Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
The Myth of Sisyphus
25 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Johnny's the smart guy who never gambles – always with the clothes, always with the girls. With a bullet in his gut and fire in his brain, Johnny makes the REAL smart play, and chooses Nancy – and life.

Debutant Director Rossen and Director of Photography Guffey have done something curious with this one. Some scenes are shot with a hand-held camera (revolutionary for the period) and there are some quirky, shaky bits of visual work, especially when the point-of-view shifts. Extreme close-ups of Powell and leading lady Evelyn Keyes have a strange "rocking- boat" movement in the background. Is this a Brechtian alienation technique, constantly reminding us that we're watching a movie, and forcing us to check out of the emotion, or merely the result of a very low budget?

Remember Scorsese's wonderful bird's-eye-view shot of De Niro (Casino, 1995), as "Ace" Rothstein, walking through his gaming tables, like a shark gliding through home waters? Well, here is something remarkably similar, half a century earlier. The wounded Johnny retreats to a back room where rows of roulette wheels are mounted on the walls, symbols of the deception (and hazard) by which he lives, and in which he thrives. And they look like the net which threatens to entrap him.

In a role of which his performance in The Exorcist now seems a parody, Lee J. Cobb is terrific as Johnny's foil and nemesis – the unkempt but mentally astute detective, jousting with the elegant, immaculate crook.

Dick Powell is a grossly underrated film phenomenon. Golden tenor in the 1930s musicals, he segued easily into hardboiled noir hero in the 1940s. It was Powell, slated for the title role in Johnny O'Clock, who campaigned for Robert Rossen to direct his own script – and thereby bequeathed us a noir gem. Snappy suits and a glossy criminal milieu, dripping with an atmosphere of barely-suppressed violence – this is the zeitgeist of the late 40s at its purest.

But it's also something more. Rossen was somehow in touch with European philosophical trends. The German Expressionist sets, giving shape to unruly, destructive emotions, are standard fare, but what is special here is the exploitation of Absurdist concepts through the medium of the American crime genre. In 1942 Albert Camus had published a work of philosophy which depicted human existence as essentially bleak. In this pitiless universe, the intelligent man-hero knows he cannot rely on the comfort of the God-myth. We are alone, and there is no purpose to anything, no meaning. Gide and Sartre quickly followed, and the Atom Bomb seemed to underscore what they were saying. In a world where our artistic, political and philosophical achievements can be snuffed out in one instant by a super-weapon, to look for worth in anything is an act of absurdity. So, when "Greaseball" Guido Marchettis has his gat pointing at Johnny, our hero angrily admonishes Nancy – if death comes, fairly or unfairly, Johnny will not have anyone beg to save him. To look this squalid world in the eye and to take what comes, without whining: that's the way Sisyphus has to play it.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gallipoli (1981)
8/10
"It's Not Our Bloody War!"
27 August 2012
Archie and Frank are friends. They are athletic young Australian men looking for adventure, and – the year being 1915 – they find themselves drawn towards the army, and participation in the World War which is currently raging in the northern hemisphere. As part of the ANZAC expeditionary force (Australian & New Zealand Army Corps), the two friends are thrown onto the beaches of Gallipoli. There, they experience war's terrible futility at first hand.

The Dardanelles Campaign (or the Battle of Gallipoli) is now a byword for military incompetence. It lasted ten months (April 1915 to January 1916) and was, for the Allies, an unmitigated failure. Churchill dreamed up the campaign and bears the greater part of the responsibility for it.

With the Western Front stalled in a costly stalemate, Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty was looking for a quick fix to open supply routes to the West's key ally, Russia. The attack on the narrow channel which connects the Black Sea with the Mediterranean promised additional benefits: Allied success would knock Turkey out of the war and may well lure Greece and Bulgaria into the conflict.

However, the plan was misconceived and very poorly executed. The numerical strength and the fighting capacity of the Turkish defenders were woefully underestimated, and the terrain inadequately surveyed. What was meant, originally, to be a purely naval action somehow morphed into a vast land offensive. The Turks were given ample warning of what was coming, and were able to make elaborate preparations. Allied combat units found themselves deployed onto narrow beaches and having to assault sheer cliff faces, all the time under machine-gun fire from the carefully-entrenched Turks.

With the breezy, optimistic approach so typical of Churchill (and all too often derived from careless perusal of small-scale maps), it was decided that the ANZACs should do most of the Gallipoli fighting. After all, Turkey was on the extreme fringes of Europe, not far from Australia (if you're looking at a small enough map, that is). Gallipoli was "their" war.

It has been said that Gallipoli marked the birth of Australian and New Zealander national consciousness. The appalling losses suffered by the ANZACs – in someone else's fight, it should be stressed – awakened a sense of antipodean identity. Australia and New Zealand began to perceive their interests as diverging from those of the "mother" empire, whose center lay in London.

Today, we see Australia and New Zealand as fiercely independent sovereign states with their own unique cultures and outlooks. Both have populations of diverse ethnicity, with Vietnamese, Greek and Italian immigration having helped shape their communities. It has certainly not always been so.

A typical Aussie of a hundred years ago thought of himself as British, and of England as "home", even though it was located on the far side of the planet. When the British Empire needed help, most Australians saw it as their plain and obvious duty to rally to the Union Flag. In the century which has elapsed since Gallipoli, Antipodeans have repeatedly been disappointed to learn that their values are not shared by the British.

Honest, hearty, vigorous, cheerful and loyal to his friends – this is the Australian's image of himself. The Englishman does not prize these qualities (according to the stereotype, at least): he is cynical, selfish, physically puny … and an utter, dyed-in-the-wool snob. When Frank prevents one of his ANZAC friends from saluting two sarcastic English officers, his gesture represents the parting of the ways. Henceforth, Britain and Australia will sever bonds of trust and respect.

"Gallipoli" is, in a nutshell, a film about decent Aussies being called upon to bleed and die on a foolishly-selected battlefield, in pursuance of someone else's aims, in circumstances of obvious futility. Early on in the film, champion sprinter Archie damages his feet when he takes on a silly bet, three days before an important race. Symbolically, he is Australia, squandering his God-given prowess for no discernible benefit, when he should be thinking of making his own way in the world. When the ANZAC soldiers sing "Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot?", the clear and powerful message is, "yes!"

The interesting musical score made a big impact back in 1981. Three themes recur throughout – Albinoni's "Adagio in G Minor", with its overwhelming sadness, accompanies the ANZAC lads as they prepare to launch their hopeless attack: an aria from "The Pearl Fishers" conveys the sensitivity of Major Barton, the officer caught between two loyalties: and in complete contrast, Jean-Michel Jarre's "Oxygene" provides cutting-edge (for 1981) incidental music, helping to suffuse the film with a sense of youth and hopefulness, qualities so important to Australians.

We spend the first thirty minutes in Western Australia. This part of the film is sumptuously and lyrically shot, with healthy young men laughing, herding cattle and playing sport in the magnificent outdoors. The soil is red ocher and the mountains tower over the land in this innocent paradise, the Garden of Eden from which Australia's youth will be snatched, to throw away their lives in England's cause. The Egyptian desert where the ANZACs train is also beautifully filmed, with the conical Aussie tents providing a nice counterpoint to the Pyramids – the New World called in to redress the Old World's evils. Kubrick's innovative "trench trick" of running a dolly camera along the earthworks ("Paths Of Glory", 1957) is replicated here, very effectively conveying the claustrophobia of trench fighting.

The film's enduring image is rightly famous. Knowing that, any moment now, they are going to be asked to march into machine-gun fire, ANZACs quietly pin their letters and wedding rings to the sandbags of their trench. The scene is excruciatingly sad, and stands – as, indeed, does the entire film – as a fitting monument to young men whose courage and strength were wasted, and whose bones now lie so far from the rich ocher of their native soil.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Sometimes it's painful."
2 May 2012
If you are between the ages of 9 and 19, and you are a dedicated (and hugely talented) ballet dancer, then the Youth America Grand Prix is a dance competition you'll know all about. And dream about. It doesn't matter where you're from (some of the "stars" of this documentary come from Africa and Latin America): given colossal natural ability, extremely hard work and the right guidance, you, too, can try for the glittering prize. Bess Kargman's excellent film follows seven kids as they prepare for, and participate in, this intense contest.

What a joy to get to review something that isn't brain-dead! Ballet is very difficult to do, very beautiful to watch, and requires intelligence and artistic flair (rather like a good documentary, really), and Bess Kargman has made a ballet film which is not only picking up awards faster than Halle Berry gathers motoring citations, but "First Position" has achieved the nigh-impossible for a work of non-fiction, and is going on general theatrical release. It will hit the screens on Friday, May 4.

The premise is a simple and compelling one. Youngsters from all over the world strive to qualify for the Grand Prix finals, held in New York City. When the very best gather for the dance-off, the pressure is just about unbearable. Each contestant will have five minutes on stage. If you're sick, or overcome by nerves, or if you stumble during your routine … too bad. All those years you worked for this, all those things you sacrificed in order to get here, are riding on the next three hundred seconds. Five thousand dancers enter each year, with this number being whittled down to a couple of hundred for the New York finals. From this small group, the winners will emerge. Kargman knows how to build suspense – but the who-won-it is only one element in this excellent film. We get to see the physical pain these kids go through (check out the "foot-stretcher" used by little Aran, which looks like a medieval torture implement), we hear from their parents and dance teachers … but, most of all, there is the beautiful ballet itself.

Like any documentary worth its salt, "First Position" asks as many questions as it answers. Thought-provoking contributions abound, like that from the teacher who states openly, "Kids who are pursuing ballet as a career give up their childhood." Can such a sacrifice be justified? Who gets to make the choice? Which is worse – to push small children through the grueling practice schedules, or not to push them – thereby passing up the chance for success? Is it fair to expose youngsters to the appalling pressure of the final round? This is a film which stays with the viewer long after the final credits have rolled.

One of the things you need to be good at, when you shoot a documentary, is judging what not to do or say. In this, Kargman has triumphed. She is never obtrusive, and she lets the images (and the kids) tell the story. Critic Dave Robson, reviewing the film for the Toronto International Film Festival (where, incidentally, it won considerable acclaim) puts it like this: "Though she casts a wide net, Kargman is careful to include only the most essential commentary. She frequently complements her cast's words with beautiful shots of dancing and juxtaposes them with more candid and vulnerable moments. It is perhaps trite to say that a film about an aesthetic discipline looks beautiful, but "First Position" does. It certainly helps that dancers are well lit, but more to the point, Kargman keeps her cinematography simple. To be too clever would distract from the dancing." In case anyone reading this is under the misapprehension that it's just a bunch of well-heeled preppy youngsters indulging in a glorified hobby, it is worth mentioning Michaela Deprince. This young finalist hails from Sierra Leone, where she witnessed her parents getting murdered. "It's a miracle I'm even here," she says – and she bears the scars to prove it. Indeed, overall, this is a singularly resilient bunch of kids. After all they have been through, it is surprising – not to mention heart-warming – to see how balanced, articulate and likable they all are. Take, for example, the tiny 12-year-old Miko Fogarty, who frequently has to field comments from others, to the effect that she has missed out on her childhood. She doesn't happen to agree.

This is Bess Kargman's breakthrough movie, and much credit she deserves. She directed the project and also took a major hand in the editing. Her director of photography, Nick Higgins, has done a lot of documentary work in his career – but surely nothing as visually captivating as this.

By the way, for those of you who, like me, have a penchant for movie titles which contain more than one level of meaning, "First Position" refers of course to winning the Grand Prix, and therefore being guaranteed a prestigious professional contract … but it is also a ballet term, denoting the preliminary posture – standing with heels together, toes splayed outwards. The things you learn on IMDb, huh?
31 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"The challenge is to cope with it …"
2 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Seven elderly English people move to India. They do this because they have been lured by promises of a golden retirement, far from the drizzle and depression of Dorking. Naturally, when they arrive in the East, things are not as they expected. Obstacles must be overcome, new ways of living must be learned, and people find they must let go of the past. Can these sixty-and-seventy-somethings overcome their prejudices, and forge a new life in the Third World?

This being a British middle-class attempt at a comedy-drama, you can round up the usual suspects … Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, Ronald Pickup, Celia Imrie (what happened to Richard Briers and Maria Aitken? Were they tied up in pantomime in Leatherhead?) To be a successful TV and film actor in England, you must (a) speak with a cut-glass accent and (b) have been born before World War Two. The script is derived from a novel (aren't they all?) and so it has to be given an injection of life – the slow, contemplative pace of a prose work doesn't translate well to the big screen. This is done by tagging-on a bunch of one-line gags. Screen writer Ol Parker has done his best, but Bob Hope this isn't. India is "the Costa Brava … but with more elephants", and we even get that old chestnut, "If she dies, she dies!"

No-one, it seems, can make a film about India without descending into the most irritating of clichés (ever seen "City of Joy"?) The much-lauded "Slumdog Millionaire" was a major offender in this respect, and "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" fares no better. One imagines that this project was chosen for three reasons: first, there was a novel already in being (most film-makers can't or won't trust their own judgment, and always resort to the crutch of a pre-existing work to base their movie on), second, with a cast of seven geriatrics, it was perfect for Britain's talent pool of actors and third, India looms large in the British consciousness. If the threadbare Empire thing is finally receding, there are many educated British people who have backpacked their way around Goa and Uttar Pradesh in their student days, and are also vaguely aware of India as an "emerging economy", so there might be money to be made from an Anglo-Indian film. So why the stereotypes? To say this film's understanding of India is skin-deep is not being very complimentary … towards skin.

India in 2012 is a burgeoning modern state, with its own nuclear weapons and its own space program. In a population of 1.2 billion, there are quite a few switched-on individuals who know about stuff. But in Western films, we stubbornly insist on patronizing this vast and vibrant culture. You know the sort of thing. Get to India and you can't trust the water, can't trust the food, can't trust the drivers. Sonny (Dev Patel) is the young dreamer whose ramshackle hotel forms the setting of the story, and guess what – he is delightful, charming, unrealistic and not entirely honest. In other words, he is a child. Adorable, but a child.

And there's the rub. Like "City of Joy" and "Slumdog Millionaire", this film feeds into the assumption that Indians are inferior. They don't have our standards. Efficiency, propriety, hygiene – these are Western characteristics. You enter the maelstrom when you set out on an Indian road, because – bless them – they are suicidal maniacs when they get behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle. And they eat funny food.

What becomes of our Surbiton Seven after they've exchanged Cheam for Chandigarh? Well, it's all fairly predictable. They go through a phase of disillusionment, then they learn to love the Indians, and it all gets nice and heart-warming. Evelyn, Judi Dench's character, starts working in a call center and Muriel (Maggie Smith) takes a look at the hotel books. Before you can say "poppadum", the call center is a raging success, because Evelyn shows the operators how to interact with callers. The hotel is turned around, because now somebody with skill is controlling the finances. You see? That's all India needed – for two elderly women to show up and tell the locals what to do. Never mind that Muriel is a dyed-in-the-wool racist and Evelyn has never actually had a job of any kind in her life.

As for Norman (Ronald Pickup), he is the Reigate Romeo who can't accept the aging process and the loss of sexual potency. Know what happens? He meets an English woman who's lived all her life in India, and they fall in love. The Subcontinent has worked its magic again. The only thing is, why couldn't he fall in love with an Indian woman?

In the final analysis, the film doesn't work because these people are not touched by India. They go there, but they remain, psychologically, in Wimbledon. India is a success only in so far as it submits to Western ways of doing things. Sunny decides he's going to marry Sunaina (Tena Desae), even though she's from an inferior caste, because he wants to – and love conquers all, doesn't it? Never mind that they are both Hindus, living in an ancient Hindu civilization, with its time-honored ways of doing things. The Western quick fix is the way to go. How nice for us, to be able to breathe in India's aromas, glory in its colors, solve all its problems within hours of arriving … and still remain stranded, psychologically, in Surrey.
29 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed