be wrong to call it a film based on dark humor.  Blacky’s wife Vera is in labor pain and she cries out “Where are you now, you Blacky bastard?” Marko getting off to the sound of Belgrade burning (subtly reminds of Pedro Almodovar’s film Matador where the protagonist is jacking off to watching horror exploitation films). There is subtle humor too; Blacky is getting married to Natalija and he keeps asking throughout “where is the priest?” to everyone around. One man answers “The priest will arrive any moment now” and the Germans come at the exact instant and abduct Blacky.  The humor goes on to another level here; In the outside world a film is being made on Blacky’s life which has been falsely narrated by Marko to the world. Blacky escapes the underground and ends up seeing the crew of the film with Germans. He believes the war is continuing because of the actors. So he believes the unreal film to be reality which is actually based on unreal citations of his life.

Kusturica’s directorial virtuosity lies in his fine balance; calculated satire, outstanding images and cinematic tapestry of ingenuous characterization.  In the initial scenes, as the city burns, Ivan is roaming in the hopeless town with his zoo animals. The irony of these characters is immediately displayed with Blacky lighting up his cigar from the ashes that remain from the bombs and then polishing his shoe with the fur of a crying cat. Though he is shown that way, the director immediately cuts to Blacky offering milk to the baby monkey. It sums up his character; hard on emotions, aggressive but yet benevolent; like Robin Hood. He even comments that he steals from the rich for the poor. There are some pure cinematic moments that make this film a tour de force in world cinema history. Natalija in a red dress, soaked in guilt, does the Freudian dance in front of erect cannon. This shot is extremely layered; on one side it communicates the obvious Freudian pretext on the other side it actually emphasizes how the Balkan community is seduced by the war and Tito’s revolution. Natalija’s dance in a red dress conveys the frailty of a society drugged on the revolution and which is fooled by a fictitious war.

The finale is what consumed me, the images that stayed with me for days; Tarkovsky on steroids. Ivan has finally broken free from the prison and lost his monkey that he grew up with underground for decades. His country exists no more, no home to go to. He realizes Marko, his own brother has planned this elaborate farce. He finds him in a weapon trafficking deal with a group ( Kusturica in a cameo).  Marko is now on a wheel chair fleeing from the civil war championed by Blacky . Ivan bludgeons Marko to death on his wheel chair. Natalija comes to rescue but is also killed on the chair in the ensuing battle. The civil war perpetrators set them on fire. The burning chair with Marko and Natalija revolves around a cross with Jesus strung inverted.  There are layers of meaning in this shot even beyond the contours of cinema.

Ivan finally finds redemption by hanging himself to the abandoned church bell. A goose is shown escaping in slow motion from the church in the smoke drenched skies.  The last scene of the film shows a surreal land where all the characters of the film are celebrating a wedding in happiness.  The piece of land slows cuts off and ebbs away into the sea while Ivan speaks to the audience; “Once upon a time there was a country; Yugoslavia”

PS: I had initially submitted this post on PassionForCinema http://passionforcinema.com/emir-kusturica’s-underground-a-nation-that-ceased-to-exist/

]]> http://tobatheinfilmicwaters.com/2009/07/26/review-the-class/ Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:58:25 +0000 jedimoonshyne http://tobatheinfilmicwaters.com/2009/07/26/review-the-class/

The Class | Laurent Cantet, 2008

The first French film to win top prize at the prestigious Cannes film festival for 21 years, Laurent Cantet’s The Class – Entre les Murs; literally meaning “Between the Walls” – has certainly exceeded its own tidy ambition. Set in Paris at an inner city middle school, the film follows a focused young teacher as he attempts to tame a trying group of boisterous teenagers over the course of a year. The tale is actually a self-autobiographical one, written by lead actor François Bégaudeau – a writer who has worked for Cahiers du Cinéma and published a handful of successful novels – about his trials and tribulations working in a similar situation during the nineties. Now, with the help of experienced French writer/director Laurent Cantet he is able to bring this rather personal story to the screen first-hand by turning his hands to acting. The Class takes a somewhat well-trodden concept and breathes new life into it; we’ve all seen movies that take a passionate teacher and class of unruly students from poor backgrounds, mixing them together with a dose of overbearing drama to reach a typically positive conclusion. The Class, however, doesn’t allow the audience such an easy ride. As the title suggests we are there for every bit of heightened tension and every single inspirational moment, though without the usual melodrama.

The Class deftly recreates the kind of problems to be found in a multi-ethnic Parisian middle school, and perhaps more than usual we should be thankful to the writer for this. Not only do the real-life struggles of Bégaudeau allow us a valuable insight into this world, his performance is also surprisingly adept given his lack of acting experience. Of course, with such a young cast it is often difficult to maintain this high standard – each student plays his/herself in the film – but performances are strong and genuine without exception. I can’t help but compare The Class with an English television series of a similar setup – Teachers, as it was imaginatively titled, offered a similar look at the middle school tier of education over in England, though with an exceedingly neurotic central character and general hilarity throughout. Where Teachers took the inadequacies of national eduction and poked fun at it to great success, The Class takes its positives and highlights them; the passion of these teachers and their daily battle to connect with an increasingly restless audience. This isn’t an ambitious film by any means, neither does it have a general direction in which we are encouraged to look, it does however offer us – without an underlying social or political message – a look at today’s schools that makes for highly engaging viewing.

Our Rating:

The 10 minute short film below, ‘The Lunch Date‘, is one of the most profound, clever, amusing and humane films I’ve ever seen. The film, directed by Adam Davidson, went on to become a worldwide success after it was made in 1989. In 1990, it won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival for best short film, and, in 1991, an Oscar for Best Short Film. The film explores prejudices and racial tension through a chance encounter between an old white woman and a black man.

This short film is an example of perfect film making. No matter how you see this film, you can still find those elements which you prefer to see in a film. To begin with, the film has a perfect narrative; well defined acts, conflict, character development, dramatic tension and resolution. The film also has symbolic artistry written all over it. Then, the story has humor and poignancy, both complementing each other. Finally, the film explores one of the most important conflicts of modern times, the racial prejudices, in the most non-judgmental & effective way possible. And, the film achieves all that in mere ten minutes!

The film was made in 1989, but the story seems to be set in an earlier period. I think the story’s setting in bit earlier times, along with the movie being shot in B&W, helped the film made it’s point better. There is a suggested sense of irony with film being shot in B&W; we learn by the end of the film that life is certainly not black and white. For me, the biggest victory of this short film is that how in mere ten minutes, and one seemingly frivolous encounter later, you sense a profound change within that prejudiced old woman. Because I personally believe that people, even in their complete life time, hardly change much in terms of their core values, prejudices and world view. So, when in films and stories I see characters having major changes in their values, attitudes and prejudices after some experience or, worse still, sermonizing, I generally don’t buy it and find such changes very unrealistic. But this film is so profound & that encounter between the old woman and black man so humane, that the change which you sense through inside this woman looks so well earned & also permanent. This gem of a film succeeds at all levels.

I was prepared to fully enjoy L’Enfant considering it won the coveted Cannes Palme d’Or in 2005.  Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate it, but it was just so typically European (which is not saying anything against our brothers and sisters across the pond).  I just can’t get past the extreme use of silence in European cinema . . . and L’Enfant uses so much silence that it’s unnerving (which would be good if this was a thriller, but it’s not).  I simply couldn’t put away the thought that the massive use of silence was a compensation for a thin script.  In my opinion, this would have been a better short film than a full length feature.

Michael Haneke, the Austrian filmmaker and darling of the Cannes film festival won the Palme d’Or for his latest film, “The White Ribbon” and no one seems to be  acknowledging the giant elephant in the room. Isabelle Huppert, the President of the jury this year, was the leading lady in two of Haneke’s previous movies and obviously has a close relationship with him  (a conflict of interest I pointed out when the official lineup was announced). But maybe it’s just that no one cares. After all, the director is a major heavyweight in arthouse cinema and has a wide following around the world. If you ever glance at my list of all time favorite films, you’ll immediately notice that I’m a part of that following. Whether or not the jury’s decision was swayed by its less than objective President, I’m happy to see Haneke awarded what’s arguably the most prestigious prize for an achievement in filmmaking. Hopefully, “The White Ribbon” lives up to it.

Michael Haneke finds redemption after Funny Games USA by channeling Bela Tarr and Carl Th. Dreyer to win the Palme d’Or yesterday for The White Ribbon.