Watched on iPlayer via Chromecast, and watched for the second time. Not entirely through choice, because it isn't really worth watching twice, but Ruth couldn't remember seeing it so...
Nominally a rom-com, and about relationships with some funny bits, there's nevertheless a lot of sadness and misery in this film. Hugh Bonneville establishes himself as the "poor man/woman's Colin Firth" by playing an ineffectual, uncomfortable posh bloke who is a journalist in an unsatisfactory relationship with his girlfriend Cheryl (Victoria Hamilton).
There's a good deal of un-reflective stereotyping of French people and French-ness - the couples counsellor that they go to is a self-important over-intellectual French guy, for example. Eric Cantona plays a gnomic French film director. Although HB is the sympathetic focus of the story, and a self-proclaimed anti-French xenophobe, the French people in the film all turn out to have been right all along - the couple should split up, how relationships begin determines how they'll end, love is something that you just know when it happens...
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Monday, June 15, 2015
Review of 'Queen and Country'
A largely pointless, shapeless film. I went to see this because I understood it was a follow-on from 'Hope and Glory', also semi-autobiographical by John Boorman. But that's a much better film, with the alien-ness of childhood in wartime to provide it with a dramatic focus.This just went on through a series of episodes about army life, mainly without purpose or narrative direction. It felt like watching an over-long pilot for a TV series.Pretty enough to look at, and occasionally amusing, but that's all. Lots of talent, mainly wasted.
I note in passing that the poster displays a moment in the film that is entirely unmemorable - the main character is shown here hugging his sister, who has returned from Canada. Would you know that from the picture? I don't think you would.
I note in passing that the poster displays a moment in the film that is entirely unmemorable - the main character is shown here hugging his sister, who has returned from Canada. Would you know that from the picture? I don't think you would.
Review of 'A Good Woman'
This is a film version of Oscar Wilde's "Lady Windermere's Fan", transposed to a 1930s Amalfi ex-pat scene of wealthy Americans and Brits. It's mainly Wilde's dialogue, it has great scenery and settings, decent actors, and is faithful to Wilde's plot - so why does it drag, and why did I doze off? I think because it's too slow for the plot and the dialogue. The director lingers too long on the beautiful cast in the beautiful outfits, draped over the beautiful settings. Not really bad, but not as good as it ought to have been with the assets.
One odd thing - it's set in Fascist Italy, but there are no fascists at all, and almost no Italians. Why put it there at all? And could it have been set in 1930s Germany without any Nazis? One does wonder what goes on in the mind of Hollywood people. Also, the producer is Alan Greenspan, but it's not that Alan Greenspan.
One odd thing - it's set in Fascist Italy, but there are no fascists at all, and almost no Italians. Why put it there at all? And could it have been set in 1930s Germany without any Nazis? One does wonder what goes on in the mind of Hollywood people. Also, the producer is Alan Greenspan, but it's not that Alan Greenspan.
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Review of 'Grasp the Nettle'
I watched this last night at the Earl Haig Hall in Crouch End, projected from a laptop (as is typical of such showings, there was a low battery warning on the screen at around three quarters of the way through).
This is a zero-budget, over-long, slightly shapeless, but honest and evocative film about two overlapping communities of activists; an eco-village of benders on a site awaiting development near Kew Bridge, and the 'Democracy Village' in Parliament Square. Both communities no longer exist, having been evicted by bailiffs and police. Both were affected by an influx of the casualties of life - junkies, alcoholics, and nutters, with whom they found it increasingly difficult to deal. The early phase nutters included David Shayler, the ex-MI5 agent who in the film dressed as a woman, said that he was Jesus and rambled on about the Zionist World Government. Later he came to seem quite reasonable as the next wave arrived, including 'Freemen' who denounced Shayler and others as police agents.
After the Freemen came the drunks, the junkies and the mentally ill. Several of the activists complained that they were 'not social workers', and at least one hoped to camera that they would lose their forthcoming court case so that they wouldn't have to deal with the problem people any more.
It would be hard to say that either community achieved anything at all. Some of the people who were watching at the same time were inspired by the dedication and selflessness of the activists, and the way in which they did look after the victims who they found themselves looking after. I was just depressed by all the wasted energy, and the way that the communities got progressively smaller rather than bigger as the nutters made life unbearable for others.
I do remember that student occupations in the 1970s used to have a no-drugs, no alcohol rule. That seems like basic common sense now. I can see that eco-anarchists don't like the idea of having rules (after all, who can enforce them?) but I'd say that the need for that nettle to be grasped is one of the key learnings from the film.
This is a zero-budget, over-long, slightly shapeless, but honest and evocative film about two overlapping communities of activists; an eco-village of benders on a site awaiting development near Kew Bridge, and the 'Democracy Village' in Parliament Square. Both communities no longer exist, having been evicted by bailiffs and police. Both were affected by an influx of the casualties of life - junkies, alcoholics, and nutters, with whom they found it increasingly difficult to deal. The early phase nutters included David Shayler, the ex-MI5 agent who in the film dressed as a woman, said that he was Jesus and rambled on about the Zionist World Government. Later he came to seem quite reasonable as the next wave arrived, including 'Freemen' who denounced Shayler and others as police agents.
After the Freemen came the drunks, the junkies and the mentally ill. Several of the activists complained that they were 'not social workers', and at least one hoped to camera that they would lose their forthcoming court case so that they wouldn't have to deal with the problem people any more.
It would be hard to say that either community achieved anything at all. Some of the people who were watching at the same time were inspired by the dedication and selflessness of the activists, and the way in which they did look after the victims who they found themselves looking after. I was just depressed by all the wasted energy, and the way that the communities got progressively smaller rather than bigger as the nutters made life unbearable for others.
I do remember that student occupations in the 1970s used to have a no-drugs, no alcohol rule. That seems like basic common sense now. I can see that eco-anarchists don't like the idea of having rules (after all, who can enforce them?) but I'd say that the need for that nettle to be grasped is one of the key learnings from the film.
Monday, June 08, 2015
Review of 'The Lady from Shanghai'
Watched this again last night, on an old-fashioned DVD. Had forgotten how brilliant it is - the complexity of the plot (not only is it not easy to guess, I'm still not sure I understand it all), the camera work, and the political sensibilities. There is no attempt to pretty up the lives or the qualities of the idle rich people it depicts. They are just nasty, in a way that only cartoon rich villains with ludicrous world domination plans get to be in modern films.
We know straight away that Welles' character, Michael O'Hara, is a good sort because he killed a 'Franco Spy' in Spain; we know straight away that George Grisby is a bad guy because he was on a pro-Franco committee. And as a modern audience we know that this film was made at a specific time (1947) because this probably the last moment at which Hollywood was prepared to celebrate a 'premature anti-Fascist'.
Fabulous camerwork, especially the Chinese theatre scenes, and the lovingly lit shots of Rita Hayworth, who is very sexy but probably wouldn't get a look-in in today's Hollywood because she isn't conventionally pretty at all.The end sequence in the hall of mirrors at the abandoned amusement park probably provided the template for all subsequent versions of this.
We know straight away that Welles' character, Michael O'Hara, is a good sort because he killed a 'Franco Spy' in Spain; we know straight away that George Grisby is a bad guy because he was on a pro-Franco committee. And as a modern audience we know that this film was made at a specific time (1947) because this probably the last moment at which Hollywood was prepared to celebrate a 'premature anti-Fascist'.
Fabulous camerwork, especially the Chinese theatre scenes, and the lovingly lit shots of Rita Hayworth, who is very sexy but probably wouldn't get a look-in in today's Hollywood because she isn't conventionally pretty at all.The end sequence in the hall of mirrors at the abandoned amusement park probably provided the template for all subsequent versions of this.
Thursday, June 04, 2015
Review of 'Boy meets Girl'
A striking example of how far mainstream attitudes have moved on issues of gender and sexuality. This film depicts the life and loves of a young transgender person in small-town Kentucky. It's mainly about characters and relationships (between trans Ricky and Ricky's best friend Robby, between Ricky and new girlfriend Francesca, and Ricky and Francesca's marine boyfriend David), but there is enough plot stuff for me to not want to spoil it for you.
A fair bit of sex between Ricky and the other protagonists, either described or depicted. Implausibly nice, in that Ricky encounters almost no hostility from the other small-town residents - not the dad, not Francesca's dad (even though he is a conservative Republican) and ultimately not even David the marine. Perhaps this a bit of an outreach film, aimed at helping trans people feel braver and more supported - it does have a fairy-tale happy ending.
A fair bit of sex between Ricky and the other protagonists, either described or depicted. Implausibly nice, in that Ricky encounters almost no hostility from the other small-town residents - not the dad, not Francesca's dad (even though he is a conservative Republican) and ultimately not even David the marine. Perhaps this a bit of an outreach film, aimed at helping trans people feel braver and more supported - it does have a fairy-tale happy ending.
Monday, June 01, 2015
Review of Calvary
A really, really good film, though not at all a feel-good film. It's a slice through contemporary Ireland with all its pain and troubles. From the very first minute the theme of child abuse by Roman Catholic priests is introduced; this is the framework for the plot, because an abuse victim wants to kill the main character as an act of revenge, in the knowledge that he is a good priest and not an abuser. The film works its way towards this inevitable denouement via the other suffering characters in the village where the priest and the abuse victim, whose identity is known to the priest but not to us, both live.
The final shots are evocative of a sort of reversed version of "It's a wonderful life". In that film the character (a banker, BTW) is persuaded not to kill himself by seeing all the lives he has touched and what would have happened to them without him. Here the priest does go, half-willingly, to his own death, and we see all the people he might have helped but now won't.
The film is full of stunningly beautiful scenery and cinematography, and the acting and the characters are great. Particular mention is due to Chris O'Dowd, who I don't always like, simultaneously playing against and drawing on the sweet-bloke characters that he usually portrays.
One thing puzzles me. When the disgraced, disgraceful banker wants to show the priest how little everything means to him, he says that he can take a valuable painting off his wall and piss on it - which he then proceeds to do. The painting is Holbein's 'The Ambassadors', which is in the National Gallery, not on an Irish banker's wall. It's a famous painting, so the film makers must know that the audience will recognize and know that it can't be there for the banker to piss on it. So why? Because the painting is a puzzle for which the solution is death underlying everything, particularly ill-gotten wealth? Or is there some other puzzle that I have missed?
The final shots are evocative of a sort of reversed version of "It's a wonderful life". In that film the character (a banker, BTW) is persuaded not to kill himself by seeing all the lives he has touched and what would have happened to them without him. Here the priest does go, half-willingly, to his own death, and we see all the people he might have helped but now won't.
The film is full of stunningly beautiful scenery and cinematography, and the acting and the characters are great. Particular mention is due to Chris O'Dowd, who I don't always like, simultaneously playing against and drawing on the sweet-bloke characters that he usually portrays.
One thing puzzles me. When the disgraced, disgraceful banker wants to show the priest how little everything means to him, he says that he can take a valuable painting off his wall and piss on it - which he then proceeds to do. The painting is Holbein's 'The Ambassadors', which is in the National Gallery, not on an Irish banker's wall. It's a famous painting, so the film makers must know that the audience will recognize and know that it can't be there for the banker to piss on it. So why? Because the painting is a puzzle for which the solution is death underlying everything, particularly ill-gotten wealth? Or is there some other puzzle that I have missed?
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Review of Death Defying Acts
I quite liked this - CZJ is at her best, actually acting as opposed to just looking beautiful, though she is a bit implausibly beautiful as a woman who is supposed to be very poor and living on her wits. Reasonable plot tension and character development, nice tie-in with what we know about Houdini - surprised that Timothy Spall as the manager doesn't even bother to try an American accent, though he is otherwise quite good. Saoirse Ronan as the is-she/isn't-she psychic daughter is really great.
Review of 'Chef'
Cheerful restaurant cooking film, devoid of tension or narrative interest. 'Artist' chef who loves food loses job when he refuses to cook the same menu that his commercially-oriented boss insists on, and instead gets a food truck (we'd say catering van) on the insistence of his loving and gorgeous ex-wife. He takes his ten-year old son on the road trip to bring it from Miami to LA, they bond over cooking, the food is great, and he ends up re-marrying the gorgeous ex-wife.
Fantastic Latin music, an amazing cast, all more or less tipped down the drain in what was a watch-able but uninteresting film. Some mild interest in the fact that it's mainly a 90-minute commercial for Twitter - the dad doesn't really get how Twitter can be used to publicize a new business, but the smart ten-year old shows him, so that every time the truck turns up in a new town there are crowds of people waiting to eat the great food. (Small side note - the food looks really horrible to me, but I am a near-vegetarian.)
Fantastic Latin music, an amazing cast, all more or less tipped down the drain in what was a watch-able but uninteresting film. Some mild interest in the fact that it's mainly a 90-minute commercial for Twitter - the dad doesn't really get how Twitter can be used to publicize a new business, but the smart ten-year old shows him, so that every time the truck turns up in a new town there are crowds of people waiting to eat the great food. (Small side note - the food looks really horrible to me, but I am a near-vegetarian.)
Monday, April 27, 2015
Review of 'Begin Again'
Quite pleasant no-rom com about the music business - Keira Knightley is a singer-songwriter with integrity who gets taken up by a washed-up drunk of an A+R man. They record an album in the streets using mobile equipment ("Hey kids...let's record the whole album right here!").
Keira's character (probably has a name, don't remember it) finds out her big-star singer boyfriend is cheating on her with someone from the crew, they nearly get back together but don't because she dislikes the way he has sold out to the suits.
In passing Keira heals the exec, cures his alcoholism and reconciles him to his family. Absolutely no sex or drugs, though a bit of profanity and drink. KK looks like the pretty alien that she is - attractive without being remotely sexy - so the absence of any sexual chemistry in the film makes complete sense.
Nevertheless quite enjoyable.
Keira's character (probably has a name, don't remember it) finds out her big-star singer boyfriend is cheating on her with someone from the crew, they nearly get back together but don't because she dislikes the way he has sold out to the suits.
In passing Keira heals the exec, cures his alcoholism and reconciles him to his family. Absolutely no sex or drugs, though a bit of profanity and drink. KK looks like the pretty alien that she is - attractive without being remotely sexy - so the absence of any sexual chemistry in the film makes complete sense.
Nevertheless quite enjoyable.
Review of 'A Little Chaos'
Pretty to look at but dull. Not much plot, a few moments of
nearly pointless melodrama, acting generally not all that good – though Alan
Rickman is clearly having fun as Louis XIV.
Of course no sign of the poverty on which the court rested, or the cruelty which was necessary and unremarkable to ensure its survival. There’s a
hint that the nobles are prisoners of a court system that keeps them busy and
out of trouble, but even there the film is a pale shadow of the depiction of
this in Ridicule (a much better film).
Thursday, April 16, 2015
The Rabbi's Hat
This picture from the Girona Jewish Museum apparently depicts a Jewish wedding. The rabbi is wearing a bishop's mitre. Did rabbis ever wear such headgear? If not, how come this picture? Was it done by a non-Jew who thought that's what clerics wear? What seem to be crosses on the hat makes that seem more likely. In which case, how did the picture happen?
I have something of an interest in the story of Jewish hats (we didn't always keep our heads covered, not before the 14th century) and am also intrigued by ecclesiastical headgear. So I'd really like to know the answer to this.
I have something of an interest in the story of Jewish hats (we didn't always keep our heads covered, not before the 14th century) and am also intrigued by ecclesiastical headgear. So I'd really like to know the answer to this.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Review of 'Woman in Gold'
I didn't think much of this. First, I was bored much of the
time. Lots of courtroom scenes, without much drama. I never really engaged with
any of the characters or their dilemmas, in so far as they had any.
But mainly I think the effort to restore Nazi-looted art to
its owners leaves me cold. Valuable paintings are a form of money. That Manet
or Van Gogh isn't worth squillions because that is its intrinsic value, but
because it’s scarce and monetary value can be attached to it. So everyone who
owns a valuable painting is by definition part of the super-rich.
In this story the happy ending is that the Klimpt paintings
are transferred from a public gallery in Vienna to a privately owned gallery in
New York, where they are on public display. The heroine realises that the
return of the paintings doesn't resolve her sense of loss of world and family,
her guilt at fleeing and leaving her parents behind – she still has to live
with that. Well, guess what? Other holocaust victims have to live with that
too, only they weren't ever rich, so they didn't either have to deal with
losing their valuable art, or have any prospect of getting it back.
And a small quibble. In the apartment, at Maria’ wedding
(and what sort of name is that for a Jewish girl anyway?) the exquisitely
bourgeois Viennese Jews dance a hora. Would they have, or is this just the film
trying to connect them with the European Jewish world as imagined by an
American audience?
Thursday, April 09, 2015
Review of ‘The Grand Seduction’
This film is very much in the tradition of small-community-conspires-to-deceive-outsider movies, as established by ‘Whisky Galore’ and refined by ‘Local Hero’. This is not nearly as good as the fore-runners. Apparently it’s a Canadian remake of an earlier Canadian film, which rather begs the question why bother? This one has Brendan Gleeson, but the other one looks like it might have been better. Oh, wait a minute, it was in French...presumably this was remade for the US market.
It’s watchable enough, though the deceived outside barely escapes the too-stupid-to-live designation in noticing what is going on. There is a vague sense that someone has cut all the more interesting parts out of the film. The enigmatic post-mistress who provides the love interest for the deceived outsider is barely a character at all. Nevertheless, at one point she raises the question as to whether the town will really benefit from having a petroleum waste reprocessing place – an issue which is never mentioned again, or even considered by any of the other inhabitants of this pristinely beautiful harbour.
Part of the process of the town being able to secure the oil company’s decision to locate its reprocessing plant there involves a personal bribe to one of the executives. This is presented as a technical challenge, and thus forms part of the plot (will the local bank manager be able to get this approved as a loan, or will he just steal the money from his own bank?) but it is not presented as a moral or a political element at all. It’s not even reflected on much by the characters – it’s just one more hurdle, like pretending to understand and like cricket.
Technical note: watched on telly via HDMI cable from laptop, because the film was downloaded.
It’s watchable enough, though the deceived outside barely escapes the too-stupid-to-live designation in noticing what is going on. There is a vague sense that someone has cut all the more interesting parts out of the film. The enigmatic post-mistress who provides the love interest for the deceived outsider is barely a character at all. Nevertheless, at one point she raises the question as to whether the town will really benefit from having a petroleum waste reprocessing place – an issue which is never mentioned again, or even considered by any of the other inhabitants of this pristinely beautiful harbour.
Part of the process of the town being able to secure the oil company’s decision to locate its reprocessing plant there involves a personal bribe to one of the executives. This is presented as a technical challenge, and thus forms part of the plot (will the local bank manager be able to get this approved as a loan, or will he just steal the money from his own bank?) but it is not presented as a moral or a political element at all. It’s not even reflected on much by the characters – it’s just one more hurdle, like pretending to understand and like cricket.
Technical note: watched on telly via HDMI cable from laptop, because the film was downloaded.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Review of ‘X+Y’
A film about maths nerds and autism, rather well done; had to choke back the odd tear.
The protagonist is a maths prodigy and ends up competing in the International
Mathematics Olympiad. Nice depictions of relationships between nerds, male and
female nerds, and savants and their parents. A few actors usually seen in Mike
Leigh films (Sally Hawkins, Eddie Marsan, and I think Rafe Spall) give great
performances.
Nice footage of Taipei; small autobiographical note, I spent some
time there during the Ovum Asia Pacific tour a few years ago and found it a surprisingly pleasant place. Several of the places I visited (the big park, the night market) were in the film and it
was nice to see them again.
Review of “Dear White People”
A film about racial politics on US campuses, with particular reference to a recent fad for rich white students to organise ‘blackface’ parties and the offence that it caused to African-American students.
Interesting, sharply shot and edited, and with some good conflicted characters, interesting scenario, and some good dialogue. Clearly shows, as if such a thing were necessary, that America is not any kind of ‘post-racial’, just differently racial.
But less than satisfactory for me, and lots of it frankly incomprehensible. I couldn’t understand much of the material about the American university culture (I don’t even know what a sophomore is), or pick up some of the nuances of American racial politics and/or African-American culture, or teen culture – what’s all that stuff about hair-styles really about? I don’t know or care enough to find out.
And I’m a bit mystified by having two of the main protagonists be the son of the white college president and of the black college dean respectively. I don’t know what the two roles mean (are they two halves of the Vice-Chancellor role, maybe?). And is the fact that one boy is white and the other black all that matters here? What about all the other people who aren’t from privileged backgrounds? Well, this is supposed to be an Ivy League university, so maybe they’re just not in the story, unless I missed something.
Interesting, sharply shot and edited, and with some good conflicted characters, interesting scenario, and some good dialogue. Clearly shows, as if such a thing were necessary, that America is not any kind of ‘post-racial’, just differently racial.
But less than satisfactory for me, and lots of it frankly incomprehensible. I couldn’t understand much of the material about the American university culture (I don’t even know what a sophomore is), or pick up some of the nuances of American racial politics and/or African-American culture, or teen culture – what’s all that stuff about hair-styles really about? I don’t know or care enough to find out.
And I’m a bit mystified by having two of the main protagonists be the son of the white college president and of the black college dean respectively. I don’t know what the two roles mean (are they two halves of the Vice-Chancellor role, maybe?). And is the fact that one boy is white and the other black all that matters here? What about all the other people who aren’t from privileged backgrounds? Well, this is supposed to be an Ivy League university, so maybe they’re just not in the story, unless I missed something.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Review of 'Cuban Fury'
Very disappointed that this was not a searing account of armed struggle in the Cuban Revolution, as I had been led to believe. There were no Cubans in this film at all, and very little fury, though the Brits in it were occasionally a bit peeved.
It turned out to be a mildly amusing romcom with salsa dancing, office rivalry
between men over the hot new boss, a bit of slapstick, and some good character
acting, particularly Ian McShane as the seedy salsa coach. Not memorable, but not awful to watch either.
I note that the boss didn't need to be American at all. She's learning to salsa like everyone else. It's not part of her latino heritage or anything like that. So presumably British film-makers are back to the old device of putting in an American character in the hope that they can increase US sales. Ho hum...
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Review of 'Saturday Night Fever'
Rewatched a few weeks ago, on telly via laptop and informal distribution; tried to watch via Chromecast but found the streaming couldn't handle an HD film.
Of course it's a great soundtrack, and very evocative of the period. And some of the social observation (particularly the social climbing of Stephanie, the dance partner who has relocated to Manhattan through her job and philandering boss).
I'd forgotten how nasty it was, though - apart from the ethic gang wars and the dead end jobs, and the boys' attitude to women in general, there are two rapes, neither of which seem to be taken very seriously.
Of course it's a great soundtrack, and very evocative of the period. And some of the social observation (particularly the social climbing of Stephanie, the dance partner who has relocated to Manhattan through her job and philandering boss).
I'd forgotten how nasty it was, though - apart from the ethic gang wars and the dead end jobs, and the boys' attitude to women in general, there are two rapes, neither of which seem to be taken very seriously.
Review of 'Strangers on a Train'
Watched this at a little arthouse cinema in Girona - very comfortable seats, but hard-to-hear soundtrack. I presume the mainly Catalan audience were reading the subtitles and didn't much care.
A classic suspense thriller, perfectly made, though some aspects of the plot don't stand up to much scrutiny. I especially enjoyed it because I'd recently listened to the rather good radio play 'Strangers on a Film', about the tension between Hitchcock and Raymond Chandler, whose name appears on the credits but didn't really write the screenplay.
In the play Hitchcock and Chandler argue about whether it's important for the plot and the characters to make sense; Hitchcock says that's not important in a film, which is a different medium from print. Seeing the movie I can see that he was undoubtedly right. Lots of the plot doesn't make much sense but it doesn't matter.
Small other note in passing; watching it I found it hard to know exactly when it was set. It looked like the 1930's, and only the small poster inviting travellers to visit New York to see the UN was a give-away that it was post-war. No sign in the film that anyone is a veteran, or that the war even had happened. It was made in the early 1950's, which really did look like a vanished world. Interesting how 'grown-up' the actors/characters look, even though they are much younger than me.
A classic suspense thriller, perfectly made, though some aspects of the plot don't stand up to much scrutiny. I especially enjoyed it because I'd recently listened to the rather good radio play 'Strangers on a Film', about the tension between Hitchcock and Raymond Chandler, whose name appears on the credits but didn't really write the screenplay.
In the play Hitchcock and Chandler argue about whether it's important for the plot and the characters to make sense; Hitchcock says that's not important in a film, which is a different medium from print. Seeing the movie I can see that he was undoubtedly right. Lots of the plot doesn't make much sense but it doesn't matter.
Small other note in passing; watching it I found it hard to know exactly when it was set. It looked like the 1930's, and only the small poster inviting travellers to visit New York to see the UN was a give-away that it was post-war. No sign in the film that anyone is a veteran, or that the war even had happened. It was made in the early 1950's, which really did look like a vanished world. Interesting how 'grown-up' the actors/characters look, even though they are much younger than me.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Review of "R100".
A Japanese shop worker whose wife is in a coma signs up to a
mysterious S&M agency (‘Bondage Corp.’) to provide him with surprise
dominatrix attacks in public places, which appears to be the only way he can
obtain some sort of ecstasy.
At first it goes well, and we see him reaching this state in
a wide range of places – a coffee bar, a sushi counter, the street, even a
children’s playground. But the agency increasingly crosses the boundaries
between those domains where the protagonist thinks interaction with the
dominatrices are appropriate. He’s happy to be attacked in proper ‘public’ – he’s
obviously got a thing about being humiliated in front of strangers, but not in
his house (where his seven-year old son is cared for by his retired
father-in-law) his place of employment, or the hospital room where he sits by
the bed of his unconscious wife.
He seeks to have the contract cancelled but is told that he
can’t. He goes to the police, but of course they are not interested in what
perverts get up to, or enforcing some incomprehensible distinction between acceptable
and unacceptable humiliation.
Then he accidentally kills one of the women who has him tied
up at home on a waterproof sheet so that she can spit at him. From here on the
film moves into pastiche thriller. The CEO of Bondage Corp, a large blonde
latex-clad American, flies in the corporate jet to supervise the company’s
revenge. Lots of madcap car chases and cartoon violence, as an army of
leather-wearing ninja women attempt to storm the father-in-law’s house in the
forest while the protagonist holds them off with a box of hand-grenades that he
has found.
There are some additional surreal touches. We see a group of
people discussing what the film is about between scenes. We see the film-maker
watching his movie in a private screening. The characters keep wondering
whether they've just felt a minor tremor that might signal an earthquake,
though it never materialises. It’s silly, not very erotic, and a not
particularly profound exploration of the psychological dimensions of S&M
fantasies. Probably better than ‘Fifty Shades’, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



















