(originally published in The Outreach Connection in December
2005)
Ushpizin
(The Guests) is an Israeli movie, directed by Giddi
Dar. It’s a tightly knit tale of faith and tradition, built around a familiar
structure of a disruptive guest; in this case two escaped convicts who turn up
at the house of a former wastrel now turned (fallibly) devout, on the eve of a
sacred festival. The film could have been almost unbearably self-righteous and
stuffy, and sometimes shows signs of heading that way; it’s governed largely by
idealism. But it’s truly deeply felt, and it accumulates a lushly earthy
feeling (one has to admire any picture in which the climactic eating of a lemon
carries a real emotional clout). The central character is a far more subtle
creation than he initially appears, and the milieu is skillfully enough
conveyed that even a distinctly secular viewer might be persuaded by the
construct of God as participating equally in the action with the human
characters. And as with many such films, I can’t help but cite the
anthropological interest as a major attraction in itself. It’s a trite thing to
say, but it’s all an education.
Karen Kusama hasn’t made a film since her
promising debut Girlfight, and Aeon Flux is a surprising return vehicle
– a big budget science fiction thriller with Charlize Theron; it’s set in the
last city on 25th century Earth, and she’s a rebel going up against
the stifling leadership (it’s quite similar in many ways to the recent The Island). The film received attention
mainly for canceling its press screenings – a notorious sign of a panicking
studio – and indeed it's not very good; it’s monotonous, with poorly handled
action sequences. Beyond the images of Theron in her skin-tight costumes, it
blows any possibility of being a modern-day Modesty
Blaise or Barbarella – it’s full
of gimmicky stylistic ideas, but they don’t cohere into anything interesting, I
suppose an action film reflecting a feminine sensibility is still a relatively
rare item – the general tone here is much more nurturing, empathetic, and plain
soft than you’ll get from most action packages, but in this context that seems
as much a sign of resignation as subversion.
Good
Night, and Good Luck became the only second movie
this year that pulled me to a quick second visit (2046 was the first). It again struck me as impeccable in virtually
every respect (although I'll admit that the second visit didn’t yield the
additional layerings that one expects from the greatest of films). If
there were an Oscar for overall contribution, George Clooney would surely be
the winner for this year. On the one hand, Syriana
communicates the corruption and bastardized idealism underlying global
politics; knowingly complicated and sometimes impenetrable, it barely allows
the faintest scope for optimism. Meanwhile, the Ed Murrow movie looks back
fifty years, excavating some of the roots of our craven capitulation – our
willingness to submit to easy gratification and insulation – and imprinting a
profound sense of loss, but not without a romantic wistfulness that may leave
the viewer with at least a fleeting sense of determination.
I can name only a handful of moments in Good Night, and Good Luck that I'd
possibly want to change. One of those is the scene of Murrow asking the young
Liberace (in real archival footage) if he hopes to get married one day, and the
pianist’s carefully worded response about hoping to find “the right mate. “
Compared to the film’s overall subtleties it seems like an easy laugh, although
even this has its place in establishing the era’s hypocrisy and repressiveness
in personal matters, and thus in diluting any possibility of reading the movie
as being largely unfiltered nostalgia.
The
Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe has been closely pre-scrutinized in some circles, not because
anyone needs another big-budget fantasy blockbuster, but for its adherence to
the Christian subtext of C. S. Lewis’ source novel (which I haven’t read); if
you don’t know, it’s about four children who tumble through a magical wardrobe
into a wondrous realm of talking animals and strange creatures, where they are
quickly greeted as the instruments of a prophecy that will defeat the evil
ruling the land. As directed by Andrew Adamson (Shrek) it’s a very smooth creation with an even-handed and
matter-of-fact tone, effortlessly blending the real and the digital: you
suspend your own disbelief as effortlessly as the children do (for example,
they adapt to the Cockney beavers within a couple of minutes). So what about
that big issue? Well, sure, the subtext is there if you want it, and to my
inexpert sensibility it seems pretty respectful. In particular, when the lion
Aslan sacrifices himself for the forces of good and is later reborn, that’s
kind of reminiscent of…well, you know. What the actual value of that recognition
is, well, that’s beyond me. Maybe it’s just about reinforcement through
repetition (I guess it’s also pretty exciting when the face of Jesus shows up
on a potato chip). Although what big budget fantasy epic doesn’t lay on the higher power backdrop – from Star Wars’ Force through the Matrix and
so on…
The film is too restrained, and in truth
its young actors are a little too inexpert, for the themes of good and evil to
carry much visceral weight. And the eagerness of the inhabitants of Narnia to
idolize their human visitors seemed to me as plausible an allegory for an
unelected monarchy as for anything less earthly. No matter. It’s a colourful,
engaging, thankfully unportentous film.
If the chatter at my office is anything to go by, Memoirs of a Geisha, rather than Narnia or King Kong, was the season’s most anticipated release – looks like a lot of people (and yes, I mean women) loved that book. I haven’t read it, but I’m confident it would never have caught on as it did if it had been as affectless as Rob Marshall’s movie. Marshall seems at home with the easy spectacle, although even then his approach is conventional. But he seems to hold his fine lead actors at arm’s length (Gong Li in particular seems game for something much more full-blooded) – not helped by the ill-fated decision to avoid subtitles and use English dialogue. The movie is overly discreet about the nature of being a geisha – one could easily come away with the impression that the requirement is to have sex just one time in a career, and to spend the rest of the time tiptoeing around serving tea. The portrayal of the protagonist’s decline during the war is rushed, robbing the thing of any overall dramatic shape. And her great romance – with a much older man she first meets at the age of 9 – merely seems creepy and distasteful. The movie has reasonable craft, but lousy instincts.
No comments:
Post a Comment