Change Your Image
britishsteamwave
Reviews
Citizen Verdict (2003)
What if ... ??
The film ostensibly has an outrageous plot. For the last few years, TV audiences have been swamped with "reality shows". As Armand Assante's character Sam Patterson says: "You're not voting someone off an island: you're not evicting someone from a dormitory: you're banishing someone from the planet!". It is illusion versus reality. It is the ultimate "what if" proposition. What if the citizenry were to be able cast a vote on guilt or innocence in the manner that a jury does? I have problems with the basic hypothesis and hence with the film itself. You may as well have "Citizen Surgery", "Citizen Psychiatry" or "Citizen Dentistry" (I hope they're not going to be sequels - they'd have to be comedies if they're ever made) where anyone could put in their $19.95's worth. First and foremost, you would be allowing people who might not be fit for all sorts of reasons to cast a vote, the only criterion being of whether the person in question can muster up $19.95 on their credit card to enable them to vote! People may be racially motivated; be prejudiced against a certain profession e.g. teachers. They may be mentally unfit and so on. That's why juries are screened as you can see in "The Devil's Advocate" (Al Pacino, Keannu Reeves). True that's open to manipulation but it's better than open slather. The story fails on its basic premise. It's interesting to revolve it as a speculation but no more than that. I sense the film-makers expected us to take it a little more seriously. One of the previous reviewers, nitatestock35 made a comment to the effect that he suspected that some of the people were not actors. The clue to an answer to this is in the final credits where it is revealed that Armand Assante himself was the interviewer. Most likely real interviews were conducted by Assante (probaly as an afterthought) which were then melded into the storyline to give the film a sense of verisimilitude which it desperately needed. There was indeed a judge in the interviews but also a defence lawyer as well as a District Attorney and a smattering of 'ordinary folk' with their various prejudices.
American jurisprudence is not my long suit but I cannot imagine any jurisdiction in the world allowing a court of first instance to be the final arbiter of a capital case. Any decision rendered by a single judge of lower would be taken to an appellate court. No lawyer/attorney/solicitor/barrister worth his salt would be content with an adverse verdict and would appeal the decision perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court of America or in Australia's case, the High Court. Is this one of the "loose story threads" mentioned by others. Of course the 'deus ex machina' employed by the scriptwriters in introducing damning videotape (which it is also suggested would have been inadmissible under those circumstances in a real court case) obviates the more subtle nuances of court procedure. The tape brings the trial to a grinding halt and we don't have to think about the byways of the appeal process.
Raffaelo Degruttola gave a sterling performance as a violent schizophrenic time-bomb whose cloak of calmness is easily torn away. But if he hears voices, as he says he does after admitting to the murder, should not psychiatric evaluation been available to him. Are schizophrenics executed regardless in America? The execution scene is harrowing. One of the most interesting characters was Carlene Osway played by Dorette Potgieter, a beautiful blonde girl in the Finnish style, whose outer beauty is counterbalanced by an inner moral bankruptcy and void. Bad people are almost always the most interesting. Indeed ironically she uses her beauty to further her ignoble pursuits first turning up unannounced to Sam's yacht (please don't tell me it's a ketch or yawl, I'm not strong on boats either) dressed like "stripper" to help him but who eventually ends up in Marty Rockman's spa-pool and bed. This is a girl who wants to get to the top in the shortest time possible. She definitely 'stoops to conquer'. I don't watch the Jerry Springer Show for reasons you can guess at. I thought, despite other comments to the contrary that his performance (and he's no stranger to the camera lens) was creditable ending in his penultimate scene where his diatribe on his perceptions of reality are summarised as he declares TV to be the present God. The scene is skilfully edited into a melange of overlapping and interlocking images reinforced by the crescendo of clashing music chords giving the viewer a surreal insight into the distempered mind of a megalomaniac corrupted by power and money.
The film was entertaining enough but I cringe at the preachy proclivities of some American directors. After delivering a speech to law graduates on the incorruptibility of law (ha-ha!), Sam sails off in his 'boat' emblematic no doubt of the American ship of state on the vast blue ocean of hope and promise. But just in case we didn't get the point, or perhaps it was slipped in gratuitously for us foreigners, we are treated to the strains (and I do mean strain, the tenor barely made the high notes) of "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord" and I was seriously wondering whether I was expected to stand up in my lounge-room and put my hand over my heart. Well! that's it! Having sung that, we're all better now! Nothing could ever go wrong again, they would have us believe. But it doesn't work. For all its imperfections, it is still a mild diversion which really doesn't offer any answers and if you can as Coleridge exhorts to bring yourself to accept a "willing suspension of disbelief for the moment which constitutes poetic faith", then the film viewed as an diversion rather than a didactic vehicle, stands the test as entertainment.
The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (2003)
Romancing the Stone
It must have been an interesting film to attract such an array of comment which both support the film and criticises it. The interest for me lies not in the fact that it is of itself a good film or a bad film, nor in the fact that it is a remake of a Beatty/Leigh film. The interest lies in the fact that such a range of comments both approving and disapproving could be made about the performances of the actors, including Dennehy, with such vehemence. I must say that I do not find comments like; "He's hot! He gets to take his shirt off a lot" any more an objective comment about acting ability than Leigh was much better at acting 'the neurotic' than Mirren because that wasn't acting either, she really was that way! Williams often concentrates upon characters who are emotionally fractured or ragged: Kowolski in "... Streetcar ..." and Laura Wingfield in " ... Menagerie." Karen Stone is likewise emotionally frail. Cossetted by a rich husband for years and harbouring doubts about her acting talent, she is also physically unfulfilled. When her husband apologises to her for not fulfilling the physical role in their marriage, she retorts: "If I'd wanted to behave like an animal, I would have married an animal" but clearly she does want to behave like an animal as is evidenced by a string of marcetta that escort her in Rome. She is damaged goods, She is emotionally scarred and physically and emotionally vulnerable, a fact recognised by the Contessa, a vengeful, embittered, exploitative, parasitic harpy, whose business it is to know these things and arrange for a remedy. Ironically, Karen is anything but hardened like stone, whatever her name suggests. She embarks on a series of assignations culminating in Paolo, an arrogant aristocrat whose genius for story-telling rivals the Brothers Grimm. We cannot be sure he is even a Conte, when Karen attempts to phone him using the number on the gilt-edged card he has given her, the line rings strangely, but not unexpectedly, dead. Nor is Karen Stone unaware of what is going on. She remarks upon the series of young men that the Contessa has supplied, all of whom coincidentally had some friend in dire (fiscal) need. But she is content to be 'shook down' (to a degree) in order to have the attention of these attractive young men who could and would do with enthusiasm what her husband could not. I wanted to shake the woman, not for her stupidity because she wasn't stupid, but for her susceptibility and vulnerability. I wanted to say: "Act you age, woman, you're making a fool of yourself." Mirren's eyes flicker almost imperceptibly when Paolo changes his story about the six brigade members who were killed. First, they were killed "on the plains of Africa" but hours later they were killed "on the boat". He doesn't bat an eyelid, she does! But neither of them seem to care. He is so self-assured in his supposed aristocratic arrogance and she is so needy, the lie passes.
Williams's preoccupations were generally local, or at least American. In this story, however, he has introduced a European/American theme and I wondered if Williams had not been recently reading some Henry James. Here we have the American ingenue confronted by the might and deviousness of the European sophistication and tradition. The Italians may be impoverished, they may be reduced to running scams and fixing up lonely ladies with gigolos, they may be living in penury and have to beg but they have the weight of the European tradition and culture to support them in adversity. So the age of Rome is mentioned at least twice, overstating its age by some hundreds of years, and Paolo draws attention to the oldest street in the city. Whether it is or not, it serves his purpose to say it is. But to Karen he says: "You are only fifty years old" which to her should be an unspoken criticism, and shocks her that he should say it aloud. But he is really saying: You Americans have no history compared to us", a sentiment espoused earlier by the Contessa who opines that any country with less than 400 years of history, has no tradition. We see in advance the pathetic contempt that the vanquished European has for the triumphant ( and sometimes triumphal) American. It is fully articulated in the last scene with the Contessa in a bitter attack born of frustration. Without assessing the relative moralities of Karen Stone or the Contessa or Paolo, it is the American who morally crumbles at the end, inviting an unwashed, unkempt, possibly very smelly young man (he's a bit too old to be an 'urchin') into her bedroom. Her degradation is complete. It doesn't require anyone to murder her. She is already destroyed. The Italians still have their culture, traditions, and history to fall back on.
Much has been said of the acting of various characters so I don't want to comment on this other than to say that Olivier Martinez seems to have received special attention for being wooden. Having not seen him in anything else, it's hard to make a comprehensive statement about his acting but I thought he conveyed the stiffness and arrogance that one would expect of a 'titled' person. Others may disagree.
Festival in Cannes (2001)
What a Waste of Time!
Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".
I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!
The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.
I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.
I Capture the Castle (2003)
" ... the Castle" Captured Me.
From the outset I shall declare my hand. The film was a beautiful pastoral celluloid eclogue, a verdant idyll as green as the dyed clothes which represented the poverty, the creativity of the artistic set - "Doesn't changing the colour of something make you feel godlike?" asks Topaz. - and the bucolic setting of the story. It is a story of creation - James Mortmain's creativity is suffering a hiatus popularly known as 'writer's block'. His name means 'dead hand' and signifies "the attempt ... to control his property postmortem" (Ralph Michael Stein 24 Aug 2003) His Muse has been dead or at least quiescent five years after the legal presumption of death and he sees his authority spinning out of his control. In his confrontation with Cassandra, he says; "I'm head of this family and I deserve respect." Topaz also remarks that her creativity is being suffocated or stifled by the family.
The other aspect of creation is embodied in the two nubile young women and their preoccupation with "Romance" the opportunity for which arises with the arrival of two American brothers. Rose the elder and supposedly prettier, an erratic ingenuous girl who tends toward the unscrupulous, played with conviction by the Australian actress Rose Byrne. She says: "I'd marry a chimpanzee if it had money" as a desperate outburst on their financial position. Rose's elevation to the gargoyle to petition the imp for a change in circumstances is reminiscent of the devilish nature of the gargoyle in Hardy's "Far From the Madding Crowd". Would she consort with the Devil? She is certainly prone to violent outbursts (like father, like daughter)when she strikes Thomas her brother. The younger daughter, Cassandra, who turns 18 during the course of the story is both character and narrator, and is more introspective, measured and moral. She is the filter through whom we see everything. She is the cynosure of the events and the other characters. Unlike her namesake, the Trojan princess and prophetess, she cannot see clearly ahead though people respect her poise and Simon tells her she "wise beyond her years" having elevated his assessment from "consciously naive".
Cassie, played by Romola Garai, looking like a younger version of Kate Winslet, becomes 'the little mother' of the family and is the protagonist. She arranges the match-making for Rose, inveigles her father into a forced retreat, mediates with Stephen, approaches Topaz to return to the castle and James. In a sense she is in danger of subsuming her own identity to that of Rose and the others. Simon tells her: "Not everything is your fault, Cassie; not everything is your responsibility" which illustrates the burden she takes on. This affects her and brings to the surface the less desirable and more unattractive aspects of her personality. She sees herself in her flights of fancy as supplanting Rose in the bedroom, and in Simon's affections - visions which she describes as "poisonous". Along with her observations of the Cottons getting the bigger servings of the ham at the return dinner party, we suspect there is a dark side to Cassie. But at least she's flesh and blood - and human. And more likable for that. In many ways she is selfless but she is not alone in that selflessness because she inspires it in others. Stephen informs Neil that Cassie is in love with Simon thus damaging his own suit. Topaz returns to help with James's redemption as a writer though maintaining her separate artistic career. Simon uses his connexions to promote James's new book. Simon and Neil agree to be "civilised" about Rose rather than becoming antagonists.
Rose bemoans the fact that they don't know much about young men and are nor likely to learn, living there. This is starkly illustrated on the first visit by the Cotton brothers where Rose behaves too 'forward' and "theatrical". The "consciously naive" Cassie along with Rose is socially gawky. The American brothers are by comparison urbane and sophisticated in what seems an almost conscious reversal of the ideas of Henry James - Simon talks about Debussy's music while Rose's favourite piece is the contemporary popular song. Both of the boys are accomplished dancers.
It's an unashamed 'rite of passage' film and is not without its flashes of humour. Neil plonks a cooked ham onto the arms of an aghast Rose after a non-too-subtle reminder from Thomas that the previous landlord used to send over a ham for Yuletide and that this year it was "sadly missed". The irony of the Mortmains serving up this same ham to the Cottons when they visit the castle is delicious. The comments by Neil about Rose's making up dance steps which causes him to tread on Rose's toes is typical of the humour - subtle. Some humour is very subtle such as the class distinction displayed by the stuffy dress saleswoman and the rude waitress demanding her pencil back and adding sixpence onto the bill because Cassie took the dog into the cafeteria. But it is also a film about remorse and redemption. Not until James confesses to Cassie that he would "surrender every word he had ever written" to hear his wife's voice again is he on track to start writing again. It's the catharsis he needs.
Tara Fitzgerald is convincing as the long-suffering free-spirited Topaz who indulges herself in nudity in the open fields. I for one should certainly like to see more of this English actress. Sinead Cusack captured the brassy American accent of the thirties and Bill Nighy did a good job of conveying pent-up rage stemming from his increasing irrelevance.
A pleasant jaunt through yesteryear. " ... the Castle" captured me!
L'idole (2002)
My Idol!
I never really expect to enjoy French films anymore than I would think that I would enjoy escargot or frog legs. However, I did. I took the film out on DVD and consequently had the facility to go back over the film when I felt that I "didn't get it".
If you're looking for an action film, forget it. "I'm not that kind of film" it would say. The appeal in the film is generated by the very human tensions that exist between the characters, and not just between Sarah Silver (Leelee Sobieski) and Mr Zao (James Hong, whose acting career goes back to "Love is a Many Splendoured Thing" 1955). There is an interlacing of frustration, suspicion, jealousy, spite, anger, futility, despair, and villainy. Overlaying all of this is the sexual tension which is never consummated, nor is ever likely to be, between Sarah and Zao, which endows the film with a sense of foreboding. There is a feeling of imminent disaster. The disaster, however, manifests itself in a direction not anticipated when the lead actress, Sylvia Martin, whose place Sarah wanted to supplant, suffers fatal injuries. The effect on Sarah who had placed a so-called hex on Martin is to change Sarah's life.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the film was in the character of Caroline (Maria Loboda) who looks like Emmanuelle Beart. A girl who hovers around the aging Zao and relies on him to feed her birds, and who should be the very embodiment of innocence, is riddled with jealousy (for the 'artiste'), malevolence (her interception of Sarah's parting letter is truly spiteful), and greed - which nearly results in her death when she hungrily snatches up the poisoned cake.
Zao is also complex. A man who has suffered the atrocities of the Japanese invasion of China and suffers from the bitterness which resulted from his slaughtered child(ren), kindly succours Sarah who is clearly not looking after herself. But he prepares a lethal cake with Sarah's sleeping pills which he had formerly substituted with rice grains, when she tried to commit suicide, after she rejected him. She rejected him because he had frustrated her melodramatic moment of suicide.
Other characters are well drawn too. The thieving neighbour Castellac who tells Zao that if Zao needs him, he's there to help - as he filches Zao's bottle of wine. Suffering from lack of recognition in his retirement (he was a uniformed railway guard) his sexual frustration is partially assuaged by listening over the landing to Sarah's orgasmic cries which, in turn, lead to the intrigue of the 'petition' from the residents.
The entire film is shot in shadows and darkness to match the dark motives of the denizens. The film began and ended with the motif of the roller-skaters which brought the film to a pinpoint in time. Nothing was different despite the fatality, sexual assault, and murderous intentions.
One criticism: Leelee's Australian accent wasn't!
The Yellow Canary (1963)
I would like to buy a copy of this film.
I agree 100% with Jonboy1 from Texas. Pat Boone gives a very credible performance as the smooth nightclub singer, Andy Paxton. He teams again with Barbara Eden (together first in "All Hands on Deck - 1961?) who plays his wife, and is the "yellow canary" who like the proverbial worm, turns. Jack Klugman, always a welcome presence on screen appears as the probing Lieutenant Bonner. 1950s film luminary, Jeff Corey also makes an appearance. I cannot understand why this film has been canned when many less deserving films appear on DVD. Another of Pat's efforts "Never Put It In Writing" is similarly discarded while the nonsensical "The Horror of it All" is available. Strange! If anyone knows where I can buy a copy, I would be obliged.
She'll Be Wearing Pink Pyjamas (1985)
Why they are different!
I had to force myself to watch this film because having seen some scenes on TV several years ago, I knew it was unashamedly what I call "a woman's film". It is about eight women who range in age from about 30 to about 55 so it encompasses issues such as sex, childbirth, fidelity, insecurity, and rejection. The women are from varied backgrounds including a doctor, a business-woman who owns an antique shop in Hampshire, a spinster Principal of a girls school, to others who are housewives and to the most spectacular failure - Fran (Julie Walters) whose life has been on 'hold' for the last three years. The common thread seems to be the inability of the women to sustain a lasting relationship with men, or the men with them. The childless doctor who ironically advises women on fertility matters refers to herself as a 'serial monogamist'.
Unlike the men in Dickey's novel "Deliverance", where the 'course' was shortly to disappear under the dam water, the women embark on this outdoor course because they themselves are in the process of disappearing - they are losing their identity. As one said: "This is life; it is not a rehearsal!" They undertake to complete the various courses which are physically adverse: bivouac in the pouring rain, scaling sheer cliffs, and orienteering. The physical stress placed upon these women ("Is the course too difficult?" is a minor theme) creates a concomitant mental stress and the strain brings out not only their contempt for men but in some cases, for each other. However, it has to be said that the viewer never doubts that the women will all complete the course, that decisions will be made - one woman announces that she is leaving her husband, another sets her daughter free of her control - and that generally they will have experienced renewal and regeneration. So despite the minor calamity with Fran's toes (This little blister went to market, this little blister stayed at home, this little blister ...) we are never in real suspense and the ending is a bit silly but it justified (or did it?) the inclusion of "She'll be Coming 'Round the Mountain". A pleasant time-waster.