Goodbye Lenin! (2003)

“Goodbye Lenin!” is not an easy movie to write about. In overall it comprises the usual looks and technicality involved in most european  independent films, such as “Julietta” (2001). Nothing much about it. The story evolves as Alexander´s (played by Daniel Bruhl) mother, a hardcore communism supporter, develops a heart attack followed by a deep coma condition just before the fall of the Berlin wall. They are eastern berlinians and when she recovers the country is already reunited again.

The plot then comes to a point where the doctor tells the young sibling his mother can afford no big emotions at all, or else she will most probably suffer a second, and fatal, seizure. Alexander, then, begins to reenact inside her mother´s tiny bedroom the entire leftist regime, so as to prevent her from learning her more than esteemed way of life was completely obliterated. This effort involves finding discarted pickle jars, from the old regime, to be filled with imported norwegian cucumbers, refitting her bedroom with its old furniture, and even recording fake news programs resembling former state television.

 

Truth emerges looking over the shoulder 

This provides an enjoyable comic element to the movie, and, most importantly, it allows the audience to take notice how the old form of living was, in comparison to the new democratic one. Thus, forgivable is the eventual viewer´s misperception on thinking the main purpose of the movie on depicting communism is confined on these many material efforts Alexander is pulling together. “Goodbye Lenin!” goes beyond that. A strong argument discreetly reveals itself within another cognitional layer which holds an intelligent metaphor about communism. The main character unveils itself as a skilled deceiver, capable of luring even his most loved one on behalf of a final good that, in the end, is acknowledged to be non existent. Indeed, near the end of the movie the audience (and Alexander himself) learns that the mother had a great yearning for quitting the regime and start a living on West Germany. Even so, although knowing his schemes were somehow pointless, the sibling insists on a new transitional deception scheme in order to finally present his mother with the actual current state of a single Germany. Only that by this time his own parent, the very object of the deceit, already knew all that was going on, even the boy´s meddlings, and didn't bother to make this awareness known to him.

Those things that are no more

Therefore, by the end of the show we are presented with the perception that the movie´s biggest and most solid representation of communism was Alexander himself. He, just like East Germany, was responsible for creating a false representation of just about everything around the human being. Even if he aimed for good ends, implying communism can be well intentioned, his effort was groundless and unsustainable, as his mother by all means seemed to live in terms with the former regime only to restrain and cope with her own frustration. Although the character´s insistence on an untenable lie may prevent the viewer from establishing a good link of identification with his fortune, due to its good argumentation “Goodbye Lenin!” is well delivered and worth seeing.

Shame (2011)

Much has evolved on Steve McQueen´s filmmaking since “Hunger” (also reviewed on this blog). Hunger is unhelpfully divided into sections, as if there were three different short films, binded by a intermingled story. Now, with “Shame”, the director presents us the argument as a whole, so the movie remains serious as the subject requires, but that kind of documentary dullness is past. No wonder the accumulated praises “Shame” has collected during the past year, to which this review only intends to add.

The main character is single, almost past the usual wedding age, and has a office job, meaning he is not a boss, neither is materialistic well succeeded. He could pass as a usual guy, unless for his good looks. The important fact for the developing story is that Brandon (played by Micheal Fassbender) is addicted to sex, to an extensive degree. He has to practice onanism at waking, at the office´s bathroom, and, when he doesn´t hire a prostitute, also at home at night. The audience begins to capture the evil consequences of this addiction when he is called upon his sister Sissy (played by Carrey Mulligan), as she is homeless and in need of a shelter. From this point onwards Brandon begins to show that what matters for him is keeping his routine, which depends on a fragile balance his sister does not belong. The (just) argumentation against such an addiction ranges from the incapability to have a  regular affair to the beating after having courted (using quite foul language) a committed woman.

 

He wants her out

Sex addiction is even more difficult to expose and consider, because, unlike alcoholism, it´s often taken as normality or, at most, as a machismo excess. This is why Steve McQueen got it right when he decided to depict an addiction seldom discussed. The only major slip he committed was on setting the main character to sniff cocaine by the middle of the projection. This is so because besides being artistic creations, when movies are about addiction (such as Zemecki´s “Flight”) they have the important role of exposing the human misery that comes along, as a warning for everyone. “Shame” is well accomplished with the exposure. But in associating Brandon with cocaine the director somehow fell short on the warning, erecting a barrier preventing the audience from feeling itself exposed to sexual addiction: very few people consider themselves capable of consuming illegal drugs.

Good looks isn't all

On the other hand it provides a detachment from the characters plight, thus providing a more comfortable (and psychological safe) experience. Still, if the cocaine scene were not there a bigger number of people would consider their own way of life (personal “mores”) more lengthly , becoming more aware and less susceptible to the depicted scourge of sexual addiction.

Empire of The Sun

Humanity. That’s the biggest tone in Spielbergs movies. He has the ability to shove inside most of his movies human tones and variations that makes us feel and identify with the main character. With “Empire of The Sun” there is no difference. The boy portrayed by the infant Christian Bale makes remarks that now and then resemble our own childhood, as when he meets character Frank and keep telling him his abilities (like writing a book), albeit them being of no use for the occasion.

Located at Shanghai just before Pearl Harbour attack, the film depicts a rich boy’s life changing abruptly due to the Japanese invasion.  The atmosphere changes from the safety granted by wealth on a former colony to the  anxiety of living on concentration camp, apart from any relative.  Yes, Bale’s character, Jim, gets lost from his parents, right at the beginning of the movie. Thus, inside the camp the movie adopts the usual prison Hollywood dynamics: the character acquires knowledge of all the places leaps, sometimes even luring the captors, as if there could be fun times here and there when in captivity. Impossible not to resemble McQueen’s “The Great Escape”.

Another noticeable aspect is the hollywoodian rather usual reconciliation with the Japanese.  The movie shows the Japs as being capable of in-war mutual friendship, even of great acts of valor towards their captives. This pattern somehow resonates on other movies, like “Karate Kid”, for an example, where there is pride shown towards Myagi’s War Medals.  

The two main and almost only substantial characters are Christian Bale’s and Malkovitch’s . The latest, as always, acts his most repeated role, as the clever guy in the room. Nothing more than this.  On the other hand, Jim is very well acted. The boy doesn’t slip any bit from the emotions he is enacting, ranging from content, through fear, to excitement. Seeing him nowadays as a child we can notice many of his adult acting expressions, with the same convincingness he pours these days.

This movie, as with almost all Spielberg’s, has a positive and beautiful message. This time it’s about leaving behind our possessions, griefs, hopes and guidance principles in order to adapt the way life presents itself, or, as the movie shows, just to survive.  It is truly worth seeing.

@jpvbm

War Horse (2011)

At tender age he was taken from his mother’s company and sent to work on the fields, harvesting potatoes. Shortly after that he was forcibly enlisted to fight alongside the Brits at the great war, then captured by the Germans, put on excruciating forced labour, pulling heavy artillery pieces until he was able to escape, and, on crossing “no man’s land”, got injured by the barbed wire, and, finally, was reunited with his former master. No, this is no human slave of any sort, neither any subject of the British Empire. Actually, the character is a horse, as this movie depicts its wonderings through Europe during the war. One of Steven Spielberg’s greatest virtues, as a director, is his capability to humanize everything he wants, ranging from animals even to extraterrestrials.

Right from the beginning of the movie the horse displays emotions that are common to ourselves, thus creating that bond with the viewer I usually refer to. Curious as it may seem, the animal’s fate is the main element of the story, and the humans are portrayed in a kind of incidental way. Even the leading human role, played by the young actor Jeremy Irvine, does not stand as a usual main character. He is almost absent  during the entire middle term of the film, and his grievances are shown only to the point when it matters to his relation with the horse. But Steven Spielberg is such a great story teller that his argument works well and, on seeing “War Horse”, we actually think about ourselves, about our own path on the wretched world we live in.

War Horse is not a war movie. Here the belligerence serves as a painful background on which the story is told. So the war could be replaced with a separation, an illness, a famine or some misfortune of the sort. What is of real importance here are the constant changes we are submitted during our lives, and how diminute sometimes is our grip over our own destiny. Future, as this movie asserts, can occasionally play tricks on us, for better or for worse.  The outright conclusion is that usual, but often forgotten, realization to responsibly enjoy good times as they happen…

Who's the main character?

The movie went alright till almost it’s very end. Here Spielberg committed a fault that is comprehensible, but difficult to forgive. Human experience has for long acquired the notion that life moves forward. For instance, it’s natural that everyone, from a certain point onwards, begins to earn its own living. Being this simple notion applicable to almost anything else regarding our lives, we perceive Mr. Spielberg inverted that order. When the young Irvine accomplishes the trials leading to his adulthood (he survives the trenches), and is expected to get on with his life, he somewhat does the opposite way: he gets back to his mommy’s arms.  As stated, it’s understandable, because the director’s desire was to end the movie with a definite sense of safety, of shelter from the unpredictable. But life is unforeseeable, and keeps moving on. Therefore, it would have been a more according finish if the young man had followed the french bidder, taking the animal to the girl, thus binding the loose links established over the movie, and just 'moving on' from that point. It would have been uncertain, but more feasible. On the other hand stands Robert Zemeckis’s “Cast Away” (2000), presenting us a much more credible finale, as Tom Hanks does not return to his sweetheart (although she more than hints she would accept), choosing to take the unknown path of knocking on a stranger’s door.

“War Horse” is great entertainment.

@jpvbm

The Age of Innocence (1993)

The Age of Innocence is centered within the crème de la crème of New York’s society during the second half of the nineteenth century. There is absolutely no scarcity of means for its dwellers. They lunch, dine and amuse themselves almost like royalty. The meals are divided in many courses, they are always wearing tuxedos and ball dresses, the gentlemen change their pair of gloves for each lady they waltz with. But there seems to be a price for such an exquisite way of living.

The uneasiness of the story begins when Newland Archer (Daniel Day Lewis), already groomed to the fresh young, loving May Welland (Winona Ryder), begins to tilt his attraction for Countess Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer) who has just arrived from Europe, after splitting with her husband. The matter is that Mrs Olenska, although having lived in New York before marring, never really got used to its usages. Also, her possible divorce seems to hang over the entire society as a true scandal. For his part, Newland accepts her misfortune and understands it as a challenge to the solid old conventions they all endure. Thus, the natural, slight, almost unperceivable, retraction everybody seems have towards the Countess is nonexistent within Newland. This boundless relation between them allows him to envisage her as an escape from a living he soon describes as the taste of “cinders in his mouth”.

Will they resist each other?

The Age of Innocence is about incarceration without bars, at least for the protagonist. He lives on a society where people have “no character, no colour, no variety”, where they cannot truly speak their minds. When Newland realizes he is in love for the Countess, and starts to act like it, all this society moves discreetly and almost imperceptibly to prevent him from reaching his goal. In spite of this general effort, Archer is not prevented solely by his peers, but ultimately due his and the Countess’s countenance. Chance also plays a part on this decorum prevention, as it happens on the beautiful lighthouse scene.

Some things are worth fighting for

This movie is also, and mostly, about choices, and the right ones. Much later, when the whole stillborn romance is over for all, we are somehow struck with the summing up of Archer’s life, and the positive outcome that he kept the respect for his wife, family and even for himself, by refusing to be subdued to what could have been the great love of his life, and, simultaneously, the rejection of his entire self as how he lived it. In the end we are granted with the notion that life doesn’t resume only to passionate love above all else. The inevitable association is with that scene on “Closer” when Natalie Portman’s character, on knowing Jude Law’s betrayal, says to him: “There's a moment, there's always a moment, "I can do this, I can give into this, or I can resist it"”. Closer’s protagonist gave in, Newland Archer did not.  

Another obligatory comparison is with “The Bridges of Madison County”. On this movie Maryl Streep’s character, married for many years, is bound in a few days long romance. Much later, when she dies and her already grown up daughter searches through her mother’s closed-for-decades trunk, the most precious things to be found are the letters exchanged by the deceased and her mistress. “The Bridges of Madison County” presents upside-down, implausible, ethics, as the woman keep on being married, sharing a whole life together with her husband, but, alas, the altar of her existence rests on a weekend affair.  Therefore, on “The Age of Innocence” the protagonist follows an entirely different path, much more credible by all means, as his lustful aspirations are sublimated throughout his marriage, full of its typical nuances, hardships and achievements that keeps binding the two of them together.

This is what coming of age really is about!

Precious 2009

Precious

A loosen opportunity. Unfortuelly this is how Precious should be described.  For long has Hollywood stumbled on trying to shoot individual pain and suffering. Big budget American movies usually treat these matters awkwardly, while french, south american, and even Iranian movies accomplish it rather naturally.

Precious is about a teenage girl, in whom is to be found almost all the indicatives of the lowest social layer: she is almost dirty poor, is african american, is on her second pregnancy, and is almost applying to social security.  Thus, the story evolves on her relation with her mother, who is constantly torturing her psychologically, with her poverty, and, mostly, with herself.

Precious, as the main character is named, is constantly stricken with a natural urge not only to improve her life, but to live as blissfully. And that is why the movie gets lost on the narrative, never to improve. It could only be human the longing for a better existence. But, alas, the movie resorts on sort of daytime dreams, where the girl impersonates herself on happy, joyful,  and even glittering scenes. This feature draws back the characters emotional downfall, thus preventing the spectator  to feel the drama as it is.  Quite different from, for instance, the intensive rollercoaster of feelings we are subjected on Zefirelli’s The Champ.

Still, Precious has quite good acted by Paula Patton and Mariah Carey, both of them delivering very convincing teacher and social-worker performs. As for Gabourey Sidibe, she didn’t really deserve all those praises at the time, as her facial expressions doesn’t really differ from beginning to the ending. Given the fact there are actresses such as Demi Moore who are even more incapable to distinguishing, say, happiness from anxiety, Sibide’s performance is not so bad at all.

Precious lacks what The Wrestler delivers, and, for that, I don’t recommend seeing it. 

@jpvbm

Casablanca

Movies, as an art, are a conduit for emotions. They work on us as we feel through them. This stated, “Casablanca” is defined as a nostalgic movie. It is about what was meant to be but didn’t go as expected. Also, being this nostalgia about love can only steepen the craving feeling the viewer is left upon. Obviously, although its enormous success isn’t due solely to that particular emotional feature, this is undoubtedly the core element that drives the whole story and binds ourselves to the character’s outcome. 

Casablanca’s plot is set at the homonym Moroccan city, at the time when it was controlled by the Vichy government, during world war II. The main character, portrayed by Humphrey Bogart, is Rick Blaine, an American with a gloomy past which includes at least some arms deals.  The film starts with Rick being well established at Casablanca, running a distinctive café named after him. He is courted by the girls (not the other way around), but it’s stated right from the beginning he doesn’t attach to them. Something stirs inside him.  The story evolves as Ugarte (played by Peter Lorre) comes up with stolen letters of transit, which can guarantee safe route out of Casablanca. This leads to the appearance to a resistance leader, Victor Laslo (Paul Henreid), who wants those letters to escape Nazi persecution. The issue is that along with him comes his wife, the beautiful Ilsa (played by Ingrid Bergman), who had, in and early past, a strong relationship with Rick, and disappeared from his life without any notice. At this point the viewer learns this is the motive for Rick’s bitterness and detachment from any kind of bondage. 

As expected, the just arrived couple urges for a way out of Casablanca, but between them and those letters of transit stands Ricks forgiveness of Ilsa misconduct towards him, and the audience’s too. Thus, a powerful link emerges between the characters and the viewer, who ends in some sort of identification with either one of them. No doubt their roles are deeper than that, but, as already stated before,  this intermingled love rests as the drama’s absolute cornerstone.

will he ever get over it?

By the end of the movie my opinion is that Rick has acted less as an ideologist than as wounded lover. He gave it a big try, but couldn’t really forgive Ilsa for her lack of compromise with their love,  leading to the particular ending this film has. Coming full circle with this review, all those tears Casablanca is responsible for since its release are due mostly to audience’s inner , almost unconscious, perception that past loves are not amendable, at least to the very way they were.

@jpvbm