1 hour ago
Thursday, 23 May 2013
This boasts a starry trio of principal roles - Charlotte Rampling as the aristocratic, bed-ridden, senility-approaching, widowed mother to Geoffrey Rush and Judy Davis. (Both women are particular good).
Set in and around Sydney, the photography is ravishing. Rampling (actually only a very few years older than the actors playing her son and daughter) convincingly portrays the mother fully aware of her approaching end, and determined to die only when she ordains it. She has no obvious physical ailment apart from the normal ageing process. Her children visit her palatial home where she's lived all her life and their talk to her is of encouragement and a denial of facing reality. But she knows how things stand. There are significant flashbacks to a younger Rampling, some with Judy Davis, revealing a long-standing prickly relationship between them. The principal complications in the main story come from the female nurses, and their conflicts between professional loyalty to their patient and emotional involvement, one of them with Rush's character.
It was about half-way through this two-hour film that I felt I was starting to 'get it' - and from that point on I could sit back and enjoy it more. I'd class it as a 'challenging film'. Worth seeing, definitely - and unusual too. I wonder if on a second watching my opinion will change (For 'Plenty', seeing it again resulted in increased regard for that film.). I think my view will improve and on that expectation I'll award this film a...............6.5
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
I've seen all the Star Trek films at the cinema though I've never been a fan - and never even sat through an entire episode of any of the TV series. But I would marginally rather watch a Star Trek film than one of the 'Star Wars'. The former's stories tend to have rather more human interest. However, in this film, when one takes away the fortississimo soundtrack gunfights, crashes and explosions, most of which occur in airless (and therefore what ought to be soundless!) space, the basic plot-line seems fairly perfunctory. Having said that, I didn't find the film as bum-numbingly tedious as some of the previous efforts in the series. But it's really one for those who have 'bought into' the Star Trek notion - and that obviously excludes me. I'm pretty sure it would leave most hardened fans thoroughly satisfied, which is all it was really intended to do.
In terms of 'pleasure' (or not) obtained for this viewer.....................3.5
Monday, 20 May 2013
Baz Luhrmann applies his trademark frenetic visuals as though playing to an audience suffering from attention deficiency syndrome. Everything is busy, busy, busy - completely at odds with the spirit of the short novel which, though it can be read comfortably in a single sitting, is rich and languid in temperament, consisting of beautifully structured prose, best enjoyed when gently savoured and pondered over. Not for nothing is it regarded as one of the peaks of western literature, some going so far as to maintain, not without some justification, that it's possibly the "greatest American novel ever written". Luhrmann's film seems to be based on the idea that the greatest fault a film version could have would be to bore the audience. He doesn't do that. And you know what? I really liked it!
One could go through and tick off which cast members were better in this new film than the 74 one, and vice versa, (I've never seen the 1949 Alan Ladd film) but it all comes down to personal choice. I would just say that I missed Karen Black, given a more substantial role as Myrtle in the earlier film. And then there was Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan in the new, sometimes looking alarmingly like Ricky Gervais! Carey Mulligan I thought was good and caught Daisy's vulnerable, flighty and troubled personality so well, very different from Mia Farrow who also was at least as good in an equally valid interpretation. Tobey Maguire as the colourless narrator was okay, but it's a rather thankless part. Why he had to narrate the entire film as a reminiscence, several years on, of a recovering alcoholic was, I think, a misjudgment, giving an unnecessary and distracting weight to a character who is essentially merely functional as a witness to the Gatsby/Daisy saga. It must have been some notion of connecting that character with the tragic reality of Scott Fitzgerald's own later, alcohol-heavy life.
I'm not sure I cared for the frequent appearance of Fitzgerald's actual words on screen. I suppose it was as a kind of homage to the source work. It seemed needless when a huge proportion of the dialogue came straight from the novel anyway - but, not only that, I also became extra-conscious of those parts of the dialogue that had not made it into the final script. Several times I was waiting for certain lines to come up which had been lodged in my memory, but which just weren't to be voiced at all.
There are only a very few extended scenes in the film. One of them, the longest, and near the film's end, is absolutely electric - the final confrontation between Gatsby and Buchanan, with Daisy, Carraway and Jordan looking on in utter horror as it inexorably escalates.
The music anachronisms didn't worry me so much (including the fact that Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' was actually composed shortly after the 1922 setting of the film/novel - I wouldn't have known that myself had I not read it!) but it's all par for the course with any Baz Luhrmann film.
Some of the reviews I've read have been openly hostile to this film, essentially on the grounds that its spirit is so far removed from the author's intentions. Although I agree with that, I must say that as a film I think it can more than stand on its own feet. As an entertainment in its own right I'm going to award this version of 'The Great Gatsby' a satisfyingly hefty........................7.5
Sunday, 19 May 2013
The other top places went (in order) to - Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Norway and Russia - whereas they ought to have been (i.e. my order of preference) - Netherlands (to which I gave my telephone vote), then Hungary, Malta, Belgium and Iceland. Hungary's simple, understated song was the one which really stood out for me on a second listening.
None of the songs I really liked were placed near the bottom. Difficult as it is to be objective about Bonnie Tyler's U.K. entry, 'Believe in Me', it wasn't an especially arresting song, and I think 19th is only a little below where it deserved to finish. Still, it was a six-place improvement on last year's last-but-one result.
Must have been humiliating for Ireland, which has won the contest more than any other country, finishing in last place, though once again it wasn't a particularly memorable song.
Biggest surprise for me was the rowdy, jokey song from Greece finishing as high as 6th - those bearded he-men in skirts doing a knees-up was the sight of the entire event and they had me transfixed.
But the undoubted winner of the night for me was Sweden's staging of possibly the best Eurovision contest I've ever seen - and I can go back a very long way (in fact to b/w TV). They got the balance exactly right between taking it seriously and humorous irreverence - and with more than one oblique reference to the contest's gay fan base (without which I bet the event would long ago have folded) and including a very brief but explicit depiction of a gay wedding, which must have caused considerable tut-tutting (and worse) among some viewers in more conservative societies.
For overall presentation I award Sweden...............douze points!
Friday, 17 May 2013
The combined testosterone level of this Greek act (well, from at least three of its members) made up for any lack elsewhere. Very satisfying indeed!
Okay, now that I've heard all the songs at least once (apart from France, Germany, Italy and Spain, who did not participate in the semis, though I'll correct that omission before tomorrow's final), on second hearing tomorrow night my opinion may well shift. But as at now I think I'd give my overall vote to the Netherlands. If my own vote concurs with the actual result it will be the first time it's happened for decades! Let's see what transpires.
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Riz Ahmed plays an ambitious, western-leaning, Pakistani financier who emigrates to New York and is taken on as high-flying executive by a scarily-demanding, but supportive, Wall Street boss. (Kiefer Sutherland, good). Then 9/11 happens and he's forced to confront the question of where his true allegiance lies - assisted by what he experiences as the heavy-handed attitude of police, airport security, as well as public opprobium, all arising from his physical looks. Back in Pakistan for a wedding he is introduced to a certain Muslim 'spokesman' who wishes him to declare which side he is on in the 'struggle'. His story is related in flashback as he narrates his story to a Liev Schreiber character in Lahore who is trying to locate the whereabouts of an American hostage held captive for ransom. Kate Hudson provides the romantic interest, both of them conflicted by events pulling them apart despite their mutual attraction.
I found the film completely arresting - at least from the moment of the Twin Towers attack - as well as moving and believable, leading up to a gripping climax. It performs a tightrope act of avoiding showing where its sympathies lie - and I think it succeeds. Pakistani family life and that country are well captured on camera, the director, Mira Nair, displaying her sure touch. I think the central story was so strong that it could easily have worked effectively as a linearly presented 'thriller' rather than being told in flashback - though the framing device, beginning and end (with frequent visual re-visits to the narrator), is employed to show the equally important issue of the captured American hostage.
I understand that the film's ending does not follow that of the novel, though I'd rather not know what the difference is until I read it myself.
On its own terms, as a film, I'm content to give 'The Reluctant Fundamentalist' a rating of ..........7.5
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
The most annoyingly-enjoyable, gloriously-silly TV event of the year kicked off last night. The first semi-final, choosing ten of sixteen hopefuls to go into Saturday's final. (Second semi is tomorrow night).
Hosted by this Swedish lady in mermaid-type shiny dress, for which I think even Mae West might have bothered to peel a grape.
Belgium's 18 year-old winner of that country's 'The Voice' TV talent show sang a reasonably appealing punchy song, 'Love Kills'. (He could turn into a hottie - when he grows up!)
This was very much a 'first-impressions-count' vote. In fact the only one of the songs I've heard so far is the U.K.entry - Bonnie Tyler, she of the raspy voice and of 'Total Eclipse of the Heart' fame. She qualifies for automatic entry on Saturday night, along with France, Germany, Spain and Italy, because of those countries' major contribution to the event's costs - as well as with Sweden, last year's winner.
In last night's vote not one of the countries making up the former Yugolsavia made it to the finals, yet all the states which comprised parts of the former U.S.S.R. did make it. Very strange, though I don't suspect any foul play - but that doesn't mean suspicious goings-on never takes place.
Quietly pleased that Cyprus didn't get to the final. Their always giving maximum points to Greece - and vice versa - year after year after year, irrespective of the quality of the other's song, was just too silly to take seriously.
So that's Stage One over. Got to go through it all again tomorrow night. And then, Saturday - the one night in the year when I allow myself to stay up until after 11 p.m. Oh, what excitement in store!