Fading Gigolo

My friend told me about this film, was immediately intrigued by the name of the film and the fact that Woody Allen and Sofia Vergara were in it! The trailer piqued my interest, it was a short film, so I decided to watch it.

John Turturro is Fioravante, the sweet faced friend of Murray, the owner of a failing bookstore owner played by Woody Allen.  Murray is enterprising, recognizes his friend for the manly man he is and sets him up to a gigolo! They even give themselves professional names - Virgil and Bongo. Allen with his head full of white hair is probably the most endearing pimp in the history of films! Fioravante brings delight to many hot women’s lives - their rich, loveless lives now suddenly full of excitement and pleasure. And it is understated, he is sure of himself, pretty much. Murray has a colorful life himself (pun not intended), being a fatherly figure to five boys living with their young-ish mother. Their trips to the very Jewish part of Brooklyn is bizarre and almost funny.

The film is quirky and quite fun until Virgil is introduced to this extremely religious Jewish widow. Their rendezvous is odd. I felt it was a weird plot angle and felt like the film was missing its steps with the story. There is the usual “in love with her, can’t sleep with you” trope. In the end, the whole religious Jewish court scene felt like it was part of a Coen Brothers’ film!

It is a good film, but not a very memorable one. There’s nothing wrong with it, in fact there are several things right with it, but still it feels a bit amateurish.

My grade: B+ 

I heart huckabees

I was browsing for LInklater’s films after I saw boyhood and I read some about “Dazed and confused” and finally clicked on “similar films” for “Waking life”. This film’s plot read “.. is a philosophical comedy.. where the central characters hire detectives to investigate their existential questions” and I was drawn in.

it has a shiny starcast! The plot and the lack of it combined with endless chatter about don’t-know-what keeps the film quirky and even funny at times. It doesn’t go anywhere, it doesn’t take itself seriously (thank god!) and it’s ironic at the face of it. It could’ve been earnest, that’d have made it funnier and it could’ve had tighter direction, but it gives you a feeling that the director was high when he did this.  

And then, I found out. “Adaptation” was by the same director! It makes so much sense that he would direct both these films. I had a really hard time deciding if i totally hated Adaptation or would want to watch it again, keeping an open mind. This one was much better, perhaps because of the comedy. 

The existential questions are cool, though. The struggle between living by arbitrary meanings and embracing meaninglessness is illustrated rather explicitly. It is unclear if any of that is serious, however. It feels like the characters come of age and mature and find their places in the universe and for this, they need a bit of a push from some strange forces in the Universe. Do they go far, though? And realize themselves?

But hey, who am I to say! I am not even myself sometimes. “How are you not yourself?” you ask? No? 

My grade: B

Boyhood

If you lived your life by the moments, time is elusive. But if you lived it by the years, time begins to take a concrete shape. But the thing is, you can never live life by the years. You can only try to, like they say, “seize the moment” but that is possible only if you’re not already seized by the moment.  It is so easy to get lost in the everydayness, to cross off items from the to-do lists, to revel in the excruciating minutiae of daily existence, and then suddenly, so many years have gone by!

All that said, boyhood is an amazing film. I am very very impressed and I highly recommend that you see it. You won’t realize how 2 hours and 45 minutes go by. Just like twelve years of your life!

My grade: A 

Old Joy

I saw this film recommended on a thread about “minimalist” films on Quora and was immediately drawn to it.

I am lost for words describing this film. The plot revolves around two friends, who have lost touch, spending a night camping and the next day in the woods amidst the lush green Oregonian mountains. You cannot be sure if something really happened. They talk a little bit, drink beer, spend plenty of time in silence and drive back to Portland. You cannot say it was “nothing”, either. There is an undertone of deep sadness in the film, heightened by the background music that plays in a monotone, almost, the green Portland landscape, the thinly populated freeways, and long, weighty periods of silence. It probably talks about lost time, lost relationships and memories - real and imagined, and about the difficulty of holding onto friendships that were formed during simpler times. There is a sense of regret and loss, but nothing is explicit and it is even presented with cheerful small talk. 

The ending of the film is like the film didn’t even start. The “family man” friend drives back home listening to the exact same radio channel, the “hippie” friend is seen roaming the streets, unsure as ever.

And after hours of watching this film, I am still left thinking about how “sorrow is just worn-out joy”. 

My grade: A-

The boy in the striped pajamas

Any film about the holocaust makes me ask all of these questions - really? People, regular people, like me did that? How could they?
And then I think about all those times in my own life, when I have known about wrong things, bad things happening around me, (even if they’re not on the scale of the holocaust) and how I have done little to stop it, and that’s not a pleasant thought. So, it is indeed easy to tune out the noise, tune out the moral conundrums and just march on ahead with a sense of duty. 

But a tragedy of the scale of the holocaust doesn’t leave anyone unaffected,and in this story, you almost think that “holocaust is in the background”! It isn’t.

Bruno is eight years old and moves to the country-side in Poland with his family. His dad is a commandant with the SS. Their new house, he is told, would be near a farm. The “farm” it turns out is a Nazi work camp. Bruno’s movements are restricted and he spends long, boring days making  a swing, reading adventure books and making small talk with Pavel, the guy who peels potatoes, walks and talks strangely and always wears pajamas. However, Bruno’s spirit is too fierce to be tied up at home, so he finds a way to escape the gates and ventures into the “farm”. He comes face to face with a boy as old as he is, wearing striped pajamas and looking weak and hungry. Bruno is surprised, curious and happy! Very soon, Bruno becomes friends with Schmuel, they play games together, Bruno brings Schmuel food, and things don’t look as grim as it does to the outside world.

Every passing day, though, their world becomes less innocent. Bruno learns about “jews” and the “camps” and realizes Schmuel is living in a camp too. He faces this huge conflict about deciding whether his father is a good man or a monster torturing nice people, like Schmuel. He doesn’t feel that conflict about his little friend ever. He makes this long gone conclusion that Schmuel is a “nice jew”. 

The film comes to a head when the boys’ childish innocence combined with the passion for their friendship makes them go on a secret mission together. You have to see the film to fully take in this climax. It was just too shocking and bone-chilling for me. I won’t say if it ends well.

All the actors are excellent. The parents, the sister, the friends, the army officers - everyone is convincing and warm. They speak English the way the British do, which makes the film look, sound and feel so prim and proper. The pace isn’t bad, but could’ve been better.

Well, now I’ve written too much, so I’ll just end by saying, watch this film!

My grade: A-

How to train your dragon - 2

It didn’t disappoint, thank the dragons! It’s definitely not as good as the first one and that’s simply because we are familiar with the film’s world and Hiccup’s awkwardness. But given how so many sequels fall flat, this one wasn’t bad at all.

This installment has Hiccup getting deeper into the world of dragons and understanding how the world is much more complex than what he learned as a child. We also meet his long lost mom! Just before we settle into the happy lull of a reunited family, a giant sorrow befalls them. And we see Hiccup rising to the occasion, with the unflinching love and trust of Astrid, the people of Berk, his friends and of course, his friendly neighborhood dragons.

I didn’t see this in 3 D, but 2 D was quite nice and rich to watch as well. The beginning of the film seemed to lose track a bit, but once it got to the crux of the plot, the pace was quite good. Hiccup’s awkwardness is not so endearing anymore, given that he has grown up. But what he lacked in social skills, he made up for it by sticking to his guns and following through on his words! The film has many small lessons hidden and that was nice to watch.

My grade: B

Tokyo Story

Tokyo Story, directed by Yasujiro Ozu in 1953 is one of the best films I’ve ever seen. 

The plot couldn’t be simpler. An aging couple, Shukuchi and Tomi, travel from their village of Onomichi to Tokyo where two of their kids with their families and a widowed daughter-in-law live. Their trip inconveniences the fast-paced lives of their kids, although it’s not a major disruption. Although nothing is explicitly said and everything is assumed to have gone “nicely”, their trip ends up rather disappointing. They head home to their village and Tomi dies suddenly.  The kids now come back home and grieve over the loss of their mother. But only for a moment, before they head off to their busy lives. Shukuchi starts getting used to the idea of having to live, long lonely days.

With just this much of a story, the film showed sparks of brilliance throughout. There are so many places where things could’ve slipped into melodrama. But the film raises above that and deals with the complicated emotions in a slow, calm, strong manner. There are no fake tears, no “show” of emotions and yet it made me tear up just watching it. It doesn’t demonize the kids or deify the parents, which is so tempting to do with such a plot. It doesn’t give us an old and weak couple who just meekly accept what their kids have to offer and be resentful and angry about it. The couple are not satisfied about their kids, but they deal with it with pride, grace and understanding. There is pain, sadness and disappointment in everyone, but it is not exhibitionist. And that constant glossing over things, constant effort to fill the silence, the unrelenting tendency to rather make small talk than to share something real - these are painful enough.

The film also uses many stylistic devices. They rarely change the composition of scenes once they start. It feels like a play, where the stage is set, the characters enter the scene, perform, get out of the scene, the stage still remains for a few seconds and the curtains close. Lingering for a moment after the scene is complete has a striking effect on the meaning and relevance of every such scene. They also show every mundane scene in great detail and to completion. No scenes are cut abruptly. Sometimes, the characters talk so little, but their sighs, rightly placed smiles and apprehensive looks, convey a lot. There are many images, that don’t really add to the plot of the film(even metaphorically), but they make the film so beautiful and real.The clotheslines, the railway tracks, the boats are some examples.

Tokyo story is a seemingly nonchalant, keenly unwavering, earnest look at the modern day family. (even though this was made in 1953) There is love, for sure. But there are also, adjustments.

My grade: A-

Parting words: This is a must watch. 

Adore

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103267/

When I decided to watch this film, I didn’t think this was a serious film. I read the plot, it said “a couple of childhood friends and neighbors fall for each other’s sons”, so I imagined a delightful, if silly, cat and mouse comedy with a few raunchy scenes interspersed.  Boy, was I wrong.

The film is indeed provocative, and not entirely for the plot alone. So, this is how it is. You have known this friend all your life, you grew up together, shared secrets, brought up your kids together and now, this friend’s son is seducing you. I understand that, this is not “off-limits” per se (incest proper), I can also stretch my mind to imagine how attraction could just happen and you could get used to the idea much better once you experience the awesome awesome sex. (The cinematography will have you know that this is truly the case.)

But could you accept this change in  dynamics of the relationships without feeling at least a teeny bit weird? The glaring lack of true hesitation and the lack of drama made me think of many of the high-quality soft-porn cinemas. But this film is supposed to be better than that! And, the director is French, so I suppose the margin for what passes off as normal is wider. That said, the film is fixated towards getting to that equilibrium in these relationships. Even though that stable point is on a log, forever floating, forever in the middle of nowhere, beautiful nevertheless. So, somehow the film doesn’t operate by the rules of our world. The protagonists’ jobs, other friendships, and social obligations either don’t exist or too dull (and ugly?) compared to the beauty and contentment they exude.

If the film were consistent to this tone and existed in this other-wordly world all through, it would be poetic. And then, we could all just not take it seriously and admire the recklessness and passion a bit more. But where the film falls on its face is when it tries to get serious and get into our world. The sons marry other women and have kids. And yet, everything continues to be “normal” and pretty! The friends are now perfect grandmothers. Nobody suspects anything, all dirty secrets nicely buried in the gorgeous beach sand. It doesn’t make sense, but who’s worrying about that anyway.

And then, it happens. The inevitable return to the equilibrium. That ending is revolting, but it seems oddly fitting. Anything else would be absurd, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t. 

I haven’t written about one important thing - the actors! Robin Wright and Naomi Watts play the scalding hot, bikini clad, beautiful beautiful moms. They bring so much dignity and seriousness to their characters and that goes a long way in making this film something better than a regular soft-porn film. 

In closing, I did like this film and would probably watch it again. I also recommend it (if you’re not grossed out by sort-of-incest themes). But this is not a very good film.

My grade: B

Blue is the warmest color

I have been curious to watch this film from the time I heard about it sometime last year. Simply because I read how it would give “Room in Rome” a run for its money when it came to the “graphic” content. If you know my feelings towards “Room in Rome”, you’ll totally understand my curiosity ;) Anywhoo, saw this on Netflix and I’m very happy to announce that I indeed liked this film! Even though it was 3 hours long and (spoiler alert) it doesn’t have a happy ending.

So, young, pretty and hungry Adele’s life changes like a dream when she meets the blue haired beautiful Emma. We see the whirlwind romance, the exhilarating love-making, the warm, compassionate bonding, the groundedness of their relationship and the fragility. It is so intimate for us, the viewers, because of the innumerable close shots of Adele’s face which last for a long time. You’d almost want to bite off her always-opened lips, tuck her tresses behind her ears and just watch her breathe. This is one motif - her face and the closeness - indicating the act of seeing, observing, taking in all the beauty. The other is food and/or hunger. Adele loves eating food and devouring her lover like there’s no tomorrow. It is fascinating to watch simply because it is very beautiful. I read that people had trouble with this, that it was too beautiful and a little too unreal. It suffices to say that I had no such complaints. 

Anyway, life is not all sex, love, food and art. Life is also about loneliness, naivety and impulsiveness. It is also about growing up. So, Emma and Adele part their ways. Really though, you can see that fear in Adele’s eyes - right from the time Emma kisses her on her cheek the very first time. There’s fear and also acceptance. Which makes her calm and importantly,  makes us calm.

Weekend

image

I have seen romantic/sexual films with lesbian leads. Actually, I have seen a lot of them, and I like them. Even though my lack of actual experience is a factor, whenever I see those films, I feel like I get it. I see it happening.

But with gay men, I always had this thought that “eh, I don’t know”. I often see many women talking about enjoying gay porn (on the interwebz, ofc. And I do strongly think it’s just men writing those type of posts many times) and I used to wonder how. Is it the idea of two hot men kissing/making out? I am probably sounding very ignorant and even insensitive writing this. But my point is, it was something that I didn’t understand. And, I realized I hadn’t even seen movies with gay leads. I have seen “A single man”, but it didn’t make any impression on me. I haven’t seen “Brokeback mountain” or “Milk” . So yesterday I thought should give it a try. 

Aaand I guess I couldn’t have picked a better one! This film reminded me of Linklater’s “before..” trilogy so much. Honestly, it’s not a “gay film”, it is  a romantic film where two people, who are gay, start off with a one-night stand, grow closer than they ever imagined over a weekend, and depart abruptly not knowing whether they’ll meet again. It’s a very pretty film, easy on the eyes, and there are moments where you can feel the connection between the main characters as they slowly cross many unsaid boundaries, letting their guard down and withdrawing immediately, too incredulous of the way how it’s all going swimmingly well.  All of this typical of the amazing beginnings that new love brings about! The actors play this so well that, you are not even consciously thinking that they’re two men. 

There are certainly many parts of the film which dwell ever so slightly (but strongly) on the aspects that make you realize that you’re indeed watching a film with gay men. How it is still different, how being accepted is not the same as being considered normal and how it still gets a few people riled up if a bunch of gay people went to a “regular” bar.

This was a nice film and I recommend watching it!