What is Irma Vep about? The obsession of a failing director for a classic silent film serial translates into an electricity filled (I mean this literally) short reel of a remake. Along the way we meet several frenzied and frazzled characters doing pretty much- nothing. They rehearse a scene or two, but mostly talk, talk and talk. Very French with shades of Robert Altman. Many characters, many obsessions and a subtle exploration of hidden selves. In particular, Maggie Cheung walks onto the film set knowing virtually nothing about it and learns something about her own predilections through a mere costume change. However, the rest of the film is a bit muddled and somewhat conventional. References to French New Wave and other cinematic touchstones abound within a chaotic story structure. In the end, the film is slightly amusing, but leaves you mostly Breathless. There- I achieved the level of cinephilia demonstrated by the director Olivier Assayas in this film. I will skip the new HBO series, although I love Alicia Vikander.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Phantom Thread
(2017)
When a film looses its thread
16 January 2018
Let us get this out of the way- Phantom Thread is a beautiful film with a great premise and promise. A couture dress designer (Daniel Day Lewis) is demanding in the extreme and finds a muse (Vicky Krieps). He enjoys using her as a dress model and a companion, but she wants more. Along the way, the director, Paul Thomas Anderson, throws hints of intrigue starting with the title of the film. There are empty pretensions of dress-making as high art, secret messages sown into dresses and haunting memories. All of this leads to- exactly nowhere. Everything Lewis and Krieps do is recorded lovingly and meticulously on film with great mood music in the background. But there is no great reveal, no deep insight into human psyche, no higher truth. In the end it comes down to what a woman wants and what the man can live with. Lewis and Krieps are excellent, especially Krieps, but Lesley Manville as Lewis's sister has the thankless job of looking stern in every scene. Nothing in the film sticks with you when you leave the theater except the dresses, photography and the music; because Anderson has not come up with anything really interesting in the story. Unlike his "There Will Blood", which was a great film, Phantom Thread is a phantom film. It is a beautiful ghost of what should have been a really good film. See it if you wish to say goodbye to Daniel Day Lewis, but keep your expectations low.
Pather Panchali
(1955)
The first and the best of the Apu Trilogy
17 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Last weekend it was my fortune to see the entire Apu trilogy at the DIA Film Theater. It was a pleasure and relief after reading stories of burned negatives of Satyajit Ray films and anxiety that seeing his films again after 40 years may be a disappointment. I had seen a clutch of his films at a festival in Bombay and had seen Pather Pancheli again in late 70's as a student in U.S. I had not seen the other two films in the trilogy, Aparajito and Apur Sansar before. It was great to see all three films in a two day span, but this also helped me obtain perspective on this great filmmaker. Pather Panchali is superlatively great. Nothing in Indian film repertoire approaches it for its freshness, naturalness, authenticity, playfulness and ability to relate its experience to the audience. Words are inadequate to describe how affecting Chunibala Devi is as an 80 year old close to death. She walks back and forth from being a beggar/thief to a loving aunt to Apu and Durga. In the extreme conditions she lives in, there is no contradiction in the two roles. Subeer Banerjee as Apu is absolutely charming and Uma Dasgupta as Durga with her rebelliousness and budding sexuality breaks our heart. The photography of Subrata Mitra has few equals in B/W film world. It is not only beautiful; it finds beauty in the most unexpected places such as tattered huts and dark unlit interiors; but is also expressive and lyrical. Ravi Shanker's music is mostly enchanting, but occasionally a little too overpowering for the gentleness of the scene. Kanu Banerjee as the hopelessly romantic father and Karuna Banerjee as the ever suffering mother are excellent.
One can view Pather Pachali is the story of India's urbanization. From the beginning, the life in the village is hard and there are always stories about jobs and opportunities in distant cities. The railroad tracks outside the town beckon Apu and Durga and fill them with wonder when they finally see a train passing by. There is no electricity in the village (or running water, paved roads etc), and the electric lines outside town hum and sing to the two children, singing the song of modernization and breakup of the rural culture. It is inevitable that the family will end up leaving the village and our hearts collectively ache about this possibility and are afraid for them. Their pain is palpable as they leave in a rickety bullock cart, and Satyajit Ray makes us share that pain. What an astonishing achievement!
After the glorious achievement of this first film, the other two films disappoint. Aparajito seems mostly to be a transitional piece and Apur Sansar ends on an oddly sentimental note. Although death comes regularly in all three films, it is less and less able to shock and sadden as the trilogy wears on. When the last death occurs in Apur Sansar, it seems gimmicky. Subrata Mitra is still spectacular and watching Sharmila Tagore as the bride of Apu is a treat in itself, but most other characters seem wooden and the storyline increasingly becomes artificial. Worse, Satyajit Ray does not seem to have a good grasp of or a point of view about the city life as he does about village life in Pather Panchali. This is especially true when the story shifts to Calcutta in the third film. It is difficult to identify or sympathize with the grown up Apu and we become less and less interested in his fate. Too bad. I loved Apu in Pather Panchali and still cared about him in early parts of Aparajito, but by the end of the trilogy, he seemed more a stick figure created by Ray, than a flesh and bones human being. To me the Apu trilogy had lost its humanity.
One can view Pather Pachali is the story of India's urbanization. From the beginning, the life in the village is hard and there are always stories about jobs and opportunities in distant cities. The railroad tracks outside the town beckon Apu and Durga and fill them with wonder when they finally see a train passing by. There is no electricity in the village (or running water, paved roads etc), and the electric lines outside town hum and sing to the two children, singing the song of modernization and breakup of the rural culture. It is inevitable that the family will end up leaving the village and our hearts collectively ache about this possibility and are afraid for them. Their pain is palpable as they leave in a rickety bullock cart, and Satyajit Ray makes us share that pain. What an astonishing achievement!
After the glorious achievement of this first film, the other two films disappoint. Aparajito seems mostly to be a transitional piece and Apur Sansar ends on an oddly sentimental note. Although death comes regularly in all three films, it is less and less able to shock and sadden as the trilogy wears on. When the last death occurs in Apur Sansar, it seems gimmicky. Subrata Mitra is still spectacular and watching Sharmila Tagore as the bride of Apu is a treat in itself, but most other characters seem wooden and the storyline increasingly becomes artificial. Worse, Satyajit Ray does not seem to have a good grasp of or a point of view about the city life as he does about village life in Pather Panchali. This is especially true when the story shifts to Calcutta in the third film. It is difficult to identify or sympathize with the grown up Apu and we become less and less interested in his fate. Too bad. I loved Apu in Pather Panchali and still cared about him in early parts of Aparajito, but by the end of the trilogy, he seemed more a stick figure created by Ray, than a flesh and bones human being. To me the Apu trilogy had lost its humanity.
Jobs
(2013)
An almost insanely great film (those who want a history lesson, go read the book)
24 August 2013
I had read the bad reviews, Woz's comments about the film and my wife had read Issacson's book. Three strikes against the film we were about to see. But within minutes we were both drawn in, fascinated and entertained by the film. A really good film, perhaps even a great one. It is not insanely great, but more about that later.
What do you want from a film about a historic and important person? If you want homage to "a great man", go see Spielberg's "Lincoln". If you want a numbing "by the numbers" history lesson, go see Lee Daniels' "The Butler". But if what you want to see is a raw portrait of a highly flawed genius, go see "Jobs". The arrogance, the intelligence, the salesmanship, the insensitivity, the cruelty and yes, the ability to see what people want before they know they want it; it's all there. The Mac, the iMac, the iPod and everything else Apple marketed was the manifestation of a vision. A vision of creating something way beyond the ordinary, making complex technology simple and making ugly machines beautiful. That was Steve Jobs' vision and it comes through in the film loud and clear. Yes there are omissions- Xerox, Pixar, NEXT (almost not there) and of course the post-2001 products. But as I said in the title, if that is what you want, go read the book. This is not a film as history of Apple or biography of Steve Jobs, it is about Steve jobs the person. If you cannot see that, I feel sorry for you.
Yes, there are weaknesses. Ashton Kutcher's Jobs character walks funny for no apparent reason. Some characters are too superficially sketched. And yes, I agree that it should have been clearer as to how the Mac acquired its revolutionary user interface. But these are quibbles. Mr. Kutcher, the director, Joshua Michael Stern, and the writer, Matt Whiteley, take it from me- Forgive them (critics) for they know not what they are saying.
What do you want from a film about a historic and important person? If you want homage to "a great man", go see Spielberg's "Lincoln". If you want a numbing "by the numbers" history lesson, go see Lee Daniels' "The Butler". But if what you want to see is a raw portrait of a highly flawed genius, go see "Jobs". The arrogance, the intelligence, the salesmanship, the insensitivity, the cruelty and yes, the ability to see what people want before they know they want it; it's all there. The Mac, the iMac, the iPod and everything else Apple marketed was the manifestation of a vision. A vision of creating something way beyond the ordinary, making complex technology simple and making ugly machines beautiful. That was Steve Jobs' vision and it comes through in the film loud and clear. Yes there are omissions- Xerox, Pixar, NEXT (almost not there) and of course the post-2001 products. But as I said in the title, if that is what you want, go read the book. This is not a film as history of Apple or biography of Steve Jobs, it is about Steve jobs the person. If you cannot see that, I feel sorry for you.
Yes, there are weaknesses. Ashton Kutcher's Jobs character walks funny for no apparent reason. Some characters are too superficially sketched. And yes, I agree that it should have been clearer as to how the Mac acquired its revolutionary user interface. But these are quibbles. Mr. Kutcher, the director, Joshua Michael Stern, and the writer, Matt Whiteley, take it from me- Forgive them (critics) for they know not what they are saying.
The Intouchables
(2011)
Hollywood film made in French
12 August 2012
This french film starts with a Dustin Hoffman look-alike actor being driven by a black driver (Omar Sy) who is fond of Earth, Wind and Fire music and has a swagger made popular by many a black Hollywood actors including Eddie Murphy. In the typical Hollywood fashion he comes from the wrong side of tracks (think of Murphy in Trading Places), but ends up living in a Paris mansion (again echoes of Trading Places) taking care of a quadriplegic (François Cluzet). Somehow he learns to take care of his patient and in fact becomes quite an accomplished male nurse. The transition is mildly amusing, and won't bother you if you checked your skepticism at the door before entering the movie theater. If you have any doubts about whether or not this film is in the genre called Hollywood fantasy, you have to see what our tough man with heart of gold does next. He decides to teach his boss how to be a good father and ultimately becomes cupid for his boss. The film plays on the obvious disparities between expectations and attitudes of the privileged and under classes in ways that are funny. If you wish to enjoy this film, please keep your expectations low and ignore the obvious visual and other tricks. One of the early scenes shows a row of shoes and socks of the candidates waiting to be interviewed for the nurse's job. As the camera pans, all candidates are wearing shiny shoes with clean socks, but one pair stand out for being dirty and incongruous. Of course, they belong to Omar Sy's character and he gets the job at this super-rich household. How fuuunny!! I predict that in two to three years there will be a Hollywood clone of this film with Dustin Hoffman and Chris Rock playing the main characters. And it will be a box office hit.
Beasts of the Southern Wild
(2012)
Beasts of the Bayou and the mind
3 August 2012
Every once in a while you come to see a film that you have heard a lot of buzz about and are afraid that it won't live up to it; but it does in spades. "Beasts" is such a film. I saw it at the Traverse City Film Festival and it is nothing like anything I have ever seen before, and may not see again for a long time. With a cast of non-professional actors (the father in the film is played brilliantly by an "actor" named Dwight Henry, who apparently worked at a bakery that the producers and the director used to visit!), a story that is part fantasy (with an homage to the book "Where the Wild Things Are") and part excruciatingly painful reality regarding parts of the U.S. south, the film creates almost an alternate universe. This universe is built out of society's discards, both people and things, but is complete with existential questions, disasters of biblical proportions and a compelling storyline. Hushpuppy is the name of a six year old girl living in and around the backwaters of Louisiana along with her father, chickens, pigs and other animals. They are part of a community of people who have such strong connection to their dilapidated surroundings that they resist the government's efforts to relocate them even after a Katrina-like storm. Central to the film is the relationship between Hushpuppy and her boozing father, who at first appears to be weak and completely wasted. Hushpuppy, played by an amazing newcomer with an impossible to spell and pronounce first name, has a rich universe inside her mind which both frightens her and gives her strength. Through disasters, adversity and trials that would defeat even strong-willed adults, Hushpuppy's mental universe becomes more and more real to her. Will she tame the beasts of her mind, or will she be defeated by them? It is well worth taking this dark and glorious journey to find out.
Melancholia
(2011)
A lovely, sad and exceptional film
7 December 2011
It is often a mistake to read a review of a new film prior to seeing it in theater. The review can raise expectations that cannot be satisfied, and can spoil the fun of discovery even if the reviewer does his/her best not to include spoilers. Luckily for me this film was an exception to this rule. I read its review by A.O. Scott in NYT before deciding to see it, but the review did not prepare me for the impact that the film had on me. The probable reason for this lucky discrepancy is that this is such an original film that it is hard to summarize it in a review. So, I won't attempt to do so. Yes, it is about a planet called Melancholia and yes, it is about a sense of melancholy Kirstin Dunst's character experiences, but the way the two are connected is hard to explain. It is, however, worth waiting for all the two hour length of the film for this relationship to unfold. In fact, it is much easier to say what the film is not, than what it is about. Yes, the film is about a strange planet, but it is not science-fiction. Yes, the film is about mental illness, but it is not a psychodrama. Yes, it has recognizable veteran actors such as John Hurt and Charlotte Rampling, but the most compelling performance is by the relatively young Ms. Dunst. She constructs a character that is elusive, troubled and entirely compelling. Wow, what a performance! Those of us who have grown to think of her as the harmless white bread love interest of Spiderman, better think again. It would have been so easy for her to turn her character into an Ophelia, but she didn't. Here is a young actress with considerable talent who can give a subtle performance. I also laud Lars von Trier for his bold treatment of the subject of mental illness and different ways of coping with it. Mr. von Trier is always provocative, but sometimes rather irritating in his films. In Melancholia, he has achieved something very difficult- a provocative and highly original film that transcends genres and expectations, but satisfies nonetheless. Bravo!
Politics of Love
(2011)
Bollywood and Hollywood don't mix
13 October 2011
Of late Hollywood and Bollywood have been performing a strange dance. Big name Hollywood studios have signed contracts with Bollywood studios to produce films together and actors from both the industries are flying 10,000 miles to act in films produced by their opposites in the other continent. The difference is that while in most cases the exports from Hollywood have been grade B actors (Josh Hamilton in "Outsourced") and comedians past their prime (Chris Kattan in "Bollywood Hero"), the movement in the other direction is of supposedly grade A actors (Aishwarya Rai in "The Mistress of Spices"). Regardless, they have one thing in common- they manage to find mediocre projects and cannot rise above the material. Take for example of Mallika Sherawat, a "hot" actress from Hindi films, in this film. The film is based on a lame and worn idea of how opposites attract, made into an unfunny comedy. Ms. Sherawat is as bad as the material. She cannot even jog convincingly, let alone show any conflict about falling in love with a man who is politically against what she stands for. The simple irony of a black man trying to defeat the first black man running for President on a major party ticket, doesn't seem to occur to anyone in the film! The only good thing about Ms. Sherawat's performance is that it is no worse than that of her fellow actors in the film. All appear to be amateurs. It goes to show that the equation- Speaking English plus acting in Bollywood films equals being a Hollywood actress- does not compute. Whose hare-brained idea was this? How many such lousy half-Indian complete duds are going to be made?
Julie & Julia
(2009)
Mastering the art of enjoyable movie making
7 August 2009
Nora Ephron's treatment of the lives of Julia Child and Julie Powell as parallel stories of self-discovery is a delight. This is not a film with a high concept like "Benjamin Button" or great intensity like "The Hurt Locker", but it largely succeeds in what it sets out to do- provide an entertaining account of two lives that were intertwined in an unusual way. We see the progress of Julia in the 1950's and '60s in mastering French cooking and then writing the first authoritative book in English on the subject, while Julie mastering the same craft using Julia's book and videos fifty years later. Both find the process confidence-boosting and providing a structure and meaning to their otherwise somewhat boring lives. The pair of Meryl Streep (as Julia) and Stanley Tucci (as her husband) are simply divine. Their rapport is genuine and they make their half of the story believable without much apparent effort. You know you are watching a great performance when the actor makes you forget about the endless hours of practice that went into making the final product you see on the screen. Amy Adams and Chris Messina do a perfectly adequate job as the Powells living in a walk-up in Queens, but their story seems a bit thin at times and somewhat improbable. I did not buy that after a full day of work a woman with no culinary training would successfully embark upon making the complex recipes in Julia Child's book "Mastering the Art of French Cooking". Over 500 new recipes in 365 days without nearly a single disaster? Give me a break! Where did she get all the ingredients? Did she have time to go shopping every day? How did she afford all this? Who ate all the large portioned meals? Did some of the recipes taste awful? If you have tinkered in the kitchen trying out new things, you know what I am talking about. That's the fairy tale part of the movie. Regardless, Ephron makes us want to see Julie succeed in her endeavor and that is no small accomplishment.
Sudden Death
(1995)
Who are we kidding?
13 March 2009
This is a pale imitation of the Die Hard franchise that just sucks. The low ambitions of the movie are clearly on display when the terrorists hold the Vice-President hostage and he has to call the White House to beg them to transfer some money. In most movies of this genre the President is kidnapped or held hostage because after all he (or she) is the most powerful person in the country with finger on the nuclear button etc etc. Would most Americans have really been worried if Dick Cheney had been kidnapped? The honest answer is- probably not. Why the terrorists would choose a Stanley Cup final to carry out their operation and why, despite many explosions around them, the audience inside the hockey stadium is oblivious to the situation, are unanswerable questions. Let's just say this film is really hokey, not hockey. Those who liked the film and found it to be exciting should get a life.
Issues
(2005)
One of the worst movies of the decade
21 September 2008
Let me see- Bad acting, predictable plot, poor direction; what else could be bad? This would be a good effort if the average age of the participants was 12. Mediocre. Let's see what this film is about. It is about two guys living in a house with a woman who is just a roommate. We can guess, of course, that the woman will end up pairing with one of the men before the end. The woman has a friend who is uppity for no apparent reason- sorry correction- she has a boyfriend who is a high power agent in Hollywood. Correction- he is just a slime ball who preys on young females desperate to get into movie business. He is so crude that he wouldn't last in any business for more than 5 seconds, but for her girlfriend he is God. And one of the house-mates has a girlfriend who becomes a religious fanatic and a lesbian. Who thinks up such crap anyway? Actors mostly stand around stiffly to deliver their lines. Just because the actors are young and attractive does not make this relevant or interesting. This straight to DVD venture should have gone straight to nowhere.
Wild Strawberries
(1957)
Old Man reacquires his humanity during a road trip
4 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I saw "Wild Strawberries" again after 30 years (Traverse City Film Festival) and I was as much affected by it today as I was then. Dr. Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström) is a bitter old man who lost the twinkle in his eye and love of people during 78 years of a hard, but successful life. A domineering stern mother and an unhappy marriage have left him without apparent emotional attachments. A strange dream shakes him out of his routine and he makes a sudden decision to drive to the town (Luund) where he is to receive a high honor. His daughter-in-law, Marianne (Ingrid Thulin), joins him on the journey, but he is totally uninterested in hearing about her problems. On the way to Luund, he decides to stop at an old house where he spent his youth with his 9 siblings. A patch of wild strawberries takes him on a journey in time to his youth when he was madly in love with his cousin Sara (Bibi Andersson). All of a sudden the memories awaken in him the pain of losing Sara and the failed relationship with his wife. The latter memory finds echo in the relationship of a couple that they pick up on the road, but he also meets an old patient Henrik (Max Van Sydow) who thanks Isak for some unspecified kindness in the past. The road crew becomes decidedly interesting when they pick up hitchhikers, a lovely and lively young girl named Sara (Bibi Andersson again) and her two boyfriends. Little by little and in often imperceptible ways we see Dr. Borg soften and become more human. By the journey's end, Isak has come a full circle. He has reconciled with his own past and achieved a kind of peace few are lucky enough to acquire.
Victor Sjöström is fabulous as the old man and others are cast perfectly as well; many of whom are usual participants in Ingmar Bergman's adventures. Bibi Andersson looks radiant and it is easy to fall in love with her. Ingrid Thulin's character is also changed by the journey and she goes from being a cold and estranged wife to one who is beginning to understand and like her father-in-law. People taking a "journey" or road trip is a popular theme in films, and this is one of the most effective ones. It sometimes resembles "Midsummer Night's Dream" in its ability to find magic and meaning in the woods. Except for a brief Dali-Hitchcock inspired scene in the beginning, there is nary a false note. It is vintage Bergman.
Victor Sjöström is fabulous as the old man and others are cast perfectly as well; many of whom are usual participants in Ingmar Bergman's adventures. Bibi Andersson looks radiant and it is easy to fall in love with her. Ingrid Thulin's character is also changed by the journey and she goes from being a cold and estranged wife to one who is beginning to understand and like her father-in-law. People taking a "journey" or road trip is a popular theme in films, and this is one of the most effective ones. It sometimes resembles "Midsummer Night's Dream" in its ability to find magic and meaning in the woods. Except for a brief Dali-Hitchcock inspired scene in the beginning, there is nary a false note. It is vintage Bergman.
Tell Your Friends