Film Review: The Master

Directed and written by: Paul Thomas Anderson. Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams. Released September 2012

After two attempts to view The Master during TIFF, I finally was able to see it the old fashioned way once it was officially released. On top of the critical buzz and acclaim that the film is receiving, I’m also a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson’s work (There Will be Blood, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love) and was eager to see Joaquin Phoenix’s return from “retirement” after three years since his last film.

I will admit that I didn’t fully understand the film. I’m still thinking about it and trying to make complete sense of it, so please bear with me. I actually see that as both a negative and positive for the film.  A second viewing is in order at some point.  It’s not the easiest film to talk about without seeing it and I don’t want to give much away. It's not the most linear and straight forward of films, and with the slow pace and being two hours and 20 minutes long, it may not be for everyone. It reminded me of French Noir or Italian Neo-Realism type films of the 1950’s and 1960’s where we seem to only get a glimpse of the character's lives and not the whole story, where there is no clear cut beginning -middle-end. We get jumps in time (both forward and back), and certain plot points are not fully explained.

I bet you REALLY want to see it now! I just had to get all that out of the way before I get to why I did overall enjoy the film and why for film lovers it is worth to see it.

Before I continue I want to share a few lines from Canadian film critic Richard Crouse 's review of the film that may also help to clear my and your confusion.

“It’s impossible to deny the correlation between “The Master” and the origins of Scientology. No story about a midcentury mystic starting a religion based on sci fi could avoid the comparison, but Tom Cruise and John Travolta needn’t boycott the film. Director Paul Thomas Anderson simply uses the birth of the religion as a backdrop for a study in extreme behavior focusing on two troubled men, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix).

Quell, a WWII vet with a taste for gut rot hooch and post traumatic stress disorder drifts through life until he meets Dodd, a self described "writer, doctor, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher [and] hopelessly inquisitive man." Dodd is the godhead of a new movement called The Cause aimed at maximizing human potential. His disciples, who believe his mix of sci fi and religion will rid them of past trauma, call him the Master.

[...]

“The Master” won’t satisfy those who like their stories tied up in neat bows. It is an enigmatic story about impenetrable people; an opaque, singular experience that is best thought of as a tone poem about man’s aspirations and failures.”

For more of Richard’s review-http://www.richardcrouse.ca/2322/index.html

The performances are what stand out and are the most memorable about the film, Joaquin as Freddie in particular. To me it is his best performance (and yes I’m including Walk the Line, Two Lovers and Gladiator). As mentioned before, Freddie Quell is a very troubled man and full of pain, emotionally, mentally and physically. My back hurt just watching Joaquin hunch over like he was Quasimodo. You feel for him and then you are angry at him. He embodies his character completely. The minor complaint is that since Freddie’s left half his face is suffering some nerve damage (probably from his self made moonshine) there were times at the start I found it difficult to understand what he was saying. Again it’s minor and no doubt Joaquin will be seen come awards season. Not just one of the strongest performances of the year, but last few years.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is powerful as the titled Master and matches Phoenix perfectly. Richard Crouse is right in his review when he says had this film been done during Hollywood’s golden era, Orson Welles would have played Lancaster Dodd. He’s charming, he’s intimidating and powerful but approachable as well, but something not really right underneath it all. He embodies everything that you think a leader of a movement (cult?) would have to have.

With the two performances of Phoenix and Hoffman matching one another and playing off each other so well, the dynamic, energy and chemistry between the two is awesome.

Amy Adams rounds out the strong cast as Lancastar’s wife. On paper reading about the character she would not have been the first to come to mind, but she shows her versatility once again.  This is most likely my vain side coming out, but I was surprised that they seemed to have aged Amy up and ugglied her up as well. Add the grandma like wardrobe (so sad for a film taking place in 1950 when there was such beautiful clothing that time).  It works in the end for the tough as nails wife.

It is also a technically well done film. It includes some of the best tracking shots and long shots I've seen recently . The close ups are not overdone and thus maximize the emotional impact. Typical of Anderson’s recent style.Anderson once again teams up with his There Will Be Blood composer, the talented Jonny Greenwood (Radiohead) for an intense original soundtrack. 

The Master is more than just is it about Scientology or not? Yes, religion or cult is a theme, but it is also about man (or humans) place in the world, betrayal and friendship, goals and failures. These are themes that anyone can relate to. 

My TIFF Experience Part Two: The Stars!

This is what you all really wanted to know about, right? The beautiful people, the famous people, and the closest thing to royalty we have in North America. Or as the volunteers and others working the festival were suppose to refer to them, “the talent.”

We (and by we I mean the volunteers) were warned early on during our orientation session and throughout the festival, even in our volunteer manuals, that were not to have our cell phones, cameras, screenplays, business cards, etc during our shifts and approach “the talent” or any other person involved in the business if we were to come across them.

It reminded me of the ‘do not feed the animals’ signs at zoos.

At least Madonna wasn’t around this year to make the volunteers turn around and not look at her as she walked the red carpet. I was told this by another volunteer who worked the festival last year.

On my first day of working I was an ACE where we are sent to the other venues that need help. It was a Friday and day two of the festival. I’m sitting in the ACE lounge in a corner on the fourth floor of the TIFF Bell Lightbox waiting for my instructions while making small talk with other volunteers (Hey Beatrice!) About six of us (including Beatrice) get sent to the Ryerson Theatre, conveniently at Ryerson University downtown Toronto.  It’s a nice big theatre where some premieres happen during the festival.  I was told by the volunteer captain Flora that the night before got little crazy (understandably) once Kristen Stewart showed up for the On the Road premiere. A part of me wished I was there.

Anyway, we were in between screenings and I was placed in the position of ‘link.’ To backup a little- a ‘link’ is part of a human chain that creates a barrier between the fans waiting for an autograph/picture of the ‘talent’ as they walk the red carpet or sneak off to their waiting car at a super secret escape route at the back of the theatre after a premiere.  The screening for Imogen had finished and there was already a group of people waiting in the back. So as our captain tells me and the fellow linkers to “LINK UP!” we form our barrier. A sleek Audi drives up and within seconds Daren Chris from Glee (who’s in Imogen) walks out with his parents in front. I don’t watch Glee but I’m aware of who he is, so I was all “okay” as he took pictures with fans and signed autographs. Shortly after we are told again to “LINK UP!” and Kristen Wigg from Saturday Night Live walks out. She seemed a little surprised at having people waiting for her and did her best to get to as many fans as she could, thanking them, etc. (P.S. She was wearing a cute green dress.) Of course, her people told her she had to get going and apologized for not getting to more fans. So that was pretty cool. It all happened fairly quickly and then we had time to set up for the next event.

Oh wait! Did I mention that in between Daren Chris and Kristen Wigg, director Jason Reitman (Young Adult, Up in the Air, Juno) sneaks in through the crowd and goes into the Ryerson Theatre. I don’t know what he was doing there and why. Maybe he wanted to see Spring Breakers.  

The premier of Spring Breakers was a big one and there were many fans and media waiting for the actors to come. I saw Matt Babel from Entertainment Canada (former Much Music VJ) and Jessie from MTV Canada.

This time I was in the front, helping with the ticket holder and the rush lines. I wasn’t that close, but I could still see the red carpet happening and I could see the ‘talent’ coming one after another. Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez (I almost went death from the screaming of “SELENA!”) and no, Bieber was not there with her.  Then....the man himself, the man who cut his arm off and got to host The Academy Awards came. James Franco. They all got to as many fans as they could, talk to the media and went inside. I was then sent for my break so I didn’t get the see any of them leave.  Not much involving talent after my break that night so I’ll move on.

It would have been cool to stay until the midnight madness premiere of Seven Psychopaths.  I might have been able to see Collin Farrell, Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken. I did see Rockwell and Walken when I was in New York a few years ago when they were in a off-Broadway play, A Behanding in Spokane, but still.

The next day I was a little more prepared. I looked up to remind myself what films were premiering that night, and knew that Cloud Atlas and The Silver Linings Playbook were premiering. I was torn between the possibility of seeing Katniss Everdeen or Forest Gump (Jennifer Lawrence or Tom Hanks). I was back at ACE lounge waiting for instructions and was told to head down the street to the Princess of Whales theatre.

Forest Gump beat out Katniss.

Now I didn’t actually get to see Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess or Tom Tykwer for the Cloud Atlas premier. I was busy in another part of the theatre so I didn’t get to see them. *Insert sad face.*

There was no time to be sad since there were only forty minutes between the end of Cloud Atlas (it’s a long film) and the start of the End of Watch premiere. I was relocated to the front of theatre to help with the crowds, the lines and yes! once again I was link. I didn’t realize there was another premiere after so I was pleasantly surprised.

Typical for an event this big, there was a lot of people around (even across the street) media, and even police.

It is important to know that the Princess of Whales theatre is in a very busy part of Toronto. The excitement was gaining as the time drew closer and the word got out that Jake Gyllenhaal was coming.  As we were waiting for the talent to arrive and the crowds were growing, I randomly see Canadian director Atom Egoyan (Chloe, The Sweet Hereafter, Erotica,) at least I’m 99% sure it was him, randomly walk down the street unfazed by all the commotion. Then the talent started to arrive.

Anna Kendrick showed up, very pretty and I was surprised at how small she is. Take away the heels she was wearing and she couldn’t have more than two or three inches taller than me. Also, the actresses wear a lot of make-up, but once the lights and flashes do their thing and you look at the pictures, it looks normal. Other cast members showed up (including America Ferrera and Michael Pena) but the crowd was waiting for one particular man. The crowds grew as more and more people walking by stopped and watched; taking pictures, asking what is going on. The crowd got to a standstill and no one was moving. Even the police instructions to keep the sidewalk clear and pedestrians moving were being ignored and partly unheard through all the noise. I was doing my best to yell and keep the line moving while waiting for Jake to arrive and “LINK UP!” I was getting pushed closer and closer onto the street where there were streetcars and other traffic still moving. It could have gone really bad.

At least I would have died among the glitz and glamour of it all like I’m supposed to.

The he arrived! I was linking up and he came out of the SUV all dressed up. He was greeted by some man and welcomed back to Toronto and TIFF when he came out of his car and replied “thank you.” Yes, I could hear his voice and he sounds just like he does in films/interviews. I was that close! (around six feet or less.) His blue eyes stood out among the dark hair and the dark suit. He walked by and the pain from the metal barricade pressing into my back went away. Then he continued down the carpet, did his media interviews, sign autographs and went inside. My time with Jake Gyllenhaal was under a minute and it was awesome! 

I heard before from people that have met male actors that they are better looking in person, and I thought that was crazy. After seeing Jake in person and even comparing the pictures from that night, I have to agree. He looks haggard in the pictures from that night compared to what I saw. They are like super-humans or something.  A lot was said during the festival about his beard and I didn’t realize until the other day that it is for an off-Broadway play he is now doing in New York that just opened.

After the first weekend of the festival most of the big premieres and the talent with them were done and gone.  I didn’t see anyone else after Jake.  My friend (who had a movie she worked on premiere at TIFF as well) told me that she saw Viggo Mortensen in her office building. That would have been cool. I think Viggo would be one of the few famous people who I would just bow down and say “I’m not worthy” a la Wayne’s World.  

Some of the actors that I would have liked to have seen but didn’t were Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Keira Knightley, Ryan Gosling, Johnny Depp, Colin Firth and David Cronenberg (just to name a few) but I can’t complain.

P.S. To the cute man  from Niagara Falls who was in front of me waiting in line for three hours to see The Master. I'm sorry I didn't get your name. We had a great time geeking out and talking about film. I hope you are well and maybe we will see each other at TIFF '13! 

So that was my brush with Hollywood and the famous people. I went in not knowing what to expect and had an amazing time. I would love to work the festival again and most likely will. I just don’t know where life will take me a year from now. We shall see. I feel motivated and inspired after working the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival. 

My TIFF Experience-Part 1: The Films

Physically sore and tired, but exhilarating and inspired all at the same time. That is how I would describe my   TIFF –AKA -The Toronto International Film Festival experience as a volunteer! 

 I got to the city a day before the festival actually started for a training session. I was already physically sore from lugging a big suitcase around where the handle to pull it was broken, so I couldn't even use the wheels on it to pull it around, so imagine little me with a big red suitcase and other bags. Yes I got looks a plenty. At the training session every other volunteer around me (all different types of personalities and backgrounds) was nervous and excited as well, but those in charge assured us that things will be great and at best organized chaos.  Organized chaos indeed, it was that at the best of times!

The buzz of the city during TIFF is unlike anything I’ve experienced here before.

I had two positions as a volunteer. One was at a particular theatre, where I helped with line/crowd control and organization, ushering, ripping tickets and answering tons and tons of various questions such as, “When does the 7pm showing of [insert film] start?” My response, “The 7pm showing of [insert film] is scheduled to start on time at 7pm.”

You may be laughing, but for those of you who have done any retail or costumer service type jobs know that these types of questions (and we may be guilty of them ourselves) come up.

My second position as a volunteer is called an ACE position. That is where you show up to the Bell Lightbox (festival headquarters) at the start of your shift, some waiting may happen, and then get told to which venue to go to that needs extra help. This is where a lot my excitement and brush with Hollywood happened. More on that later!

My first shift was not until day two of the festival so on day one I wanted to see a film. Before I left for the festival I already had a list of movies and times they were playing. So on day one I knew that Joe Wright’s adaptation of Anna Karenina was playing. What I didn’t know was that it was a press screening, so my poor sister was not able to see it with me since I was allowed to use one of my volunteer vouchers for this. So I ditched my sister and waited in line for almost two hours to “rush” the film.

P.S. to “rush” a film means to wait in line before and hope for no shows/extra seats go on sale about ten minutes before the film. This doesn’t always happen with every film and not everyone in the “rush” line gets in at times. I rushed most of the films I did see. 

It was odd being in a press screening with critics and other media types. They are all pretty much on their phones and even laptops to the last minute. Talking about the films they are going to see, have seen or their deadlines for writing their reviews, etc. There are no commercials or previews. The movie just starts.

Anna Karenina

Directed by: Joe Wright

Visually stunning (as if you couldn’t tell from the trailer alone) from the staging, cinematography, costumes, choreography, etc, and a bold attempt to do something different with a classic novel that has been adapted many times before and not make it feel like another costume drama. This is exemplified by setting the film on an old theatrical stage, as if the Russian Aristocracy is living their lives as actors.  The chemistry between Keira Knightley (Anna) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Count Vronsky) is hot! Beautifully seen in an elaborate dance sequence that’s a metaphor for the two falling in love. The one complaint I and many other critics have is that these two characters feel too high-schoolish and melodramatic at times.  Knightley, although not terrible in the film, due to her history with period pieces, her performance doesn't feel like anything new.  Many also noted that the spirit of  Leo Tolstoy’s story got a little lost in the visual spectacle, partially understandable due to the length and density of Tolstoy’s novel. There is also a great supporting cast and subplot that is equally captivating. I also have to say that Jude Law as Alexei Karenin is one of his best performances of late and a supporting actor nomination this award season could follow.

One other recommendation! This is a must see on the big screen!

Camp 14: Total Control Zone

Directed by: Marc Wiese

One of the amazing aspects of a film festival is the smaller and lesser known films that may never see the light of day after the festival. I was lucky to watch a documentary that I would recommend to anyone who wants to know more about the world around them, in particular what is or has happened in North Korea.

This is the story of 29 year old Shin Dong-huyk who was born and raised in a North Korean labour camp and his escape in 2004 when was 20. His biological mother was a “reward” to his biological father for good conduct in the prison. I use “biological” since they were not an actual family unit. I don't want to say too much about his story and this documentary, but if you come across it, PLEASE watch. 

Warning! This film deals with graphic and heavy subject matter and some footage. So this film may not be for everyone.

Great Expectations

Directed by: Mike Newell

Yes another costume drama and adaptation of a classic novel. I can’t help it, I love them!

I didn’t know much about the film itself, outside of a general knowledge of Charles Dickens novel. I and my good friend were very surprised with how much we enjoyed this film.  She’s a little biased since she has a crush on Jeremy Irvine who plays Pip. (Don’t hate me Shannon!) All kidding aside this is another beautifully made film (same director as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Prince of Persia, Four Weddings and a Funeral and more)  and solid acting from a who’s who of British actors that includes Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter. As well as Holliday Grainger (The Borgias, Bad Mothers Handbook, Bel Ami) as the cold hearted Estella who is loved by Pip.

I knew that I had a minor issue with this film and it took talking about it with my friend afterwards to finally put my (or our) finger on it. It has to do with the characterization of Miss. Havisham. Helena Bonham Carter is a talented actress, but at times the portrayal of Miss. Havisham came off more comedic and almost sympathetic. I’m not sure if this a result of her acting, direction, the writing or all of that combined, but there were times when her lines made the audience laugh, and we are not suppose to laugh at her. She is one of bad ones. She is manipulative, decrepit, bitter and overall pathetic. She is the one that trains and uses Estella to “wreak revenge on mankind” for the betrayal she suffered years before on her wedding day. She does nothing redeeming or believes any wrong has been done by her. It is still a great adaptation overall and I recommend it. 

Ginger and Rosa

Directed by: Sally Potter

In every film festival there is at least one "coming of age" genre film. That little indy about the pains of being a teenager, or twenty-something and discovering who you are, and they can be done well. This year The Perks of Being A Wallflower is generating great buzz (as well as being based on a best selling book with a large fan base). I didn't get a chance to see that, but will check it out when it comes out in theatre in a matter of weeks. 

Add my love of all things British (or UK for that matter) and set it in 1960's London, I was more than willing to see this film when my friend scored tickets.  This film is about two best friends  (essentially from birth)  and the crumbling of the relationship, due to betrayal and reaction/fears of the Cold War and the pending A-bomb.  Despite good performances, lovely cinematography, a soundtrack reflecting the epic decade,  I was more in the so-so category at the end. The story did attempt not to be that typical "coming of age" film, but at the end fell into some stereotypes when it came to the characterization and justifying some of their actions. Elle Fanning's attempt at an English accent is a little distracting as well.  I don't regret seeing this film and it would not be a waste of two hours watching it. 

Of course I would have loved to have seen more films, and I did try to rush The Master twice with no luck.  I'm happy with the ones I did see and tt seemed to have been a solid year for films this year. 

For those interested, here is a link to a list of the winners (chosen by a public vote). http://tiff.net/thefestival/festivalawards

And a recap from one hard to please critic.  http://collider.com/tiff-2012-recap/195759/

Stay tuned for part two of my TIFF experience: The stars! 

Film Review: The Lady

Directed by: Luc Besson. Stars: Michelle Yeoh, David Thewils, Jonathan Raggett. Written by: Rebecca Frayn. Released:  2012.

I must shamefully admit that I do not know the exact details and the politics behind the story of Aung Suu Kyi.  All I know from the little I’ve seen from the news is that for complicated political reasons, Aung Suu Kyi was under house arrest from 1989 until 2010 by the government of Burma for her role in the country’s democracy movement.  Her fight gained international recognition and was awarded the Nobel Prize for it. The Lady focuses more on her rise in the political movement and her relationship with her husband, Oxford University professor of Tibetan and Himalayan studies, Dr. Michael Aris.

You have to be careful when it comes to ‘biopics’. In the end it is a genre of film and a story that is rooted in reality. You have to question the motivations and accuracy. I have mentioned before that I believe that film can be used as an educational tool and as a gateway to learn about a historical event, person, culture etc, and this film would fall into that as well.

The film is filled with lovely cinematography that attempts to show the historic beauty of Burma’s landscape (although filmed in Thailand for obvious reasons) along with the harsh poverty and slums. With it being a political story, there are graphic scenes of the rebellion and violence that is important to a film like this.  Not completely surprising from director Luc Besson, who is known for films such as The Fifth Element and Leon: the Professional.

Knowing little about the real story and only seeing the trailer months ago, one of the biggest and pleasant surprises of The Lady was the love story between Aung and Michal. Their story of happy highs and devastating lows, bounded by a vision for a country made my eyes start to water by the end (and that doesn’t happen often). The key to that is the chemistry between Michelle Yeoh and David Thewils. Add that since Aung’s house arrest in 1989 and 1999, they (along with their two sons) saw one another only five times. It is a beautiful aspect to his film and a wonderful tribute to both of them.

This leads me to the wonderful performances by the two, together and individually in the film. It makes me wonder why this film and their performances did not garner more recognition. 

The film does have a slow pace that took even me a bit to get into it that may not appeal to today’s audiences that are used to quicker editing and action sequences, along with being a little over two hours, it does ask for the audience’s attention and patience. In the end I found it worth it and rewarded with an emotional investment. 

Film Review: Ruby Sparks

Directed by: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris. Written by: Zoe Kazan. Stars: Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Chris Messina, Annette Benning, Antonio Banderas, Elliott Gould. Released: 2012

Have you ever read a book where you wished and desired that somehow, somewhere, a character was real? What if you had the power to write your dream girl or boy and they became real? Including the power through your writing to control that person? Would you want that power?

What if that perfect person wasn’t perfect for you?

That is what is so wonderfully explored in Ruby Sparks.

I didn’t expect to enjoy this film as much as I did. I guess I should have expected this since it is the same directing team that also brought us Little Miss Sunshine. It is not completely melodramatic or overly saccharine in that lovely combination of comedy and drama, known as the dramedy. You can guess fairly well where the film is going, but a turn or two is thrown your way to keep you engaged enough and caring about the characters and what is happening.

Another important aspect that helps to keep the viewer engaged is the acing and characterization. Yes, the socially awkward, geeky, skinny boy/man genius who falls for the quirky, free spirited, doe eyed, colourful dressing female has been done before, but the acting, the writing and the characterization; and perhaps even the real life relationship between Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan all come together to ground it in a realism that you may actually know these two people, along with the other characters.

It has the same tone and feel to the recent 500 Days of Summer, so if you liked that film, you most likely will also like Ruby Sparks.  The difference may be in that with 500 Days of Summer, it was more about a relationship and dealing with the end of the relationship. I have also heard arguments that Summer herself wasn’t exactly a likeable character, especially towards the end. With Ruby Sparks, the story is more about Calvin and his dealing with the past and his personal issues, including his own celebrity, in order to be able to move on to a healthy future, and the relationship with Ruby is a catalyst for that. Ruby herself, being a creation of Calvin’s is essentially a blank canvas.

Calvin, a writer who in his early 20’s was considered a genius,  and compared to the likes of J.D Salinger and F. Scott Fitzgerald after the release of his first novel. Despite a few short stories and novellas, he suffers from a 10 year drought of writers block as the public awaits his second novel.  Calvin is also suffering from personal issues that steam from his family and a previous relationship. 

Played by Paul Dano, he shows once again that he is a talented young actor with a great career ahead of him. Dano may not be the first actor that comes to producers and casting director’s minds when thinking of a romantic lead, but as mentioned, this is more than a romance. Dano plays Calvin with so much heart and a sense of honesty, even in his clueless or meaner moments; you can’t help but understand where his character is coming from and why he is doing it. You care and feel for him. This is highlighted the best in the climatic and emotional scene of a confrontation between Calvin and Ruby.

Zoe Kazan, who plays the perfect creation of Ruby Sparks (and who wrote the script) adds an edge and sense of realism to the quirky, free spirited, doe eyed, colourful dressing female. She feels like someone you may actually know. The character of Ruby goes through a gamut of emotions (she is essentially a literary character) and Zoe does it all with a sense of ease.

With a solid supporting cast that includes Elliott Gould who plays Calvin's therapist.  Annette Benning and Antonio Banderas as Calvin’s creative and hippie mother and step father. They may not be in the film for long, but Calivn’s issues with his parents and his past are made clear in the few scenes with them.

Even the sets and locations, such a Calvin’s house is done to make you feel that yes, this is a writers house. Along with a soundtrack that all works together.

If you are tired of superheroes and action films this summer and looking for solid and smart storytelling, acting and a movie that in the end makes you feel good, check out Ruby Sparks. 

Film Review: Bel Ami

Directed by Declan Donnellen and Nick Ormerod. Written by: Rachel Bennette. Adapted from the novel by Guy De Maupassant. Stars: Robert Pattinson, Uma Thurmon, Kristen Scott Thomas, and Christina Ricci. Released: 2012

Bel Ami was originally published in France in 1885, and quickly became controversial for its critical look at the upper class, media (newspapers) and politics of the day (The novel has a general setting of the same time, the film’s setting is Paris, 1890). Today it is still considered one of the great classics of French literature.

Wait a minute! A scathing look at high society, rich people, politicians and journalists acting self serving and less than honourable...say it ain’t so! Bel Ami’s themes and characters still resonate 127 years later.

I must also admit that I read the book about three years ago, so my memory of it may not be all that fresh.  My biggest criticism of the recent adaptation when compared with the the novel is that it is fairly watered down, in particular the character of Georges Duroy (Pattinson).

But this is not a critique about the book, but a streamlined film adaptation.

The cinematography is very lovely and lush, it reflects the era and represents the opulent way the upper class lived at the time. Along with beautiful, well tailored period costumes and rich sets that help to recreate Paris before the turn of the century.

Co –directors Declan Donellen and Nick Ormerod are known and respected in the UK for their theatre work and Donnellen has written books on theatre acting as well. This is their first feature film, and there is promise if they wish to continue. At times during Bel Ami due to the blocking of the actors, it made it feel that I was watching a play. This is isn’t necessarily a bad thing and I think it was more of a natural fallback for the directors.

The core of Bel Ami’s ruthless world is the French occupation of Morocco, so there is a political and historical aspect as well. The media, (in this day newspapers) are able to bring down governments and ruin reputations and lives with a print of an article. Back door wheelings and dealings are rampant. Everyone is ambitious; everyone lies and cheats to get what they want and sex is a tool used by men and women. The title of Bel Ami or beautiful friend is ironic, since there are very little friendly and beautiful people. We see early on the three powerful females Georges seduces and uses and manipulates for their influence and connections to powerful men to get ahead. They are the movers and shakers. As Georges is told early on, “The most important people in Paris are not the men, but their wives.” He ends up hating what the women become to represent, especially Madeleine Forestier who his is closest equal. What exactly is it about George, besides that he’s good looking, young and charming that makes these women fall for him? Or is it simply that?  That is something not shown in the film.

The acting by Pattinson who gives a good performance (although his greenness at times does come across by falling back on looking angry) and shows his promise, brings Georges’ loathing for poverty and his hatred and disgust for those around him and their mocking of him the strongest. Greatly symbolized in a scene of Georges killing a cockroach with excessive blows and force. He is cunning, greedy and manipulative. He just somehow ends up playing the game better than everyone. Georges is not a likeable man (even less likeable in the book) and not a character that many young actors might be keen to play. He manages to move up in society with these talents, along with his fake charm and good looks.  To sum up Georges as said by Madeleine “I didn’t realize how empty you are and only filled with rage. I should have chained you. Like an animal! That is what you are.”

As mentioned Georges is less likable in the book, and part of the watering down I mentioned is with his characterization. There is a scene near the end where he feels pity for himself and calls himself a fool, while talking to Clotilde (Ricci) after once again making a spectacle and showing his impulsiveness. Again I’ll admit my memory is a little fuzzy remembering the book, but from what I remember, George never wanted pity from others, he hated pity and at this point in the book, he only feels rage, feeling he has been wronged too many times. I feel this is an attempt, maybe by some studio head or a poor direction/writing/editing choice. As if today’s audience couldn’t handle a completely un-redeeming character.  It would have been better to stay how it was in the novel and Maupassant’s spirit and characterization. Keep George un-redeeming and filled with rage and only wanting revenge, money and power. It also makes it worse that this scene has a romantic undertone between George and Clotilde to add to his sympathy.  He tells he is sorry for hurting her and then asks “Why do you come back to me?”, “I don’t know. Because you never expect me to.” Responds Clotilde.

In the end though, Georges gets his revenge, money and power.

 It is not a perfect film, but not as bad as some critics made it out to be. If you are like me a fan of period films and ruthless characters, give Bel Ami a try. 

Film Review: Detention

Director: Joesph Khan: Stars: Josh Hutcherson, Shanely Caswell, Spencer Locke,  Dane Cook. Released April 2012. 

I wouldn’t call Detention a cinematic masterpiece, and there is a chance down the line I won’t remember much of the film, but there is something witty, cleaver and enjoyable that will stay with me.

The hybrid of teen comedy and horror film genre has been done before and it doesn’t always work. I wonder if this film would have worked without the slasher film element and better off as a straightforward satire on teen film, pop culture and modern youth society. I don’t think many changes would have been needed, but in the end the story is built on the horror film foundation.

Right away I must say that this is not a movie for everyone. This may be said in reference to many films, but it truly is a love it or hate it type film. This is in part a horror film, so there is some gory moments, but in my opinion nothing that hasn’t been seen already. I think that the actual story and especially the fast paced,  hard at times to understand dialogue will turn many off. It feels like everyone is a character from Gilmore Girls and suffering from being high on caffeine. This actually has a negative effect in fully understanding some of dialogue and crucial plot points and explanations, especially towards the end when everything should be coming together and falling into place.

Another element that may turn viewers off (but what I enjoyed) is how HIGHY entrenched in popular culture and references (including a Perfect Strangers reference!) from the 1980’s, 1990’s, early 2000’s all the way to today. So many that a second viewing to catch them all would be needed, I got many, but I’m sure there are some that I missed. This is actually crucial to understanding the plot and majority of the jokes in the film. So if you are not up to date on music, movies, fashion, TV, slang from the past 20 plus years, you will not really appreciate this film.  The fun soundtrack also goes hand in hand with the film.

As harsh as that may sound, understanding the pop culture references is the key to satire that this film attempts to make. Now, my understanding of satire (like with Family Guy, Talk Soup, The Simpsons) is to point out obvious (or maybe not obvious) flaws and problems in society and in our culture that it is suppose to prompt us to think about these issues. This is where Detention also falls short. All the film does in the end is show the viewer that yes, youth/pop culture is crazy these days, principals and teachers are miserable,  teens are self centered and that there is life beyond high school, so don’t worry.  The final line of the film is “it's not the end of the world, it’s just high school.”  That some people are not what they seem to be and the message of be happy with yourself has all been done before and is not unique.

Another element that I enjoyed about this film is how self reflexive it is. Detention knows it is a film and addresses that multiple times. It doesn’t take itself too seriously. The characters break the fourth wall and seem to talk to the audience. There is even a reference to the director’s previous film (Torque) and how bad it was.  The film is based on and plays with films genres (horror, rom-com, teen comedy) and stereotypes of those genres and the stereotypes of the types of personalities you would find in a typical high school. I would normally argue that there is no character development, maybe a little with Riley (Caswell) and Clapton (Hutcherson), but I’m going to say that due to the satire and self reflexive nature of the film, the characters are more like caricatures. I have a feeling this would have been a fun movie to make.

Finally, props to Josh Hutcherson on being one of the producers of the film, whether or not he had a hand in financing the film, getting it greenlight or just a credit for no  real reason, it is still cool and not many 20 somethings in Hollywood can claim that.

So if you are looking for a fun, non serious movie to get a break from all the summer blockbusters and are up to date on popular culture and enjoy satire, Detention may be for you.