[Review] To Rome With Love (Woody Allen, 2012)

Screw the critics. Woody Allen's 2012 effort To Rome With Love is a frequently amusing and satisfying entry into the neurotic auteur's catalogue. I enjoyed it far more than many of Allen's other recent releases such as Scoop (2006) or even the comparatively well praised Vicki Christina Barcelona (2008). While not quite as strong as 2011's Midnight In Paris, it still delivers some very entertaining stories and genuine laughs and proves that moving into his 77th year, Allen has great cinema left in him yet.

The film contains four different stories, as the title suggests all set in Rome and focusing on many of Allen's favourite topics including love, affairs, celebrity and art. All four stories intersect throughout the film although are mostly separate other than the setting. Opening on a busy Italian intersection, we are greeted by a traffic warden, or breaks the fourth wall in order to introduce himself and the stories we are about to see. We are introduced to Jerry (Woody Allen), a retired music producer who becomes obsessed with a mortician who has a great singing voice, but only when he sings in the shower; two newly weds Antonio and Milly (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi) whose relationship is tested by some serendipitous occurrences on the streets of Rome; regular family man Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni) awakes one day to find he is a celebrity, for no understandable reason and lastly architect John (Alec Baldwin) who while exploring his old haunts in Rome runs into Jack (Jesse Eisenberg),a student architect living in Rome who seems to be living a very similar youth to John and who falls in love with his girlfriend Sally's (Greta Gerwig) visiting friend, out of work actor Monika (Ellen Page).

Woody Allen remained brilliant as music producer Jerry, a man probably not to dissimilar to himself, as he cracked characteristic one-liners and obsessively tried to keep busy, as in the words of his wife (played by Judy Davis) "You equate retirement with death.” It was great to see him back on screen and in a much strong role than the magician of Scoop. The story of the man who can only sing in the shower was classic Allen farce and led itself to some hilarious set-pieces. As the did the story of truly overnight celebrity Leopoldo, played brilliantly from academy award winner Roberto Benigni. The story allows Allen to share with the audience some more of his always entertaining insights on life and in particular the lives of the famous as opposed to the lives of the mundane. The star of the story of the newly weds is Penelope Cruz, who plays  prostitute Anna forced to take on the role of Antonio's wife Milly for one afternoon (you'll have to watch to find out why). Allen always writes a good prostitute (Mira Sorvino as Linda Ash in Mighty Aphrodite for one example) and this is up there with the best of them, as Anna teaches Antonio a thing or two about not being a prude. Alessandra Mastronardi is also great as Milly, the supposedly innocent wife of Antonio who finds more than she's looking for after getting lost in Rome.

The film was nicely shot by Darius Khondji, the man who also provided cinematography for Midnight In Paris, presenting an appealing view of the streets and buildings of Rome in all their historic glory. There was a dynamic range of shot types from the static, to the handheld and also dolly-esque tracking shots which kept things interesting from a visual point of view. Each story contained varied settings, ranging from offices, restaurants and houses to the monuments such as the Colosseum and other ruins of ancient Rome. Italian critics claimed the film showed Rome from an outsider perspective, which it probably does and not being from Rome I had no problem with this, the place looked beautiful and gave Allen all the locations he needed to write interesting stories.

Not all was perfect however. The story featuring Alec Baldwin as architect John felt clunky, with him appearing as more of a narrator or the inner-voice of Jesse Eisenburg's character Jack than a tangible character. It was almost as if John was just looking back over his past and that the story of Jack doesn't take place except inside John's mind. This is never really explained or executed as well as it could have been and while I appreciate Allen trying interesting and original ideas, he's certainly executed his stories better in the past. Jesse Eisenburg was great in spite of the muddled story telling, as was his object-of-obession played by Ellen Page. One lesser tale out of three doesn't make it a bad film in my opinion.

All in all, well worth a watch and don't let the critic reviews or the films low score on cinema aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB put you off. It's funny, heartfelt and offers interesting things to think about afterwards, which you can usually count on an Allen film to do. Being set in Rome doesn't hurt the film either and allows Allen to use some great actors such as Roberto Benigni. Thankfully Allen is keeping up his film-a-year policy and we won't have to wait long for his new film, Blue Jasmine (unless you live in New Zealand) which Alec Baldwin returns in and is set back in the USA.

Allen is a workaholic and will probably never stop making films until he cannot possibly make them anymore, and then he has stated he will probably write books or something such as that. I will leave you with this quote, perhaps another reason why Allen is still in the film business;

"Real life is generally much duller and inevitably sadder, most of the time. In film, you control everything that’s going on, so you can indulge the most fantastic, romantic, escapist feelings and fantasies. You can do anything you want. That’s why it’s very seductive and pleasurable to earn your living making movies. You’re not living in the real world. You wake up in the morning and you go to work surrounded by [beautiful women] and scintillating guys that are handsome, witty and gifted, and you make up stories and everyone has costumes and the music is beautiful. You live your life not in the real world, and you create something that’s completely escapist. It’s great, but it’s not real. It is fun to do. The only place you can do it is in fiction." cinemablend

West Of Memphis

What a fantastic film, made even more fantastic by the appearance of Peter Jackson, Damion Echols and his wife at the screening who gave up nearly an hour of their time to answer questions after the film was screened. I managed to shake hands with all three, so forgive my giddy fanaticism, but I'll try and give a little review of the film.

Having not seen any of the Paradise Lost films at this stage and being a relative newby to the West Memphis Three case up until this screening, I can only judge the documentaries merits on what it achieved alone. I think it probably benefited my enjoyment of the documentary having such a limited knowledge of the case up until now.  The film did a good job of summarising the back history to the case, speeding through the original botched murder enquiry and joke of a trial with enough detail to keep us following the events while not getting bogged down by the sheer amount of content that could be considered for this section. We are introduced to all the people important to the case, through interviews, archival footage and occasionally footage from the Paradise Lost documentaries. Not much though, so anyone that has already seen these films won't feel like its treading water.

In case anyone is completely new to the subject of the documentary, I'll give a brief description. In 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas the bodies of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas were found hog tied, naked, beaten and mutilated, dumped in a local river. Three teenagers were convicted for the crime - Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr and Jason Baldwin, and sentenced to life imprisonment, with Damien Echols given the death penalty. The prosecution during the trial asserted that the children were murdered as part of a satanic ritual. It became pretty clear that they were innocent however and that the police botched the investigation and a whole lot of people failed to do their jobs properly, including the prosecution. Having too much at stake, in terms of their careers, and the careers of their friends, their money and their comfortable lives, they'd rather let an innocent man be killed by the state and let others live the rest of their lives in prison rather than admit any fault.

This inspired the original documentary, Paradise Lost, which did much to help inform the world of the plight of the Echols and company. This film has a large role to play in keeping Echols from being killed, as well as the work of his wife Lorri Davis Echols. It was after viewing the original Paradise Lost in 2005 that Peter Jackson and his wife got involved, providing a donation to help re-open the investigation and free the West Memphis Three. A DNA comparison between the West Memphis Three and the samples originally taken at the crime scene proved none of the convicted to be at the site of the crime. Evidence was also gathered that linked one of the boys step fathers, Terry Hobbs, to the murders. In spite of this, in September of 2008 Circuit Court Judge David Burnett denied the request for a retrial, citing the DNA as inconclusive. The decision was then made to begin this documentary, as something more was obviously needed to get through the corruption and incompetency of the Arkansas justice system, to get the three men free, and to put the real murderer of the three boys behind bars.

After setting up all the key events necessary to understand the convoluted nature of the injustice, the film concentrates on building a case for Terry Hobbs as the primary suspect for the murders. In that way the director of the film, as Sir Peter Jackson so rightly put it at the Q & A, becomes just as much of an investigative journalist as much as a documentarian. Family members of Hobbs are interviewed, including his ex-wife who discusses his history of domestic violence. The profile of Hobbs emerges as a violent, disturbed man, one who regularly bet his children and wifes children, and one that is also a pathological liar. The neighbour of Hobbs who lived next to him in Arkansas is interviewed, who tells of one case when Hobbs broke into her house, into her shower and grabbed her breast. She swore to this in an interview, he completely denies it in a later police interview. This is only one of many accusations against him that the film shows him to repeatedly shrug off. His DNA was also found at the site of the crime, in the form of a strand of hair found between the shoe laces used to hog-tie his step-son Steve Hobbs. Further, statements from those who know Hobbs and his family begin to emerge, that refer to the 'Hobbs family secret'. Hobbs' son is confirmed by many of his friends to have confided to them that this secret is that his Dad killed the three boys in Arkansas.

I apologise if I've gotten any of that information wrong, but that is much of basic evidence that the film builds to make a case for Terry Hobbs as the murderer. It indeed seems very likely, although less likely as to whether there will ever be a retrail to convict the real murderer. It seems that the police, law enforcement and justice system of Arkansas are more than happy to keep sweeping the case under the rug in order to protect their own lives. The films ending, explained by Peter Jackson at the start of the film to be not the ending that had hoped for, saw the West Memphis Three released from prison, but only after agreeing to an odd statement of guilt that sees them able to maintain their innocence while still being stuck with the guilty verdict. The film ends with them free, but with the guilty verdict yet to be overturned.

A successful documentary as it managed to get me thinking, in particular about the justice system. This is only one case out of many where innocent men are sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. Damien Echols at the Q and A discussed that he was fairly certain at least three other men that he was on death row with were innocent. One of these is dead, one is not likely to escape execution and one is in the process of clearing his name. Regardless it shows that there is certainly something wrong with justice systems of the world, and especially the death penalty. If this film covers several of the same points as Paradise Lost, and having not seen this I am not totally knowledgeable, I think it is not a big deal as both those films and this one serve the same purpose; to see innocent men free and point a large finger at the corruption of the justice system. It was also a very moving experience, heightened by poetic imagery and a great score provided by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis.

I believe we need more documentaries on this topic, perhaps some looking at the New Zealand justice system could be warranted. If anyone has any questions regarding what was talked about at the Q and A feel free to ask. It was a good hour of questions and many aspects of the film, the case and Damien's time in prison were discussed.

------------------------------

*A good follow up documentary to this would be Werner Herzog's recently release Into The Abyss, a look at the lives of men on death row. I have only just began to watch it, but it seems a dark and moving film, features a more serious Herzog (but no less riveting) than some of his recent documentaries.

Goodbye Nol-Bat, Hello IMAX, Thank You Cinema

EDIT: I was originally going to not discuss much of the content within The Dark Knight Rises but I've since had the urge to so you'd better beware of some SPOILERS when reading this.

While I want to, I'm going to refrain from discussing much of The Dark Knight Rises because I'm sure not everyone has seen it yet. I need to collect my thoughts, as there was a lot to take in during the course of that films two hour and forty five minute running time. It did live up to expectations however, if not succeed them.

It was certainly the darkest of the trilogy, contained all the puzzles and plot twists one comes to expect from a Nolan film and was a fitting conclusion to the trilogy. The 70mm photography was incredible, some of the most spectacular I've seen, and I'll return more to that topic soon. Also the dual female leads of Anne Hathaway and Marion Cottilard were particularly well casted.. As was Tom Hardy as Bane, and theres justifiably already a lot of talk about the power of his performance. I felt truely terrified at many moments during the film and I can't think of many other comic book films that have had that effect on me. Fans will probably feel that there wasn't much of Batman being Batman within the film. There was much of Bruce Wayne and his internal struggle, but Wayne actually donning the Batsuit and kicking full superhero-ass was kept to a minimum. I didn't mind this. I believe that the less you see of the Bat, the more effective a screen persona he is. So when we finally see him in full Bat get-up, it is a fantastic release of the tension built up by holding him back.  I won't say much more as I don't want to spoil anything... ..so I'll have to control my urge to discuss the ending...

I had a more general thought during the screening that I feel like sharing as well; that is that we shouldn't let America's terrible weapons laws and the sick mind of one individual stop us from enjoying the collective experience of the cinema. I'm echoing the thoughts of another blog post here: badass digest, but it is entirely true.

Lets not let a sad act of terrorism ruin an artform that is still relevant. I believe going to the cinema is still relevant, immersive and (dare I say it) magical experience. I shared the experience of seeing The Dark Knight Rises with my friend Ultraman, and a sold out theatre of captivated fellow cinephiles, and remained the fantastic experience that seeings films in the cinema has always been for me. Ultraman was inspired to draw this image today after our experience at The Dark Knight Rises last night:

Ultraman and Hambat (Drawing by Ultraman)

Films on the scale of The Dark Knight Rises are not easy to make. The hard work of the scriptwriters, directors, actors, technicians, artists and all other crew should be celebrated. Their hardwork should be experienced, with one another, within the cinema.

On another note, this doodle gives some indication of how I felt witnessing an IMAX film for the first time:

 

Ultraman is a much better artist

So thats pretty much a terrible drawing, but regardless, I couldn't get over just how much crisper, detailed and powerful the IMAX images were compared to the 35mm images. Not just in terms of the size of the screen they covered (which was huge) but also the clarity due to the extra resolution. The action scenes shot within this format (many of which contained CGI which still looked brilliant) were astounding as were the quieter moments, with Nolan using the format for many dialogue heavy scenes, filling the giant canvas with the actors faces.

The 35mm scenes looked so much more grainy, the colours so much less vivid compared to the IMAX footage, at least to my eyes. It makes me wish theatre chains spent all the money it required to update theatres with 3D projection technology on introducing IMAX into more theatres instead. Likewise, directors should film their blockbusters in IMAX rather then 3D. Fuck 3D. IMAX was far more engrossing and spectacular. Fuck your blurry, distorted and dark images that are after a while no more impressive than a pop-put book when I can have the glorious, huge, magnificent true film images that are that of 75mm IMAX. Oh yeah, fuck your high def digital cameras while your at it, your Red epics or whatever, IMAX takes what I love about film and ups it to the next level.

Ok, maybe I'm getting a little carried away over a piece of technology that to most people is probably old news. But it was pretty damn exciting for me. As for the HD digital film comment, I should probably wait to see The Hobbit in its 48fps before I can make a final judgement. But I'm sticking with film, be it 35mm or 70mm for the time being.

I'll be back for more film blogs soon, cause the excitements not over yet. Its FILM FESTIVAL TIME! That could mean some Moonrise Kingdom and quite possibly some Q & A to go with West of Memphis. We shall see..

Peace out ya'll.

Ten Reasons Why You Should Watch Some David Lean Films

Everyone likes lists, so here's a list. This is regarding a director who until this week I've not been especially familiar with. Now I am! ..to an extent; I haven't yet delved into his early films, so I'll be sticking to discussing the most well known stuff - Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai and A Passage To India. I can tell you, his films are well worth an old look...

10. Camels

A severely under-rated yet extremely majestic creature, the camel appears at first glance to be rather similar to a horse, but upon closer inspection one realises that the camel in fact is far more interesting than the horse. It for starters has two gigantic humps, which probably contain a lot of a liquid and fat (I can't be bothered wikipedia-ing the facts) which I'm assuming allows them to last a very long time on not a heck of a lot in the extremely harsh climate of the middle eastern desert. The cinematographer and film crew working under the direction of David Lean in Lawrence of Arabia (1962) manages to get some utterly compelling shots of camels doing there thing. We see them walking, drinking, eating, running and sleeping. Occasionally if you look at the background you can see an extra or two trying to get a camel to sit down. As is usual with most films, the background action is often just as interesting, or perhaps even more so than the foreground. So if you ever happen across Lawrence of Arabia and feel like giving it a shot, make sure you pay close attention to the camels. They were for me the selling point of the film.

9. Gorgeous Super Panivision 70mm Cinematography

Although I watched Lawrence of Arabia on a cruddy 700mb download featuring artifacts and blocky visuals galore, it was originally shot in awesome 70mm film stock giving added scope to the desert locations, making them appear extra huge and awe-inspiring. If there is one film I wish to see a restored copy up on the big screen, it is this one. The endless, barren, scorching, unrelenting deserts crossed by Lawrence during his conquests of old Arabia during WWI appear just as foreboding as they probably are in real life. Shot in Morocco, Jordan and Spain, these desert sequences are some of the most spectacular visuals ever put onto celluloid. Better yet, this is 1962, so the film is free from any CGI to interfere with the gorgeous visual feast that is mother nature. Bask and bow down to the never ending orange infinity that is the desert...

8. Bridges

Well maybe just one bridge in particular but its a pretty cool bridge. Its a Bridge on the River Kwai from the film of the same name, released 1957. Built by British POW soldiers under the jurisdiction of Japanese captors during WWII, the Brits show the Japs up by taking over command of the bridge building and exert far superior engineering skill. Which is kind of funny given that the Japanese are now days far superior to most countries when it comes to engineering. Artistic licence perhaps? Or maybe its one of those other Asian countries that rock the shit at engineering. I'm not too sure. Anyhow, here's a picture of the bridge, the first being pre-British involvement, the second post and near completion. I managed to see Bridge on the River Kwai on the big screen this monday courtesy of re-releases being screened at Event cinemas around Auckland, which is a big mainstream cinema franchise, the last place you'd expect to see releases of classic films such as this one. The film is a true adventure, a glorious piece of cinema history from the heydays of technicolour epics. The screening of this film, along with Lawrence of Arabia is what inspired this blog. I suggest you check them both out.

7. Politics and stuff

Lawrence of Arabia is all about helping Arab tribes defeat the Turks during WWI and then the complexities of what happens after they find success. The Arabs want independence, yet as soon as they gain it find themselves in political turmoil. The British step in to fix the situation, yet it is implied it was always the British imperative to control Arabia. Seems an awful lot like the current political climate, where the major powers of the world battle in the Middle East, supposedly to liberate those peoples from tyrants and end terrorism and all that political rhetoric, yet in actual fact it is to control their resources. Perhaps I'm reading to far into things, but the film observes the Western fetishism of the Middle East, and predicts a future where Western empires move further towards controlling the continent. This is probably not a eureka observation but more something the film expects us to acknowledge. Either way it brings an extra layer to the films plot, making it not just the tale of one extraordinary man but also the politics surrounding the consequences of the actions of an extraordinary man.

6. The Madness of War 

The Bridge Over River Kwai contains a particularly gripping narrative about the madness of the military and of war. We already know war is shit and the film helps to reinforce this widely accepted point. The climax in particular (which I won't spoil) is a nail bitingly gripping example of why war is the most confusing, pointless, bullshit human endeavour. Any filmmaker that doesn't glorify the horrific aspects of war is alright with me. Sure, its 1957 and in the 50+ years since then and now, the anti-war theme in films has been done to death, there is something refreshing about an anti-war narrative that relied on clever scriptwriting and magnificent performances to convey its meaning. There is no slow motion exploding bodies here, just pure, perfect, cinematic storytelling. Which brings me to my next point.

5. Good Stories and Epic Adventures

The traditional Hollywood three-act structure is in effect in David Lean's historical epics, and boy is it employed beautifully. Characters are set-up in the first act, developed intricately and led towards a confrontation. The first act of Lawrence of Arabia sees T.A. Lawrence grow from being an adventurous, reckless and intelligent young person, if slightly aimless, into an experienced, strong and respected leader capable of uniting disparate and slightly barbaric Arab tribes. In the second act we view Lawrence's increasing confrontation against the Turkish enemy, against the Arab tribes that he wishes to unite and against himself, as he is torn between his new found role as an almost-prophet figure of the Arab people and of his Anglo-Saxon heritage. This all heads towards the climax and resolution, finally ridding Arabia from the control of the Turkish. Of course, there are multiple ways to interpret the structure of the film, as it is a 3 hour plus film, the entire first half before the intermission can be view to contain its own three act structure. Complex films are good however and the film certainly delivers an adventure regardless of how you interpret it.

3. Elephants (and landscapes)

Another fantastic animal appears during a pivotal scene in the last film made by David Lean in 1984, A Passage To India. A large intelligent animal common in Africa and parts of Asia, the elephant, when not treated terribly often allows humans to ride upon its back, rather than crushing them to death. The very charming Dr. Aziz in Passage To India takes it upon himself to organise a fantastic day out for a few wealthy English ladies, treating them to a trip to see some famous and spiritually important caves. He pulls out all the stops, including hiring a large decorated elephant complete with a chair fixed upon its back to take them up the hill towards the caves. The magnificent animal has no problem with this, but does demand some celery stalks and a big bath to cool down once reaching the top of the hill. Although the trip to the caves would not go as smoothly as planned and would instigate much of the drama of the rest of the film, before this drama unfolds the trip is really rather lovely, made much so due to the presence of the elephant. David Lean sneaks in some great shots of the Indian landscape in a similar style to the deserts of Lawrence. At the end of the film, set in Northern India near the Himalayas, Lean includes several truly breathtaking shots of mountains, clouds and snow. I'm telling you, this guy shoots nature like nobody else!

3. Fantastic characters and performances

David Lean captured some great performances. Character development is central to why the narratives are so gripping and conveying these characters are brilliant actors such as Peter O'Toole, Omar Sheriff and Alec Guiness. Just like any good auteur director, many of the actors reappear through-out his filmmography. Omar Sheriff plays Lawrence's Arabian comrade Sherif Ali as well as the lead in Doctor Zhivago. Alec Guiness plays Lt. Colonel Nicholson in Bridge as well as Prince Faisel in Lawrence and Professor Godbole in A Passage to India. I really grew attached to the actors portrayal of these characters; they would stay with me for days afterwards. I found Anthony Guiness' performances particularly memorable and felt very sympathetic to his Colonel in Bridge, who takes his traditional British loyalty to misguided new levels as the eccentric and honourable scholar Godbole in Passage. A Passage to India also featured several other great characters, Peggy Ashcroft as Mrs. Moore and Victor Banerjee as Dr. Aziz. Mrs. Moore is the true hero of A Passage to India, a symbol of a new Britain free from imperial prejudices. Dr. Aziz is a charming and sweet man loyal to the British, yet eventually broken by their prejudices and the stupidity of one woman. The emotion, tension and drama that the actors bring out of the narratives, with the help of Lean's superb direction is really something special.

MRS. MOORE! MRS. MOORE!

2. Classic Cinema At Its Best

Most of all, the films are just bloody classic, so If you have an interest in good cinema from a time when scripts and performances mattered most and jerk-off technical wankery aimed at 13 year old male audiences certainly didn't, then you owe it to yourself to view these films. You probably already have, which in that case means me attempting to persuade you is in vain. We need more great cinematic story-tellers like David Lean and less filmmakers only concerned with showing off technical developments. Not saying that there are no films made today with equivalently magnificent story-telling, there are of course plenty of great stories being told in the arthouse, the mainstream and from filmmakers from many different nations. David Lean's epics were however in their time the big blockbusters, the money-makers, something that these kinds of films rarely are in today's market saturated with comic book adaptations and bloated action franchises aimed at teenage males. I guess part of my appreciation of these films comes from a nostalgia for a time before the summer action blockbuster came to dominate cinema screens. The past may always seem greater than the present thanks to our friend hindsight, but if nothing else, these films provide me with a great reason to get excited again about cinema, everyone of them containing their own magnificent adventure. But don't just listen to me, find out for yourself.

1. If for nothing else, watch 'em for the animals

But regardless of rambling about the current state of cinema and the nostalgia for a golden era of cinematic storytelling, if there is one reason you should watch a David Lean film, its for the animals. And if you choose not to see the camels in Lawrence of Arabia or the elephants in A Passage To India, even Bridge on the River Kwai has some pretty awesome shots of birds, bats and other animals. Which makes David Lean kind of comparable to Terrance Malick, if you liked his films, Tree Of Life, Thin Red Line, Days Of Heaven etc. The above picture is not from a David Lean film but it pretty much sums up everything I enjoy about the interesting and goofy animal that is the camel.

So there you go. I've skipped over David Lean's other great historical epic, Doctor Zhivago as I haven't seen it for five or six years and seeing as I'm currently amping off the enjoyment of Lawrence, Bridge and India, I saw it fit to focus on both of those. But Doctor Zhivago, from what I remember was pretty awesome as well.

Go torrent some David Lean today, and experience classic cinema at its finest.

First blog!

So I've decided to start a blog. There are many reasons why I have come to this decision. This I won't get into right now. I'm going to write about movies, music, projects I may be involved in, or anything else that interests me. So stick around, you may find something interesting. If not I’m offering no apologies.

To begin I will talk about/review a film I just went to see, The Most Fun You Can Have Dying. Here's the IMDB entry: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1866269/. I'd been tossing up what film I wanted to spend my hard earned cash on all week. Other choices had been David Cronenburg's newest, A Dangerous Method or the kiwi western Good For Nothing. Also under consideration was a rescreening of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger 1947 nun-themed melodrama Black Narcissus. There was also F.W. Murnau's Tabu*, but that's screening as part of the Auckland Film Society, and I'm too cheap to fork out the membership fee. I would like to see all these films though, and hopefully at some stage I will get to.

I eventually settled on TMFYCHD. It's also a kiwi film but I guess I chose it over Good For Nothing as I was in more of a drama mood than a western mood. TMFYCHD is about a young dude, Michael, probably in his early 20s that gets diagnosed with terminal liver cancer. He figures he's pretty fucked, so instead of staying around in his small New Zealand community and receiving treatment that will give him a 10% chance of beating the disease, he takes the $200,000 raised to help him through donations and buggers off overseas. He leaves behind his best friend, David, just after admitting to him that he fucked his girlfriend and a caring father that now in trouble with the police over the stolen money. Michael just wants to enjoy the last months of his life, drinking, binging and experiencing what he can, while he can. At the expense of those who love him most. So he's a bit of a dick.

His overseas journey takes him first to Hong Kong, where he gets a tattoo and a passport, and then to Europe. Things start off well, with his European first stop being London, or was it Paris? I'm not sure because things move quickly, there’s a fast cutting style and it’s never overly clear where exactly he is, unless to pay close attention to the architecture and the accents. Anyhow, in the London/Paris/Somewhere in Europe he meets a few characters at a local bar, yet hits on one of their girlfriends, getting his ass a royal beating (kind of a pun, intentional). A pretty young lass named Sylvie finds him lying bloodied in an alleyway, there is a connection between them and it doesn’t take long for him to woo her into join him on his adventure. We soon find she's as misguided as him, perhaps a little big tragic, which probably explains a lot about the bond between them. Of course, we already know this relationship is not one that can end happily ever after, but I won't ruin the intricate details of what unfolds.

So the plots a tad on the farfetched side but the film managed to absorb me, even when the screenplay went in some questionable directions. It’s not a perfect film and definitely not handled as slick as the same subject matter would have been by a more experienced director. I drifted off at a few points, imagining how much more gripping certain scenes would have been if they had been helmed by someone such as Wes Anderson. Then again I've watched a lot of Wes Anderson films lately, and the man's style is so unique I'm tempted to call him a genius. So I should probably be fair and not compare a kiwi film to the work of such unique, rare talent.

For a kiwi film however, it is indeed an impressive journey. The amount of locations is startling and it’s hard to think of many other New Zealand films with a budget of this kind that delivered a journey of this cinematic scope. A few shots were breathtaking, particular the very last shot of the film (which I also won't spoil). The film avoids the trendy and cost effective DSLR look and is shot in 35mm, so this perhaps explains much of the films visual appeal. The filmmakers certainly made the most of their minimal funding. The acting is mostly pretty strong as well, there are a few tear jerking moments here and there and no wooden Shortland Street level performances that can occasionally plague New Zealand productions. Matt Whelan did a good job of playing a bit of a dick of a protagonist. He probably had to lose a bit of weight for the role, as he does look pretty frail towards the end.

The subject matter itself is difficult and sensitive to many New Zealanders (and people worldwide). I think the majority of us in New Zealand have lost a loved one to cancer, be it a family member or friend. I lost my granddad (who we affectionately referred to as 'gra') to the disease, so I know what it’s like to see a family member wither away, due to the cancer but also due to the somewhat undignified medical treatment**. The handling of this topic within the film does certainly make one think, what would you do if placed in a similar situation as Michael? Would you stay in your small New Zealand town and suffer through the treatment that may save you or may just make the last few months of your live agony, or would you take a risk and at the expense of your loved ones live the last few months you have left in the most impulsive way possible? We learn early in the film that Michael lost his mother to a terminal disease when he was a boy. One of the only photos he has of her being one where she is bed ridden near the end of her life. The other is one where she is overseas, a decade earlier looking much healthier and full of life. These photos are clearly provided as the underlying motive for his actions. One can certainly sympathise with Michael's plight when taken into account the interactions with his mother during his youth. He wanted to go out dignified, living life to the full, just like the younger incarnation of his mum. Not as a bed ridden lab rat for an unproven test. In this respect Michael provides a deep enough character to overlook his misgivings, the hearts he breaks and the stupid things he does in living out his last days.

The film succeeded in making me think about the plight of those who die young from terminal diseases and what I would do if placed in a similar situation. It also managed to make the couple sitting next to me think about the same thing, as they chattered away, discussing the situation and whether what Michael did was right or wrong as they left the theatre. It was by no means flawless filmmaking and at times felt like an excuse for a big OE with the film crew, but it delivered enough gripping moments, had a script with enough thought and enough heart to be largely a success. The character development did however feel inconsistent at certain points, with characters leaping from one emotion to another without a heck of a lot of reasoning. This was particular evident with the girl Michael shacks up with in Europe. Either its sloppy screenwriting or the filmmakers are making a point about the irregularity of human emotions. The negative elements of the film did not overwhelm the positive.

A few final points; the soundtrack was awesome, provided by the Flying Nun signed Grayson Gilmour. Dense arrangements, some poppy stuff, heavy stuff, well produced, suited the mood. There was a cameo performance from the Naked and Famous which I'm on the fence about. There also an amount of semi-homoerotic scenes, many close ups on male butts and the filmmakers even managed to sneak in a little male kissing. Though the sensitive "hey man I'm dying but I love you as a friend" kind of kiss. Female director-I guess couldn’t help filming some of her fantasies. At least she was kind enough to throw in a bit of full frontal female nudity, even the titillation out a bit more. Got to throw something in to add a bit of spice and bite the visuals after all.

So that concludes my first blog post. Bit of a review really. I'm reluctant to include a score because I don't really want to make these blogs official reviews. They're more loosely structured rambles really. But for the sake of anyone that wants a score here we go:

A+++ trader, prompt delivery of aural and visual content, would trade again.

...well, I will go to more of Kirstin Marcon's films. She's pretty cute too: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2393814016/nm1509373.

So good to know we're producing more promising Kiwi filmmakers. This blog has inspired me to go check out more NZ films, so maybe I'll see Good For Nothing next week. Or maybe I'll enrol in film school. Or maybe start living in a narcissistic blur in the spirit of TMFYCHD's Michael. I don't think that I've ever lived that hard, fast or thoughtless however. Its good we have films to live out these fantasies.


----------------------------------------------


*Thought-to-self: It's not too late to see Tabu. Perhaps it would be worth not being a cheap cunt and heading to the Tabu screening, as it probably won't be screened anytime soon and I no longer have the pleasures of easy access to a large film archive that I had during University... (I'll mull this over tonight and perhaps give an update in a future blog).

**I also had a bout of hypochondria during high school in which I would constantly find lumps and convince myself I was losing weight and had cancer or some terminal disease. This of course, turned out to be some phase probably brought on by pubescent pot smoking and the changes in my body as I went from fat kid to lanky young adult. But given my fears, I can relate to this film in that way. It is my pubescent fears, tragically a reality for some (who I have great sympathy for), brought to screen.