Europeans are crazy and unhappy, but at least they're not dead

Rebecca Hall (Vicky) and Scarlett Johansson (Christina).
Also in this picture: Barcelona

Vicky Christina Barcelona fits well into the "Woody abroad" genre that
comprises pretty much any Woody Allen film not made in New York
(correction: not made in Manhattan). Spain is a series of attractive
tourist views, Spanish people are either having sex, looking steamy or
gustating in a sexy way, so watch out any bland, parboiled American
ingenues that happen to fall into this fragrant and meaty broth.

The film starts with the arrival of the eponymous heroines in the same
city, all of which is told to us by a flat, sardonic narration that
continues through the film, giving an air of Lars von Trier's Dogville
to the piece: whatever happens on-screen is provided with a stark,
dismissive description, the effect of which is to distance the action
(which is schematic at best) even further from the viewer.


The title song, too adds a sarcastic note to Woody Allen's Spanish genre study

What does happen is an absurd intertwining of lusts, doubts and
desires, which tease tall moody Vicky and blonde sexpot Christina into
a frenzy around the irredeemably macho presence of Javier Bardem. As
such it's not a bad effort: the girls loosen up under the Spanish sun,
and Bardem hams it up as the unshaven, bacchanalian stereotype of
masculinity. But the whole operation is so diagrammatic and so undercut
by the cruel narration that you have to start wondering what Woody
really thinks that he is doing.

That only really becomes apparent when Penelope Cruz hits the screen
and saves the film. My god, I am really turning into a big PC fan.
She seems to be capable of doing anything, saving anything, and here,
as Bardem's ex-wife Maria Elena she breaks through the film's study of
types with a performance that is as absurd as it is riveting. Somehow,
despite her unbelievably exaggerated manner, she seems to be the only
real person on the screen, while the others are just playing their parts.

So the film keeps going, people do stuff and the narrator's deadpan,
snarky manner reminds us that it's all ridiculous, all pretty pointless, like.
When the film does finish, the statement it makes appears to be
pretty bleak too. Vicky returns to America, to live with the husband
that she does not love, Christina goes back too, still searching,
having been unable to find satisfaction, even in a pre-lapsarian menage
a trois.

I might be completely wrong, but it seems that the wider point that
Woody is making is pretty unfavourable about his fellow Americans:
Barcelona offers both girls a glimpse of how life could be, and both of
them are too scared to seize it. The Spanish people in the film (who
are of course cartoon Spaniards) by contrast carry on with their
crazed, passion-filled existences. They might not be very happy, but
they are very much alive.

I have to declare that I'm a very big Woody Allen fan and would be
prepared to watch anything that he makes. Sometimes that leads to great
pleasure (as in the classics of the late seventies and early eighties),
and sometimes to confusion and boredom (as in the execrable Match
Point, which I really hated). Vicky Christina Barcelona is neither a
high water mark nor a low tide on that scale, but it is a work apart.
It seems to be that it's much darker than most of Woody's
output, a deeply alienated analysis of what is wrong with America (we're
talking tail-end Bush era here),albeit through the means of desultory
comedy. Without Penelope Cruz it would have been a lot darker still.
She's the star, or should be. Next time you take a trip abroad Woody,
why not kick back and let Penelope run the show?

Fatih Akin's Soul Kitchen

"Heimatfilms were noted for their rural settings, sentimental tone and simplistic morality, and centered around love, friendship, family and non-urban life. Also, the polarity between old and young, tradition and progress, rural and urban life was articulated." -Wikipedia

With films like Against the Wall, Crossing the Bridge and The Edge of Heaven, Fatih Akin has set a high aesthetic bar at which his newest work inevitably stumbles. Which is not to say that the film is a failure by any means, simply that it must be judged as a minor work in this impressive directors oeuvre.

Set in Hamburg's seedy demi-monde, the film relates the fortunes of the Soul Kitchen restaurant and its unhappy-go-lucky proprietor, with a meat-and-two-veg narrative arc from wretched normality through multiple adversities to a slightly more hopeful normality. And while the restaurant moves up-scale gastronomically the story remains comfort food throughout, providing plenty of opportunities for comic set pieces and tragi-comic misunderstandings.

What we end up with is a patchwork of scenes, connected by a narrative strand that connects property speculation, prostitution, drugs and music. None of it quite makes sense, but this is a film ruled by the heart and not the head. What it lacks in precision it makes up for in warmth.

In general the performances are impressive, and the unavoidable Moritz Bleibtreu (who seems to be compulsory casting in any German film worth its salt) is particularly engaging as the protagonist's jailbird brother, constantly swinging his prayer beads as hustles.

The film's lightness of touch is perhaps its saving grace: the music complements the story without dominating; food and cookery play a subordinate, if enjoyable role, but never do we get too bogged down in the niceties of nouvelle cuisine. And this must be the first major film in which Skype plays such a major role. Product placement perhaps but very realistically done.

As an ironic take on the Heimatfilm, the interplay of cultures - Greek, Turkish, German, whatever - is handled in a no-nonsense workmanlike way. Perhaps it takes a German of Turkish extraction to do this. My feeling is that other German directors would be more sheepish in their handling of these issues.

In conclusion I'd say that the film is good, not great, and shows that Fatih Akin can also make a gentle, feel-good comedy without compromising his higher aesthetic achievements.

A dog's Dina

I am Dina (Norway, 2002)

Faced with the prospect of a Norwegian film in English with a plethora of international actors, I should have seen the warning signs. For one, people speaking accented English to convey the sense of a foreign language has always annoyed me ("Zose are ze fekts, mein fuhrer!").

This film isn't perhaps quite that awful, but the plot appears to have been written by the committee for Silly Twists together with the Fjord Tourist Board.

Equally, the style of the film is all over the place: a smörgåsbord of genre-dipping ranging from horror and ghost-tale to melodrama, costume drama, sub-Ibsenesque family saga, Bergman-lite and god knows what else.

Together these result in an utterly confusing accretion of episodes that usually end in death, or haunting, or both, but no clear directorial stance on how see either.

What I'm missing is any kind of moral, aesthetic or conceptual centre. We must remember that the woman upon whom the film centres is responsible for several deaths, at least one of the premeditated. But is she mad? Is she hallucinating? Is she simply dreaming?

Which brings us to the central character. Dina is played by the lovely Maria Bonnevie, who gives everything to make the role (strong, headstrong, creative and unconventional woman in a small, backward community) work. Personally I'm all in favour of strong female roles but the one that this film serves up is a completely anachronistic, projecting modern modes of behaviour onto a time where a woman would not have been able to do what Dina does without getting shut up in a nunnery or a madhouse at the very least.

Shouldn't a film that shows a woman overcome adversity and male prejudice at least show some pretty effective adversity and male prejudice? For most of this film Dina rides roughshod over men and women alike (or unshod, depending upon the stable boy in question). It's as if her initial trauma is so overwhelming that the world simply makes way for her for the rest of her life. Fat chance.

Therefore I'd have to recommend any discerning viewer to give this portentous, confused example of the international co-production a miss.

DID THE CAPS LOCK KEY GET STUCK WHILE WRITINg SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE?

I went into Slumdog Millionaire with high expectations based on friends' ratings, but came out feeling slightly knocked about and empty, as if I too had suffered at the hands of the Mumbai constabulary.

I'd like to emphasise though that my problem with the film was not its fable-like narrative - the sketchy, inconsistent and unexplained nature of events and the refusal to explain was rather a strength for me. Rather, it was the overall style and the compulsion to take the symmetries of plot and circumstance (which are a standard part of almost any narrative) and supercharge these to the extent that they become big signs screaming LOOK AT ME! I'M AN ECHO OF A PREVIOUS/PARALLEL SCENE!!!

Due to this overworked mechanism, the film lost me at its "climax", the point at which one brother wins 20 million rupees and the other brother is simultaneously gunned to death in a bathtub full of banknotes. Up to that point I had been quite happy to coast along on the Lonely Planet aesthetic of penury and picaresque, but after that it was a lost cause. It didn't even matter that the music was by a Singalese girl from West London (M.I.A.), or that Danny Boyle's aggressive jump-cut style turned every conflagration into a wheeze and a romp. But the bathful of money was the point where I pulled out the plug and started to wonder: does this film say anything useful about India? Or even about "Who wants to be a Millionaire"? Has it got anything to say at all other than slums are bad, crooks are bad, and "true love conquers all?"

A good film should reflect its age and say something about its main subject at least. But this one simply throws its boundless energy at a topic that begs for some sinuousness, intelligence and subtlety. For god's sake, it doesn't have to be La Dolce Vita, but a palette that includes something other than VERY BRIGHT and VERY DARK would have been welcome.

Overall not a bad film, but not a particularly good one either.

See my film comments on IMDB

This is England

A great film. Vibrant and beautifully made, This is England is a stark reminder of the ragged England of the early 80's, a time which seemed to combine all the worst aspects of capitalism - laissez-faire, militaristic, socially fractured and often just plain ugly.
This film throws us in at the deep end of this untempting era, tracing the life of Shaun, a young boy in a northern English town who has to come to terms with his father's death in the Falklands war, his own problems at school, and his mother's benignly neglectful attitude (under a scary 80's perm, she prefers to watch Blockbusters rather than deal with her son's emotional problems).
In this grim context, Shaun happens upon and is adopted by a group of skinheads who offer him friendship and self-esteem. While the skins are a slightly rough lot, they are not at this point racists. In fact one of their number, Milky, is black. But as the film progresses, we see how far-right "England first" elements come to dominate the scene. And here we reach what is the film's main theme: the insidious slide into racism that marked the skinhead subculture's path through the eighties.
As such it's an interesting story, but too much of a cultural footnote to support a whole feature film. But director Shane Meadows manages to take this subject matter and imbue it with a significance beyond its historical context. What is the nature of individual and national identity? How do we constitute our self images, and to what extent is the individual consciousness a product of social, economic and political forces, rather than the precious flame of liberty that some liberals would like to believe in? All these questions are raised, displayed and rotated before us in a compelling and ambivalent way. Anyone who moans about today's obsession with labels and brands should take a look at this film as a reminder that this kind of thing was already happening back then.
The film's look is rough and ready, an unsentimental representation in a rawly realistic mode. The one thing the had me a little confused was the geography. The characters all talk in Northern accents, but where we are is somehow indeterminate as West Yorkshire, Scouse and east coast accents mingle. Not a big criticism, but the only one I could find in this otherwise remarkable film.