• Pages

  • Site Sections

  • Tags

  • Archives

Remember – Sunday 10/11/13

 

 

Remember

We owe a debt to those
who risk and sometimes
give their lives
to protect us
and we must discharge it

But to celebrate
with equal circumstance
those who simply
kill in our name
corrupts true gallantry

And when we know
as sadly know we do
that corrupting souls
assassins makes
we are dishonoured too

We should celebrate
the offered lives
not how they were lost
there is no glory here
just incommensurate cost

Kill for God
Kill for Fun
Kill for State
Kill for Markets
Kill for all Kill for one

Courage is not honour
Though that’s not what is said
for only life is absolute
killing kills us too
in Death’s dominion – dead is dead

“You’re f***ing browners fella”
(brown bread – dead)

“Anyone want to do First Aid on this idiot?”

“I’ll put on in his head if you want”
“Not in his head, ‘cos that’ll be f***ing obvious”

“Going to switch this f***er off”
“Just strangle him”
“Yeah” (laughs)
“Maybe we should just put one in his head”

(Gunshot)

“There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil”
“It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us”

“This doesn’t go anywhere lads”
“I’ve just broken the Geneva Convention”

“A biometric data module, right”

Captain Phillips – Paul Greengrass: Might is right….but…..

 

The real Captain Phillips

 

 

Captain Phillips – Paul Greengrass

Claustrophobic, tense, exciting, edge-of-the seat suspense. As you would expect of the Director of United 93 and the best two films in the Bourne franchise, Captain Phillips is brilliantly edited to give a sense of movement and pace one wouldn’t have thought possible confined on board a container ship heading for the Horn of Africa through the piratical political gauntlet that the seas off Somalia have become.

Hanks if of course utterly dependable as the undemonstrative, quietly authoritative, real life Captain Phillips, whose ship Maersk Alabama was captured by Somali pirates in 2009. Hanks must be the most instinctively likable, dull actor working today. Here he is perfectly cast as the sane, buttoned-up captain at the centre of the chaotic politics of modern terrorism to which Greengrass returns after his equally strong United 93 – the 9/11 hijacking that didn’t reach its target. Hanks’s what-you-see-is-what-you-get acting style makes him the calm epicentre of the almost bizarre reality of of half a dozen ex-fishermen in fragile motorized skiffs, driven by necessity and threats from Somali warlords, armed only with small arms, to ‘attack’ a gigantic merchant ship in the middle of the ocean. One is struck by this dramatisation of an actual event with exactly the same thought as one is with the real news items of similar hi-jackings – how is this possible?

Basing a work of popular art on a real story is a mixed blessing. The actor can of course, with a largely unknown figure like Captain Phillips, get away with being, as here, ‘Tom Hanks’ and fortunately doesn’t have to impersonate or emulate the real person. This necessity often undermines or even destroys dramatized biopics etc of well-known celebs and politicians for example.

The real life basis may seem to add an aura of verisimilitude to proceedings. But this can be problematic: after all it can’t be the case that we believe any old actor or an unconvincing account of a dramatic event just because there is a real person and actual events being portrayed. Some art is required, to invest factual accuracy with dramatic conviction: a different kind of truth; and harder to achieve. This appears to work much better with Captain Phillips than for example the other film ‘based on a true story’ currently doing the rounds – The Fifth Estate about Wikileaks and the enigmatic Julian Assange. There are many reasons for this but essentially Hank’s Phillips is in the film what the real Phillips was in real life – a pawn caught up in a macabre, at times deadly game of chess. We don’t need to know much about pawns, just where they fit on the board, how they can move, and their rigorously defined contribution to the ‘game’.

It is here that one begins to feel uneasy about the subtext of Greengrass’s movie. Following what I take to be the actual sequence of events, defines and limits the dramatic impact of about the last third of the movie which takes place on a lifeboat containing the pirates and Phillips who they have taken hostage. As the combined might of the US Navy, Special Forces, Helicopters etc bear down upon this tiny cork of a boat bobbing about on the ocean, the sense of uncertainty that has maintained the tension and suspense thus far is inevitably dissipated. We know it didn’t end in everyone’s death; another downside of the real event basis, and action-wise the confines of the lifeboat narrows possibilities enormously. It is here that weaknesses in the first half of the movie begin to emerge; for despite having some genuine Somali exiles in the pirates’ roles Greengrass doesn’t really engage us with them when the circumstances of their having just taken over the ship would have made this possible. He settles for a sense of menace and unpredictability in the pirates to generate a largely event-driven dramatic arc.

In this respect Captain Phillips is far less interesting and dramtically ‘layered’ than say the Danish film released earlier this year A Highjacking (Tobias Lindholm). A Danish ship is also hijacked by Somali pirates and held for ransom. Lindholm opens out his story to explore the dramtic and moral conflicts of Corporate attitudes, treatment of anxious relatives, and a far more interesting, nuanced view of the intricacies of negotiations with the pirates. In this respect it is telling that in the Danish film the pirates are far more organised, sophisticated and ‘good’ at what they do. Characters are developed who become part of the deadly game of wits and balance of risk and reward. The pirates in Captain Phillips for all the actors’ screen presence (especially Barkhad Abdi as Muse) remain one-dimensional, disorganised and without any real sense of leadership. The Danish perspective is more convincing and perhaps truer to the intractability of the problem. If all hijackings were as random and half-assed as shown in Captain Phillips, it is hard to believe the problem would have lasted for so long and become so difficult to resolve.

For all its carefully manufactured excitement therefore, Captain Phillips gradually drifts, under the force of its own need for dramatic force, into something perilously close to a typically Hollywood action movie. This is especially true when the US Navy come to the rescue with a denouement straight out of the Hollywood blockbuster handbook – with as ever the eventual triumph of guns and firepower; and the characteristically American sense of that is not only how it was, but how it should be.

We are obviously invited to applaud Captain Phillips for his courage and fortitude. And aye to that. But, and it is a big but: it is hard not to feel a bit queasy at the sight half a dozen, emaciated, manipulated ex-fishermen, driven by desperation and necessity, being inevitably overwhelmed by the grotesque over-kill, literally, of the full might of the American Navy. Hollywood certainly, and perhaps the more bellicose sections of today’s polarised American society, seem to have become comfortably adulatory of an American ‘way of war’ that involves total technological supremacy, massive superiority in numbers and a disturbing disproportion in the deaths and casualty figures between the combatants.

On a day when the latest authoritative, figure of deaths in Iraq attributable directly or indirectly to the Allied invasion has been updated to nearly half a million; the gung-ho, super-power ‘triumph’ of two massive warships, several helicopters and hundreds of men over 5 terrified, skinny Somalians armed with rifles, leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. However wrong and even ruthless is the piracy and the brutality the real pirates can display.

The politically sensitive American way-of-war is rapidly approaching maximum death to the enemy with zero loss. The controversial use of drones achieves precisely this. The logical extension of this idea is a totally robotic army fighting proxy wars against real human beings with all the de-humanisation that horrific prospect entails.

A long way from Captain Phillips perhaps but the disturbing assumptions are there. Go and see it as pure Hollywood entertainment. But if you want to feel engaged in the complexity of the problem and the conflicting demands and challenges it presents to brave and weak; honourable and venal men and women; caught up in a tragedy not of their own making – get A Hijacking out on DVD. It doesn’t of course have Tom Hanks: but then whether that’s an advantage or not depends on your point of view.

Disappointing Blue Jasmine – Woody Allen. Woody was, is and always will be more a Lubitsch than a Bergman

 

 

Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine

 

 

 

Blue Jasmine – Woody Allen

Woody Allen is blessed. He has a God-given gift. That gift is to make us laugh: with an articulate wit, incisive irony, and a delicious sense of the personal and metaphysical absurdity of life. Camus in drag.

His gift as an artist, is not to make us cry; to move us deeply. If the man has a melancholic, dark perspective on life and personal relationships; it is the artist who rescues him and us, with flashes of manic rebellious humour which we all instantly identify with and share. In Shakespearean terms it is his destiny to be the Fool who is always observer and commentator on the tragedies of hubris and flawed ambition that play out around him. Always the watcher: never a player. He has the mind of a Lear but the soul of a Fool; the desire of a Romeo but the heart of the Apothecary – a facilitator in the destiny of others.

Like many others before him blessed with the gift of laughter, but more culpably than most, because he has the intellect and insight to know better, Woody is drawn to the tragic to the point of undervaluing the comic genius which is his greatest talent.

There is much to admire in Blue Jasmine – not least of course Cate Blanchett’s tour-de force reincarnation of Streetcar’s Blanche Dubois. As ever with Allen the direction is austere, impeccably structured and satisfyingly unobtrusive. But just as with Tennessee Williams’s iconic play with which it has inevitably been compared, Allen’s even more shallow, domesticated script doesn’t have the substance to sustain Blanchett’s peerless performance of it. Indeed there is a sense in which Blanchett is miscast: not because she can’t handle the role; but paradoxically because she is just too strong a screen presence for an essentially shallow character – as written. There are moments in Blue Jasmine when Blanchett’s intelligence and powerful presence almost topples Allen’s Jasmine as written into someone more interesting but at odds with the rest of the film.

Jasmine is a lady-who-lunches, socially connected New York wife of a wealthy husband, financial entrepreneur, i.e. crook, Hal (Alec Balwin at his sleazily smarmy best). Everyone, including Jasmine’s sister lady-lunchees, knows the gobsmackingly obvious fact that Hal is a serial philanderer with an emotional age yet to reach double figures. When true to stereotype, Hal falls in lust with one of his youthful dalliances, Jasmine decamps to LA to join her sister adoptee Ginger trapped in a downbeat, daily grind of the supermarket checkout and surrounded by blue-collar Neanderthal guys whose most dedicated investment is in their burgeoning beer guts.

British actress Sally Hawkins does what she can with Ginger but as Allen has no feeling for the authenticity of blue-collar guys and the American working class has a different tone and voice than the British, it doesn’t really work. Ginger’s estranged husband Augie then new beau Chili (yeah, really) Bobby Cannavale look like uncomfortable refugees from Working Girl where at least their stereotypical blue-collarness was used for a comedy of manners and social mores.

Augie and Ginger’s once-in-a-lifetime chance for financial stability rested on a $200K lottery win which went down the tubes when they invested in one of Hal’s pyramidal scams which eventually brought his and Jasmine’s wealthy life-style to an abrupt end.

So, luggaged by Louis Vuitton and fresh from a First Class flight from New York, Jasmine dumps herself on Ginger claiming that she is penniless. She makes dispiritingly half-baked efforts to adjust to the new financial and social realities of her plight but despite Blanchett’s best efforts, she remains an unlikeable snobby woman with delusions of a grandeur she never had; only with the husband-generated illegal wealth to fake it. Our only route to empathy or sympathy for Jasmine is to see her as wronged victim: but it would be hard to find an actress less suited to play victim than Cate Blanchett.

Efforts by Chili to set Jasmine up with a bloke who could get her out his weirdly coiffed hair and out of Ginger’s inadequately small flat are embarrassingly predictable and unconvincing. One longs for some lightness of touch, some style, irony – something to make us at least smile for God’s sake. But no, Woody just plays his faltering storyline and script absolutely straight.

This tale of a rather silly, indulged, kept, wealthy woman losing all her privileges through nothing more interesting than being traded in for a younger model makes it hard to care very much what happens to whom. As set up, like the now dated Streetcar Named Desire, the deepest emotion Allen can tilt for, from the very beginning is pathos. And it is true Blanchett’s talent manages to touch us briefly at the end. But there is nothing here to compare with Claire Bloom’s luminous, ethereal quality of a woman with a raw emotional sensitivity and other-worldly fragility that disabled her from the visceral reality of life. Pathos has to emerge: if you chase it, it always looks contrived.

Woody has no feeling for the expression of intimacy in personal relationships film offers: though the camera is always voyeur, it does not have to be voyeuristic. Allen is not the only Director to fail this test – David Lynch and Bertolucci are two others.

The real tragedy for me is that if, instead of following the twisty, labyrinthine paths of his personal angst into emotional territory for which he has no real instinct, Woody had honed his genius for comedy, he could have produced some timeless, perfectly achieved, comedies that would have lasted for ever. He was, is, and always will be, more of a Lubitsch than a Bergman.

Poem: After Wittgenstein – In the Beginning Was the Deed

Wittgenstein

 

After Wittgenstein – In the Beginning Was the Deed

Words alone have no meaning no sense
so the proposition is meaningless too
Meaning is the act of making sense
meaning something in using words
Possibilities of meaning are my choice
through action of making sense with them
Action is use
I enter the world
through my acts of meaning,
the sense I create in my use of words
The limits of meaning are set
by the limits of actions through which
I can give them the sense that they might have

Action is meaning
Words represent possible actions not meanings
without action they are just marks on a page
The meaning of life – is life
To live is to act
to act is to mean
therefore to live is to mean
I cannot live without meaning
because I cannot live without acting
There are things I can mean in what I do
but there are possible meanings in what I do
I did not mean

The possibilities of meaning I can create in acting
are the possibilities of my acts being understood
by an other. Taking sense from
a shared form of life.
Language cannot start as private
nor, it now seems can an act.
My action with words can deceive
but to deceive you must believe that they’re true
You will only believe if you trust me
Our respect for the truth
confers the power to lie.
Our secrets can only be private
if what we hide can be known
otherwise why conceal it
to what point and from whom?
Privacy is a social conception

A proposition is an imagined act of meaning with no actor
therefore its sense is imaginary
Imagined actions do not enter the world
so do not have actual consequences
only imagined results
therefore they don’t have real meaning
only imagined sense
We can imagine any action we choose
but we cannot imagine real sense
for that we must act but
an act of the imagination
is a grammatical mistake
that generates philosophical confusion
An imagined act cannot be the same as a real act
A grammatical remark about acting not ‘acting’

The end of Philosophy is the end of Philosophy
the realisation we do not discover
meaning or sense in the world
we create it.
Philosophy cannot show us
how we enter the world, understand it
because we are born in the world
before we begin to philosophise
Being in the world
and sharing it with others
is how we begin all thought
including philosophical thought

In Philosophy we imagine imaginary acts
that create imaginary meaning, imaginary sense
Philosophy is imagined ‘til it enters the world
Only through the act can it enter the world
Philosophy isn’t the discovery of meaning
or of the sense of life
it is the realisation
that we already know it
To know the world is to be in it

“The resolution to the question – what is the meaning of life?
Is to stop asking the question.”

(Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Somewhere On The Earth Tonight – Poem

 

 

Somewhere On The Earth Tonight

 

 

Somewhere on the Earth tonight
new life cries
as its journey just begins
elsewhere old life dies

Somewhere on the Earth tonight
someone kills
stealing hopes and other lives
obeying alien wills

Somewhere on the Earth tonight
hunger gnaws
sapping life from children’s souls
paying for our grown-up wars

Somewhere on the Earth tonight
Gods at war
inspire hatred fear and death
deaf to reason’s cry – no more

Somewhere on the earth tonight
Dylan sings
laying bare the cant and lies
in his voice hard truth rings

Somewhere out in space tonight
we could see
shrinking icecaps rotting streams
the paradox of being free

Everywhere on Earth tonight
my brothers sisters sleep
peaceful thoughts but troubled dreams
my brother…our world…let us keep

 

Leonard Cohen – O2 Arena Sept 16th 2013: the one-man genre triumphs

Leonard Cohen

 

Leonard Cohen – O2 Arena Sunday September 16th 2013

Songs of innocence and experience… and love with the occasional edge of lust: 3 hours with seven encores, every word he wrote himself; the one-man genre that is the extraordinary Leonard Cohen still had his delighted audience asking for more.

Cohen is a Class Act: gracious and grateful both to his audience and especially to the superb group of musician and singer friends he has surrounded himself with. There was a valedictory spirit in the air when he appositely remarked at 78 years of age that there was no way of telling “when or if we will meet again my friends”. And then with the ironic, self-mocking counterpoint that marks both his sense of humour and a genuine-sounding humility, he defused the sentimental undertones of the remark with “I’m not ready yet to hang up my boxing gloves….but I now where the hook is.”

Fedora-hatted this angular, iconic figure, still full of vital, jerkily energetic and potent physicality; crouched and knelt, skipped and boxer-stanced his way through most of his extraordinarily rich catalogue of poetic songs and musical poems with a freshness it was a privilege to see and a warmly satisfying experience to hear – to share.

His words – eloquent, articulate, always heartfelt, sometimes profound – insinuated themselves into the private spaces of our inner thoughts and feelings borne on melodies and rhythms shamelessly infectious but never dull. Exploiting to the full the rhythmic flexibility of a song’s stretched vowels but retaining a semblance of poetic metre, a Cohen rendition is part poem, part song – but all enjoyment. Ideas – playful and scabrous; affectionate and mockingly angry; romantic and wistful – elicit an inward nod of recognition and approval that stills cynicism and silences the sceptic. The Trinity that comprises the Cohen phenomenon, after the words and the music – is a voice to die for: deep, sonorous, expressive; and carrying however quietly used. This is a voice you can’t doubt when it speaks of love, and loss, and life.

Often striking an almost Sinatra-like pose (maybe it’s the Fedora) Cohen captures that sense of an easy, unforced cool we can neither define nor miss. Half way through the second set a voice rang out across the O2 Arena “thank you for an evening of intelligent songs that matter.” Embarrassing but true.

I’m not sure of his remaining tour plans or any future projects. But as one who was a mildly curious, occasional listener before last night, if you get a chance to see this man – don’t miss it. We have not seen his like for the last 40 years and I rather think, may not ever again. The man delivers: more than we have a right to expect; and with an authenticity and passion it was privilege to share.

The Bling Ring – Sofia Coppola A waste of space movie about a waste of space lifestyle

 

 

The Bling Ring – Sofia Coppola

A rarity: a movie without a single genuine emotion throughout its full 90 minutes. The unspeakable ersatz world of celebrity slavishly but pathetically emulated by a bunch of young people descending like a plague of designer-brand locusts to strip celebrity homes of every famous named product they can find.

This bunch of faux-chic chums return again and again to the property occupied by Paris Hilton: who is too stupid not to leave a key under her doormat; too dumb not to know that she’s been serially burgled; and too wealthy to care. Hilton, who apparently co-operated with Coppola on the movie is the paradigm exemplar of the famous-for-being-famous ‘celebrity’ with no discernible talent I guess Coppola wants us to focus on. To wonder what Hilton thought the film was about is an oxymoron – with the emphasis on the last two syllables.

Bling is based on a true story of some half-assed Hollywood burglaries so casually and witlessly perpetrated that one wonders how the LAPD didn’t round the culprits up long before their 4th return to La Hilton Palace.

If this movie was worth making, and I rather think it wasn’t, it needs far more than Coppola’s characteristic detached, cool, non-judgmental style. For once knowing irony just won’t do. There is something unworthy about being invited to be faintly amused at watching corrupted narcissistic young people throw away their youth and their futures out of boredom and a delusional vapid self-identity. Coppola’s film is as weak and frustrating as the feckless, utterly ineffectual parents of her main protagonists. The film, like these hapless, useless adults, just looks on helplessly, secretly a little fascinated and in effect says “what can we do?”. Plenty babe. Plenty.

I get that Coppola is inviting us to observe the implacable materialism of this otherwise totally unreal world but if these relatively trivial events in a dangerous world are worth examining then for God’s sake say something; have an artistic purpose. Not didactic or preachy but a point of view, an artistic perspective. Her film is like someone who sees a car crash with injured people who picks up a camera instead of a bandage and proceeds to film the pretty architectural shapes of crumpled metal carefully avoiding showing the reality of what that metal has done to the human beings within it.

As ever nowadays Bling is technically accomplished with some excellent performances: from the engaging Israel Broussard as Marc, the lone, loner male more at home with girls and handbags than the stereotypical sweaty jockstrap ambience of what passes for American college guy culture. Katie Chang’s Rebecca is the prime agent provocateur without a recognisable ethical thought or moral value to trouble her pretty head. When the police swoop Rebecca is happy to lie and deceive in any way she can to escape any responsibility. Even the concepts of friendship or loyalty are junked in favour of self-preservation.

Coppola unworthily exploits very well the present slightly creepy girl/woman sexual ambiguity of Emma Watson as Nicki who sees burglary and theft as experiences that have happened to her not things she has done and which she ludicrously interprets as an opportunity for personal growth. Like a demented Beauty Queen, Nicki wants to be a leader who will change the world without any idea what being a leader means or requires, or how those qualities could be brought to affect the world. She is like a self-obsessed Apprentice high on weed: just a little more likeable.

Coppola shows us a world where not only does no one know the value of anything; but worse, they don’t even know the price of anything either: the celebrities like Paris Hilton because they are so wealthy money has no meaning; and her aping young acolytes because stolen things are by definition free.

I can discern no worthwhile artistic purpose in this movie. The world and attitudes it objectively describes without mockery, anger, disapproval or satire is sadly only too obvious to us – The Pop Idol and Britain’s Got Talent franchises ‘entertain’ us with an endless sequence of wannabe celebrities most of whom can’t sing, can’t dance, in fact are bereft of any kind of talent at all. We laugh at their delusion, enjoy their unconscious humiliation. Big Brother set to off-key music.

Coppola’s film it seems to me is as unworthy as the ‘reality’ TV show genre. It will be very interesting to see how the youthful movie audience responds to its adolescent, just pubescent, embryonic Sex In The City training bra emptiness. Many will probably miss the whole point and love it just as so many young people missed the chilling underlying message of Sorkin and Fincher’s The Social Network.

Coppola is an accomplished film-maker of genuine insight and sensitivity: what she is doing wasting her time on this waste of space topic is beyond me. It’s not as if we have the slightest doubt that such delusional, self-obsessed, narcissistic young people exist: so she inadvertently celebrates the very emptiness one assumes she is trying to attack. The idea that these profoundly immature twerps are in any way representative of today’s young people is a pretty shoddy, exploitative lie.

Shun Li and the Poet – Andrea Segre – Simply a delight

 

Shun Li and The Poet – Andrea Segre

Like a glass of pure, fresh, home-made lemonade: with a hint of sweetness and a satisfying tang of fresh lemon on a sweltering hot, oppressive day – this delightful little gem refreshes one’s aesthetic palate, touches the soul and lifts the spirit. It is simply a delight – from its beautifully rich cinematography, gently insinuating score and affecting, insightful, sensitive central narrative.

Shun Li is a single parent, economic migrant to Italy from mainland China seeking a future for herself and her young son who she has had to leave back home. To repay the cost of her work permit and trip, Shun Li must work exceptionally long hours at whatever form of work her Triad sponsors demand of her. While not treated badly, she is not told how much she owes or how long it will take her to work off her debt. Beset by this uncertainty she must submissively do whatever she is ordered to do while awaiting ‘the news’ when she is formally told her debt is paid and her son can join her.

We first see her dutifully trying to conform, working in a garment sweatshop. As part of a presumably legal but oppressive system of organised labour, she is sent to work in a waterfront cafe on the Venice Lagoon. There she meets and befriends Bebi: a fisherman nearing retirement and himself a long-standing economic migrant from the now broken up state of Yugoslavia.

Bepi and his Italian-born mates meet, drink and play cards in the cafe to which Shun Li has moved. There is much gentle humour generated from her rudimentary Italian which the old guys teasingly improve. Bepi is known as the Poet on the Lagoon because he likes to make up doggerel-type humorous rhymes. Shun Li is a thoughtful sensitive young woman who takes solace in her work-dominated life through the works of Chinese poet Qu Yuan whose life is celebrated each year through a charming ceremonial involving the floating of a candle flame within a lotus-flower boat to drift wherever the current or tide wills.

There is suspicion and ignorance between the clannish, Triad-dominated Chinese community and the local Italians. What they have in common is that they are poor and merely trying to get by in an economically difficult world, each in their culturally distinctive way. These are the people providing the unseen back-up and supply of the goods and services for the tourists just across the water in Venice and the Lido. Essential, nearby, but separated socially and economically by an unbridgeable gulf from that casual affluence.

Apart from poetry, Shun Li and Bepi feel an instinctive empathy as immigrants and by the fact that Shun Li’s father too was a fisherman. Their bourgeoning friendship arouses comment: salacious suggestiveness from Bepi’s Italian mates, and cultural disapproval from her Triad masters, who tell Shun Li she must sever her links with Bepi on pain of having to start all over again to pay her debt to get her son to Italy.

Eventually Shun Li is sent away from the Cafe, the Lagoon and Bepi. Rewarded for her submissiveness, after a time she is eventually given the ‘news’ for which she has been so eagerly waiting. She discovers that someone has paid off her debt early and thus made it possible for her son to join her. She returns to the Cafe and looks for Bepi and a Chinese girl friend who had helped her.

She finds of course that with the passing of time things have changed and she has to come to terms with the power those changes exercise over her feelings. These culminate in a deeply moving ceremonial ending which brings the ebb and flow of emotions we have witnessed full circle – real life with its vicissitudes of events and experiences metaphorically echoing the drifting uncertainty of the flame of remembrance celebrating the life of the poet Qu Yuan.

Director Segre is well equipped to explore these issues, having previously used the documentary genre to draw attention to the dispossessed experience of the immigrant in Italy. He also has a PhD and Professorship of Sociology from the University of Bologna.

Whatever else, Segre has created a film of wonderful sensibility and sensitivity. Elegaic and contemplative in tone; while he captures the innate cultural reticence of Shun Li (superb performance from Tao Zhao) he intimates the inner turmoil of a mother needing to compromise on selfish things to achieve the reunion with her son.

While this setting has none of the grand and grandiose architecture of the Venice of the tourist and the rich; Segre manages to convey through a beautifully structured cinematographic style, visual echoes and expressive imagery that capture some of that unique atmosphere, slightly menacing but quintessentially Italian, that one finds in films like Don’t Look Now etc.

Try to seek this one out. You won’t be disappointed.

Before Midnight – Linklater, Delpy and Hawke – an exploration of Love for grown-ups

 

 

 

 

Before Midnight – Richard Linklater

Simone Weil – “Perhaps love is an attempt to make permanent that which by its very nature is transient”

Celine in Before Sunrise:

“You know I believe if there’s any kind of God it wouldn’t be in any of us; not you or me, just this little space in between. If there is any kind of magic in this world it must be in the attempt of understanding someone, sharing something. I know, it’s almost impossible to succeed, but who cares really? The answer must be in the attempt,”

With intelligence, deep insight and often uncomfortable clarity, Before Midnight wrestles with Simone Weil’s archetypally French thought and with complete dramatic consistency perfectly exemplifies how the hope and idealism of the young Celine has been battered and bruised – but not bowed – by time and the contradiction implicit in Weil’s remark.

Richard Linklater’s credentials as the most instinctively philosophical of Directors, firmly established with his extraordinary Waking Life (2001) are here further demonstrated where they are applied not just to abstract ideas but to the personal question at the heart of our individualistic culture: what is it to love an other: first to be in love; then to share a love; and finally to live a love. These three questions mark the stages of Linklater’s exploration: Before Sunrise; Before Sunset; and now Before Midnight. It is a mark of the brilliance of the trilogy that each film is true to the stage it represents in the relationship between Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) – none more so than this latest richly layered, emotionally perceptive and intellectually engrossing movie.

I say Linklater but this movie, as with the two before it is the creation of three people, in equal measure: Delpy, Hawke, and Linklater. You won’t see better acting than Hawke and Delpy here in this or any year. They now inhabit these characters and their relationship which they have helped to create not merely act, so completely we, through Linklater’s camera are like direct witnesses to two interesting people trying to sustain the most important relationship in their lives. The acting is so assured and truthful it is totally invisible.

Much of the fun of Midnight is catching up on the Jesse, Celine relationship so I will not go there: suffice to say there are now children and the complexities of divorce to contend with. The real time parallels between characters and actors are maintained with the 44 years-old Delpy and Hawke 43 continuing the Celine/Jesse relationship for the 18 years since Before Sunrise in 1995.

Nothing much happens in Midnight: it is as wordy and occasionally frustrating as the complicated couple it depicts. It is also wittily and self-mockingly funny, romantic and cynical, painful and tender, bitter, nostalgic and frequently wistfully sad. But it explores with more insight and sensitivity than any film I can remember, the emotional differences in perspective between what it is to be a man in love and to be a woman in love – with each other. A good measure of the accuracy of the writing is that Midnight is full of delicious, acutely observed moments where the laughter in the audience divides the genders – the men one moment and the women the next.

Delpy is particularly critical to the success of this process. Beautiful, intelligent, articulate and at times fierce and passionate, she is not only more than a match for Jesse/Hawke but challenges implicit masculine attitudes and assumptions as a more than worthy representative of an authentic woman’s voice. I say this because of the uncomfortable truths I as man can only too readily, if reluctantly recognise.

On the other hand as a man, Celine’s apparently capricious, and yes as it seems, illogical over-reactions and almost perverse misunderstanding has guys in the audience nodding with the bewildered assent of personal experience. One of many implicit philosophical themes is the conflict between the idea of truth as what we need it to be to survive and be happy: and truth as being what it is independently of our wishes and desires. When each of these radically different conceptions are applied to our emotions and behaviour they inevitably lead to clashes of irreconcilable perspectives.

There is a dichotomy at the heart of Midnight: one side of this divide is the belief that life-long relationships between men and women are founded upon a deep union, a coming together between a man and a woman based upon the sense that each is the other’s destined partner – each the only one for the other. Here each gives up something of themselves to become an ‘us’. The thinking here appears to be that this willing sacrifice of individual freedom and independent action provides the essential common ground of a relationship upon which long-term stability depends.

The contrasting view to this is contrary not contradictory. Here it is argued that the instinctive mutual attraction between lovers, physical, emotional and spiritual is kept alive over time by the emotional dialectic and dialogue of two separate individuals constantly renewing their love through dissent, discussion, argument and reconciliation, rows and making up.

These two conceptions can overlap and conflate; each posing its distinct problems and challenges. The ‘union’ conception can often lead to disenchantment, complacency and a sense of loss of self; often expressed through an actual or claimed imbalance in the ‘self-sacrifices’ made – notably perhaps by women.

In contrast, long-term relationships between strong, independent individuals can become wearying; when the underlying mutual attraction wanes or inevitably changes from the effects of time, age, biology and practical challenges of a life together the good will and willingness to compromise can also disappear leaving two people equipped to hurt deeply by striking directly at the other’s most sensitive areas, known precisely through the privilege of earlier trust and intimacy. Listen carefully in any supermarket and you will frequently hear couples worthy of a PhD in bickering.

All of these richly complex ways of looking at love and life are stated and explored in Before Midnight. If you, as many do, find this introspection and self-doubt indulgent and pointless then clearly this film is not for you. But if you liked the youthful romantic idealism of Before Sunrise and enjoyed the delicious ‘will they won’t they’ uncertainties of Before Sunset to reject the thoughtful, emotionally mature challenge that Before Midnight represents is to refuse to join Celine and Jesse on the deepest and most rewarding stage of their journey together. The film perfectly confronts us with the same difficult, unsettling choices Jesse and Celine face. I find the end of the film as satisfyingly true to its underlying conception as it is on one level inconclusive. Loving relationships are hard and need constant and imaginative renewal: this isn’t a matter of theoretical abstraction; it is the inevitable and inescapable consequence of the natural ebb and flow of the events in our lives – both as individuals and couples.

As the French, inevitably, so elegantly express it:

“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”

And yes, as those of you who have read my review of Two Days In Paris will understand – I am still in love with Julie Delpy. The more as time goes on.

Man Of Steel – Zack Snyder Fascist, Fairy Tail Fantasy, Fetishised weaponry – but no FUN

 

 

Man of Steel – Zack snyder

All the ‘Fs’ but one: this is a Fascist Fairy tale Fantasy with Fabulous graphics, Fantastic editing and as usual with modern Hollywood, Fetishised technology, especially the multiplicity of devices to kill people with.

The sadly and critically missing ‘F’ is Fun. In those long gone innocent days in which Superman was really born – in the 1938 pages of Action, then DC comics and later in the wonderful 15 minute Saturday Morning Picture reels, it was thrilling enough to spark the imagination that a man could fly, could see through all solids except lead and even kick sand in Charles Altlas’s muscle-bound face. It was fun: kids tied towels and curtain oddments around their necks rushing up and down the street believing for all the world that if they could only get up enough speed they’d take off; one be-fisted hand straight ahead, the other dutifully by one’s side as we were scientifically sophisticated enough to know that aerodynamics required an elongated shape.

Snyder and Christopher Nolan’s ‘hero’, carrying his 75 years pretty well considering – is a dour, dull bit of very beefy cake. Henry Cavill seems a likeable enough guy off screen but brings none of Christopher Reeves’ self-mocking charm and ironic insouciance that both endeared the actor to us and whatever else, made those first big screen incarnations of the man of steel both exciting and so light-heartedly entertaining.

Most Art needs some sense of necessity, of limit, to challenge the artistic imagination into overcoming it: the sculptor who can chisel from implacable and unyielding granite an impression of sensuous curves and lightness of line belying the unforgiving essence of his raw material. The painter, limited to two-dimensional canvas and the limited possibilities of pigment and texture, creating a sense of depth both of perception and imagination.

The trouble with modern CGI and graphics technology is that it has now reached such a level of sophistication that it is virtually (sic) without limit. There is no physical event in the world, however physically impossible or scientifically absurd that the geniuses of modern cinematic technology cannot absolutely convince us is actually happening before our eyes. Unfortunately, the inherent, visual naturalism of cinema allied to the exponential power of the digital computer, is a triumph of literality over imagination. Modern Hollywood action movies leave no aesthetic space for the imagination – young or old. If modern kids even bother to dress up as their heroes they will be contemptuously dismissive of towels and curtains; their impersonations requiring, and easily getting, fully detailed, proper costumes or authentically (trademarked) pictured tee-shirts and hoodies etc. It is the two-edged sword of American genius to have merchandised the imagination and commoditised art.

Snyder and Nolan’s revisionist re-invention, not of the original source material, but of the original Superman movies, is a wilfully indulgent 143 minutes (no limit again) of unremitting smash and bash: an orgy of physical destruction lacking any constructive visual or aural cadence and thus suffering a gradually accumulating law of diminishing dramatic returns. Arty farty fiddling with the chronology of the Earthly development of Ma and Pa Kent’s (Diane Lane and a wasted Kevin Costner) alien adoptee and the death of his home planet is just plain perverse, fragmenting any sense of identification with the ‘growing pains’ of a super-being. It also denies us all those wonderfully anticipatory moments, often deliciously amusing, when the school bully or high school creep is about to get their more than just come-uppances.

The essence of the Superman myth is a delicious fantasy of the powerlessness of childhood in an adult world being overcome; of the empowerment of the innocent bullied over the bully-led threatening group – of the triumph of right over wrong, of justice over power. However corrupted by the cynicism of modern politics and the exploitation of this morally obtuse movie – that was the American way Superman stood for.

Pa Kent loads this poor interplanetary cuckoo with so much ethical and Existential angst even his super-powers can’t prompt his vestigial personality into anything that might vaguely interest us. It doesn’t need to of course as his few momentary pauses in single-handedly destroying the physical universe are filled with dialogue that even George Lucas would regard as banal. My God what happened to the intelligent perceptiveness of the Christopher Nolan of The Dark Knight?

Planet Krypton is dying from irreversible ecological exploitation. A Brave New Worldian society, baby Kryptonites are decanted outside the womb in a chillingly deterministic way to rigid hierarchical pre-determined roles like worker bees and warrior ants etc. This dystopian vision is glossed over as if pretty normal though the Els – (Daddy) Jor (Russell Crowe) and wife Lara bring baby Kal into the dying world the fun way. (No mention is made of Ernie – he was probably off playing celestial golf somewhere).

Jor nicks the Krypton genetic code thingy and blasts Kal off to an unsuspecting Earth. For absolutely pointless reasons General Zod (Michael Shannnon as his usual freaky self) and some chums are banished to the Ghostly region of space. Some punishment – escaping the annihilation of the rest of Krypton, safely tucked up in a space ship. Zod of course resolves to seek out Kal, recover the genetic thingy and recreate the Krypton race. There are frequent evocations of some very dark sub-text assumptions in this movie.

Ma and Pa Kent find Kal, hide his spaceship and raise him to keep his super-powers secret as human beings are obviously too stupid to cope with the truth. In a classic moment Pa Kent rushes into the path of a tornado to rescue the family dog. Outcome? Well it’s not a spoiler to say that of course, as it is an iron-clad rule of Hollywood – the bloody dog makes it. The other consequence of this moment is lazily and gratuitously stupid but required by the plot – so who cares?

When Zod and the Zoddy-men’s spaceship creates a top secret stir up pops Amy Adams’s Pulitzer Price-winning Lois Lane. This irreducibly bland actress is as far removed from the legendary feistiness of Ms Lane as it’s possible to get and delivers lines like “when you’ve stopped measuring the size of your dicks” as if she were judging a sponge pudding contest.

Meanwhile Zoddy is threatening the end of the human race unless Kal is given up to him. In the profoundly murky moral climate that runs through this ethically chaotic movie, the perfidious politicians, mostly indistinguishabe from the military, decide to accede to these demands even before Clark decides to hand in his cape of his own accord. A very great deal of destruction then ensues; half of New York collapsing in images cynically exploiting the iconography of 9/11. Endless mayhem rules with the main protagonists bewilderingly favouring crashing through walls rather than, well, opening the odd door or two.

The battle between Kal and Zod assumes a dumb, head-bashing war of attrition without imagination, plan or strategy. This is the American way of war: overwhelming force meets overwhelming force – might is right because might always prevails in the end. It’s just the right might – powerful enough. Leaving for example, half of New York a smouldering ruin: collateral damage I suppose.

Snyder sticks in a few pointless changes of detail: the name ‘Superman’ is studiously avoided until very late on because the ‘S’ on his chest means ‘Hope’ in Krypton. Profound stuff eh? Episode 2 is set up with unconvincing almost indecent haste as we leave Clarky donning Buddy Holly specs in the last few hastily cobbled together moments as a new reporter on the Daily Planet run by a mis-cast Laurence Fishburne as Perry White.

I know we shouldn’t take this tosh seriously but this movie is a corruption of the albeit simplistic moral clarity of the original children’s comics. A true myth asks ethical questions and offers moral choices and conflicts without defining solutions. Just as Art needs a constraint so it was always a central issue in the Superman myth as to what were the limits, enforced by necessity or chosen freely, to his super-powers. It needed imagination and thoughtfulness to pose and mediate these conflicts: two qualities almost totally lacking from every aspect of Man of Steel – except the computer graphics and special effects.

As with many other Hollywood action blockbusters, underlying Man of Steel is a pervasive air of paranoia, reaching out to military power and force as the only way to deal with an ever fragile sense of safety. It flirts with genocide as a dramatic device and seems oblivious to the visual and dramatic brutalism it tacitly endorses. Literally overkill.

Thinking the unthinkable can be a valid artistic enterprise; but the blithe acceptance of millions of deaths as the inescapable price that must be paid for the eventual triumph of might is a Fascist message even if trivially dressed up as a harmless slice of popular entertainment. The line between cinematic fantasy and political reality is becoming increasingly blurred as for example the gungo-ho jingoistic illegal invasion of Iraq, the quagmire of Afghanistan, extraordinary rendition practices and the assassination of Osama Bin Laden all serve to suggest.

The hundreds of million dollars sunk into Man of Stee l will of course, render a profit but this shiny but shoddy commoditised exploitation of a simple, even simplistic little piece of 75-year-old imaginative invention does little credit to anyone involved. Such a disappointment. And an unworthy one.