La grande bellezza (The Great Beauty) (2013)

Director: Paolo Sorrentino
Writers:  Paolo Sorrentino, Umberto Contarello
Cast:       Toni Servillo, Carlo Verdone, Sabrina Ferilli
Language: Italian

Jep Gambardella has seduced his way through the lavish nightlife of Rome for decades, but after his 65th birthday and a shock from the past, Jep looks past the nightclubs and parties to find a timeless landscape of absurd, exquisite beauty- i.e. underneath all the blah, blah, blah....

Jep moved to Rome after writing his first and only novel, Human Apparatus, which is considered as a masterpiece. Since then he has lived the high society life in a prolonged semi-retired state writing cultural columns and interviewing arty-farty people for a lifestyle magazine. You can obviously draw comparisons with the Fellini masterpiece 'La Dolce Vita', but Jep is someone who is much higher in the food chain when it comes to Roman socialites. As he states in the film, he didn't just want to attend parties but wanted the power to make them fail. The shock from the past comes when a man, who was his first love's husband, comes to him and informs him of her death. He also tells him that Jep was her only true lover and she considered her husband just as a great companion. The incident serves him to reflect on his own life which seems unfulfilled. Being a self-aware person, one would think that it is something that he would have already thought of but it does seem to trigger something more. 

Sorrentino gives us a series of scenes through which we get a glimpse of Jep's lifestyle, which very much involves him attending many art events most of which are pretentious and hollow. Jep is at a stage in his life where he can see through all the bullshit. In a scene where he verbally undresses a socialite who masquerades as a writer, he states:

"We're all on the brink of despair, all we can do is look each other in the face, keep each other company, joke a little... Don't you agree? "

He is also contemptuous of people around him including himself and he sees things like funerals as a high society event where you need to hit all the right notes to appear nobly sorrowful without stealing the bereaved's thunder. He also proceeds to quiz people from religious institutions but one senses that he already know that they are also similar to how his friends are.The final encounter is with a Mother Teresa like nun who celebrates poverty which her PR bandwagon amplifies tenfold. She is 104 years old, the same age Mother Teresa would have been if she was alive at the time when  this film came out. She is also portrayed as someone who pushes the agenda of institution she belongs to and is evident when she claims to know the Christian names of migrating birds who are taking a rest in Jep's balcony. That said, she is not put down to the extent that others were. There is no big epiphany for Jep, but a gradual sense of enlightenment as he reflects on things. He tells her that he didn't write a second novel because he was looking for the great beauty which he was not able to find. The film ends with him reminiscing about the first sex he had with his only true lover and stating:

"This is how it always ends. With death. But first there was life, hidden beneath the blah, blah, blah... It's all settled beneath the chitter chatter and the noise, silence and sentiment, emotion and fear. The haggard, inconstant flashes of beauty. And then the wretched squalor and miserable humanity. All buried under the cover of the embarrassment of being in the world, blah, blah, blah... Beyond there is what lies beyond. And I don't deal with what lies beyond. Therefore... let this novel begin. After all... it's just a trick. Yes, it's just a trick. "

This was my second viewing of this film which I considers as the best one from 2013. You do get the feel that director is taking us into Jep's shoes, who is basically the director himself, and see the world through his eyes. So it is basically an observational film with an anthological feel rather than one with some plot revolving around a protagonist. Stunning visuals/cinematography and soundtrack are a given in Sorrentino films and Tony Servillo is great as always. Sorrentino can really film a party scene with the first one in the film lasting close to eight minutes or so. I have't seen the Sean Penn starring 'This Must be the Place' and didn't enjoy 'Il Divo' that much. 'Consequences of Love' and 'Family Friend' were both excellent but 'The Great Beauty' is indeed my favorite Sorrentino film.

Rating: 5/5

                                                                    

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Directors: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Writers:    Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Cast:         Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, Julianne Moore, John Turturro

'The Dude' Lebowski, get his rug soiled by couple of shakedown guys who mistakes him for a millionaire Lebowski. Seeking restitution for his ruined rug, which really tied the room together, Dude enlists his bowling buddies to help get it. Things escalates quickly as he is hired by the millionaire to execute a ransom pay-off involving the kidnapping of his trophy wife. Well this is a very complicated case guys, you know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, a lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head.

Its been a while since I last watched it, at the least three years based on my previous post on the film, and I guess this is my fourth or fifth watch of this Coens masterpiece. I really didn't sense the time gap since most of the famous lines in it are referenced so frequently in places I visit on internet. If one asks you to name a favorite film that you can watch any number of times, most probably you will pick a comedy film. So for me those are Pulp Fiction and Big Lebowski and some other Malayalam comedy classics (Nadodikattu, Ramji Rao Speaking, In Harihar Nagar, Sandesham). Based on interviews that I have seen of actors talking about their work with Coens, they go into a film with a concrete script which doesn't undergo much/any change during filming. And Big Lebowski's script is one which is so brilliant that a plain reading of it will be hilarious in itself. This is true for all comedy classics like Seinfeld, This is Spinal Tap etc. The Dude says 'man' 147 times in the film and all of it were scripted. He is also in every scene of the movie, a film-noir convention, and you can really describe it as a film-noir genre bender. 

It is interesting to compare Big Lebwoski with the recent Paul Thomas Anderson film, Inherent Vice. Both of them are stoner films with complicated neo-noir plots. While in the former you can very well understand what happened even though that is not essentially the point of the film. In Inherent Vice, PT Anderson takes it to the extremes by making the plot impossible to follow and some have been put off by that. I consider it more as a failure in understanding what the film is about and Anderson himself might be partly to blame for making a really misleading trailer for it. Anyway, his films are meant to be watched multiple times to fully get them and since I was aware about the point I noted above going into it, I could really enjoy it the first time itself. A word of advise for those who are planning to watch it, the mood should be as if you're watching Big Lebwoski even though the humor is of a very different kind. It also aims to take you more into the mind of a stoner than Big Lebowski which is more about us making us want to lead Dude's lifestyle, without any care in the world.

Dude and Walter Sobchak are certainly among my all time favorite characters but the film is littered with other brilliant but brief characters. I really feel sorry for Donnie, a very against the type role for Buscemi, who is much abused by Walter and ends up dead after having an heart-attack. To make matter worse, he also ends up getting his ashes blown in the wrong direction after a very heart-felt but hilarious eulogy. This time round I spotted that it was David Thewlis who is playing Knox Harrington, the video artist at Maude's. One can talk endless about Dude, the other characters, lines, the Big Lebowski festival, Dudeism etc, but fuck it dude, lets go bowling...

Rating: 5/5

                                                                       

When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

Director: Rob Reiner
Writer:    Nora Ephron
Cast:       Billy Crystal, Meg Ryan, Carrie Fisher

Harry and Sally have known each other for years, and are very good friends, but they fear sex would ruin their friendship. So in essence, their approach is the complete opposite to the one in Spaced, where two house mates have sex right away so that the sexual tension won't make their time together awkward. 

So what you have here is what should be a very Woody Allen like New-York picture with neurotic characters. The film starts off well with the couple of time jumps starting with the time they were in college and meeting for the first time when they took an eighteen hour car ride from Chicago Uni to NYC. Finally it settles ten years later after both of them just coming out from long-term relationships. The time jumps are done accompanying testimonails from some very old couples. Ten years back they had started off in an abrasive manner disagreeing on the topic of 'Whether a man and woman can just stay as friends without any sex/ sexual thoughts coming in between'.

So even in their thirties they are trying it out in their case as they become thick friends. I felt the film was very interesting up to a point after which I began to lose interest as you know how it is going to end. It wouldn't have been a problem if it takes you there in an interesting manner but it really felt like a chore for me. That said, the famous deli scene where they debate about fake orgasms and Sally proceeds to fake one right there was great, and you do get a Seinfeld vibe about the whole thing. That Deli in NY still has a sign which refers to  the legendary response from an older woman on-looker. The idea for that scene was suggested by Meg Ryan and the line by Billy Crystal. On the whole the film felt like a not very funny extended Seinfeld episode which is a shame considering how well it began. You know what could be a good idea, a film that features just their 18 hour car drive from Chicago to New-York and when the film began I thought it was gonna be a road movie like that with lots of talking.

Overall it is a decent watch without being all that good on the whole. I just went through Meg Ryan's filmography and realized that I hadn't seen any of her films prior to this. So it makes sense that I didn't like it very much since she seems to be perennially involved with wrong sort of rom-coms for me. I need a lot more of self-loathing and neurosis. Rob Reiner went on to make several films with Nora Ephron as his screenwriter. 

Rating: 2.5/5

                                                                           

അന്നയും രസ്സൂലും (Annayum Rasoolum) (2013)

Director: Rajeev Ravi
Writers:  Santhosh Echikkanam, G. Sethunath
Cast:       Fahad Faasil, Andrea Jeremiah, Sunny Wayne

A realistic and practical movie about two lovers from different religions, a Muslim boy Rasool and Christian girl Anna, and life of people around them. The story is told through narration by a marine (Sunny Wayne) who is back home on vacation and ends up playing an important role in the lover's life.

Rajeev Ravi had given an interview recently, in which he stated that films should be made without a script since it is a visual medium. He also castigated Sreenivasan's style of film-making describing it as pandering to society's regressive attitude. Predictably, it invited a big backlash from all and sundry from Malayalam film industry. The interview is a very good read even though I don't agree with his main contention that there is only one way to make good films. It would have saved everyone's time if he had worded it better by saying that such kind of approach is the one he follows without feeling the need to unnecessarily disparage people like Sreenivasan. 

Rajeev Ravi made his directorial debut with 'Annayum Rasoolum'. He made his name as a cinematographer in Hindi film industry and have been a fixture in Anurag Kashyap films off late (Dev D, Gangs of Wasseypur, Bombay Velvet). He uses spot dubbing, which can be very challenging in crowded Indian outdoors, instead of the usual method of dubbing in studios. This was also done for the Malayalam film 'Akam', a favorite of mine from recent years, which gave it a unique feel in terms of sounds to go along with its stunning cinematography. But for Annayum Rasoolum, I found it really hard to follow the dialog while watching it on TV as most of the scenes are filmed outdoors. It seems he is taking it too personally when it comes to his disdain for scripts. I had tried watching it last year much before that controversial interview, but had to turn it off as I couldn't follow what was being said. Today I tried my best and took the following steps: I turned off fan even though it was too fucking hot here, tried all sound modes on my TV before settling on the standard mode (after trying the modes-Movie, Clear Voice and Amplify). It helps that there is minimal dialog in it and practically none for Anna.

One could say that the character Rasool is a bit one-dimensional with his only concern being the romantic interest on Anna. He follows the standard routine associated with such romantic relationships in India- stage one being the creepy stalker, stage two of sending creepy text messages and finally getting his way through somehow. In that sense the film is very realistic. There is no class difference between the two as both are from poor backgrounds but as is the case in plenty of Indian relationships-religion, caste etc do get in  the way.  Anna is vulnerable because of the situation in her home and she finds some solace in her creepy stalker. If you lay out the basic plot of the film it is nothing new but the treatment is refreshingly realistic and atmospherically unique. The title would suggest that the film is centered on these two characters but it spends considerable time on other associated characters which means that the close to 170 minutes running time is well utilized. There have been many films recently set in Fort Kochi/ Mattanchery area and this one is certainly the best portrayal of it. Story takes unexpected turns basically because it doesn't do filmy cliches. It can certainly be considered as one of the best portrayal of typical Indian romance on screen from recent times. It also did well commercially and I wish I had seen it at the cinemas as it would have certainly helped in following the dialog. Songs are also really good and is done in a way that helps in capturing the mood. 

Rating: 4/5

                                                                          

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

Director: Rob Reiner
Writers:  Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Rob Reiner
Cast:       Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Rob Reiner

Spinal tap, one of England's loudest bands, is chronicled by film director Marty DeBergi on what proves to be a fateful US tour. Rob Reiner plays the role of Marty who is making the 'Rockumentary' and the actual film turns out to be a mockumentary. Spinal Tap justifies their claim of being England's loudest band by having an amplifier that can be turned up to eleven instead of the usual 10. As a homage to possibly film's most memorable sequence, IMDB shows it rating to be out of eleven instead of the usual ten.

Film didn't do very well when it was released but went on to gain a cult following since its home video release. Many rock bands have admitted that they saw few of their own experiences in the film in one way or the other. Many people thought when the film released  that an actual band called Spinal Tap existed and this was an actual documentary. The documentary way in which it is filmed makes it a very non-slapstick approach to comedy and the reactions by the band members as they bullshit their way through interviews trying to sound deep are hilarious. I hate it when filmmakers kind of lingers on at a comedic moment after the punchline as if they are gloating about their own cleverness, making sure that audience got the joke. This film doesn't do that in anyway whatsoever and so there is no spoon-feeding. You get all the 60s & 70s rock band tropes like pretentious existentialism, band members ending up dead suffocating on vomit, in you face sexualization , mystic hippy vibe, a Yoko Ono like girlfriend derailing things etc. Metallica's Black Album is a reference to Spinal Tap's 'Smell the Glove' which in the film was released in a black cover after their original cover idea of having a naked girl on all fours in a leash being made to smell a glove was deemed sexist (What is wrong with being sexy?). Spinal Tap has become a verb now in rock lingo.

This was a re-watch for me after seeing it for the first time some four years back. The character name Marty DeBergi is an homage to Scorsese, Brian De Palma, Spielberg, Fellini and Antonioni. Rob Reiner did his best two works very early in his career with the other one besides 'This is Spinal Tap' being 'Stand By Me'. Apart from these I have only seen 'A Few Good Men' which was an alright film made famous by that hilarious yet powerful monologue from Jack Nicholson. Am gonna check out 'When Harry met Sally...' soon.

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don't know.

Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

Rating: 4.5/5

                                                                         

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Director: Ridley Scott
Writer:    William Monahan
Cast:       Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, Edward Norton, Liam Neeson

Balian of Ibelin, travels to Jerusalem during the crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people. In the beginning of the film, Balian (Orlando Bloom) is a blacksmith, in a French village, grieving after his wife's suicide. He meets Lord of Ibelin- Godfrey (Liam Neeson) who tells him that Balian is his bastard son and invites him to the Holy Land. Godfrey dies on the way and Balian becomes Lord of Ibelin. Jerusalem is under the rule of the leper king, Baldwin (Edward Norton), who doesn't have any direct descendants and is about to die. When he dies, the kingdom will pass to his nephew, whose mother (Eva Green) has romantically fallen for Balian. Her husband is baying for a war with the Muslim king Saladin- with whom Baldwin has a truce as long as the Muslim pilgrims are protected. Everything comes to a head when the leper king dies.

The characters in the film are fictionalized versions of their Historical counterparts. The first time I watched it some years back, I wasn't that aware about the intricacies concerning crusades, and since then I have watched the BBC series-Crusades which was presented in a comical manner by Terry Jones (of Monty Python). It certainly helps in appreciating the film more in terms of understanding the negative light it casts on the fanatical Christians. It was those times when Europe was largely under the influence of Roman Catholic Church and was going through what we now call as the Dark Ages. The misguided missions of Crusades were representative of the European decline with it being an exercise that put barbaric European Christians against  the Islamic empire in its glory years. One could criticize the film for the extremely binary nature of its character portrayal. The actions taken by the negative Christian characters are extremely irrational and suicidal which would have made more sense if they were seen to be doing it because of religious reasons. I guess it is understandable because to have a much more nuanced story would be extremely difficult within the scope of a feature film when the scale is this big. Another big millstone for the film is of course its lead actor, Orlando Bland (© Mark Kermode), and I don't know how he was trusted with such a big role. He is surrounded by such good actors in this film that it really felt like giving Roy Hodgson the responsibility to manage an all star football eleven. 

Got to say that, despite all this, film is still a great watch. At least the director's cut version of it which I watched. It was released in a 144 minutes version which received only a mixed response from critics and general audience. The reaction to the DC, which is forty five minutes longer, was much better and this is another one of those Ridley Scott films that got mishandled by the studios. The film didn't do well in North America but got good response from rest of the world and particularly from Muslim countries. It came out in 2005, a post 9-11 world which was again going through turbulence which was again dangerously described as a clash of civilizations, compounded by Bush's crusades comment. Some took exception to how negatively Christians were portrayed in the film relative to Muslims, but I guess it was justified since it is much more intended towards western audience. Cinematography is absolutely stunning and the battle scenes were breathtaking. Soundtrack was also memorable and the performances from Edward Norton, a masked one, and Jeremy Irons were particularly excellent. It would have been even greater if they had cast someone good instead of Orlando Bloom as its lead. It is a much more memorable film than Gladiator, which is much more acclaimed.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                       

Napoleon (2000)

Four part PBS documentary series, part of their Empires series, about the rise and fall of one of the greatest military geniuses of modern times, from his Corsican childhood to final exile in St. Helena. 

I was curious about how Napoleon ended up being emperor of France since he came after the French revolution. I didn't have much knowledge about his story apart from his defeats against Russia and against England in Waterloo. So I ended up watching this documentary series as a learning process. He was actually a person from ordinary background who rose through the military ranks to become the emperor of France. He was born in 1769 and the French revolution lasted from 1789 till 1799. Napoleon was sympathetic towards the revolution's cause and he gained popularity through his military conquests which are explained in the documentary. In 1799, he staged a coup and declared: 'The revolution is over, I am the revolution'. He ruled like a dictator without much regard to liberty but he held the concept of equality close to his heart. The French Revolution was a watershed in Europe as all other monarchs in mainland Europe were threatened by it. Napoleon declared that he will support the cause of revolution if they were to arise in any other parts of Europe. The whole of  monarchy ruled Europe, facing an existential threat, united against him and declared war on France.

French Revolution also marked a big change in how military personnel were recruited. Before that, monarchs used to have a standing army of professionals whose numbers were quite limited because of the cost of maintaining them. French Revolution meant that it was left for the ordinary people to defend themselves against all the monarchs of Europe. This helped Napoleon to recruit in large numbers from ordinary folks, through mass conscription, and they had a higher cause to fight for. By 1803, Napoleon had declared himself to be emperor of France and the period of 1803-1815 was marked by a series of wars pitting Napoleon against an array of European powers formed into various coalitions. He declared and economic blockade against Britain which he tried to implement across whole Europe he conquered most of it. Britain was irritated by the reordering of international system by Napoleon in Europe and fearing being sidelined they declared war against him in 1803. Nothing much happened as French couldn't overcome British navy to conquer England. Meanwhile the Austrians were planning an attack against the Austrians with a pending support from the Russians. Napoleon preempted the attack and achieved a swift victory against Austrians through Italy.  This was followed up with victory against the Prussians and Napoleon entered into a treaty with Russian Czar after marching his army into the border with Russia. Russia agreed to participate in the economic blockade against Britain.

Napoleon's downfall started when he tried to conquer Spain, the only country in Europe who was participating in trade with Britain. He miscalculated that Spanish people will treat him and the French as liberators and as they rose up against him, he couldn't establish order in Spain the five years his army was there. By then Russians were struggling economically due to the blockade they were engaging in and declared war with Napoleon. Napoleon amassed an army of 600,000 men and marched to Russia. The decisive battle took place near Moscow which he won but the retreating Russians burned Moscow as they left. This made Napoleon's position untenable and he decided to go back with his army even as the Russian winter set in. Napoleon found out, as Hitler did later in second world war, that the vast Russian space is a big issue for any invading force. Only about 93,000 of his men survived out of his 600,000 men. By then a big coalition was set up against Napoleon and he abdicated his empire. He was exiled to the island of Elba, which he was allowed to rule. The coalition had appointed another king in France who was very weak and Napoleon managed to land in France in 1815 with a band of his followers and marched to France. The king ordered troops to intercept him and when one of those encountered his band, Napoleon proceeded to them and said: 'Soldiers, I am your emperor.  Know me!  If there is one of you who would kill his Emperor, here I am'. They abandoned their weapons and shouted:  ‘Vive l’Empereur!’ He got support from the army and the French people and ascended to his throne once again as the installed king fled. Again the whole of Europe and Britain united against him and the decisive battled took place in Waterloo, where he was defeated in what is described as a 'Close run thing'. He was exiled to the island of St. Helena where he was a prisoner. He lived there for five years before dying at the age of 51. Before his death he dictated his memoirs to his assistant which helped him in sealing his legendary status in the eyes of History.

The documentary is a good watch but it reminded me of why I don' generally prefer American produced documentaries with their over-enthusiastic narration and cringe-worthy reenactments. It doesn't go into details regarding the economic reasons behind the Napoleonic wars and works more like a Wikipedia page retelling of history. Arguably the greatest director of all time, Stanley Kubrick, had done research and worked on an ultimately futile Napoleon project. Napoleon is really a giant of History with av fascinating story and it is a shame that the project fell through.

Rating: 3/5