Three Colours marathon

Trois Couleurs: Blanc (1993, Krzysztof Kieslowski)
A

With Three Colours: White, the viewer begins to better understand exactly what type of project writer director Kieslowski had launched himself into. The first instalment, Blue, was a refreshing, memorable and unexpected take on what freedom can mean. The sequel White,if it can be called a sequel, does much of the same and yet does so in a radically different manner. The next theme championed on the French flag is equality, but like freedom, it too can be interpreted in ways one might not necessarily think of, at least not at first.

The film opens in Paris, where a dopey and harmless looking man named Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski) is heading to court. His wife, Dominique (Julie Delpy) has filed for divorce. What we understand to have begun as a fantastically romantic adventure now ends in sorrow and even bitterness, especially on Dominique’s side of things. Karol, a Pole who speaks mediocre French at best, is devastated by Dominique’s emotions revealed in court and by her ruthless attitude towards him in the following days. Karol is completely and unmercifully rejected by his ex-wife, to the point where she mocks him over the phone by moaning while being pleasured by another man as Karol listens, dumfounded and distraught. The result of this breakup is tremendous inequality, as Karol has almost no money left and nowhere to live. It is only when a fellow Pole living in Paris named Mikolaj discovers him playing music with a comb (Karol is a professional hairdresser) in the subway that things start to turn around. Mikolaj helps Karol return to Poland and restart his life. Karol has much more on his mind than rebuilding his life however. With some time, careful planning and the proper funds, Karol will create a little bit of equality between Dominique and himself.

If one were to guess the type, or genre of film I’ve described above, ‘drama’ is the one genre that would cross most peoples minds. Kieslowski is cleverer than that however, and instead of giving the viewer a desperately bleak affair, with the central character of Karol being the center of all the bad luck and on the receiving end of everyone’s ruthless behaviour, he sows together a dark comedy, a film not without several appropriate dramatic beats, but one that will leave the viewer smiling on many an occasion.

The source of the peculiarly light-hearted nature of many scenes is to be found in their setup and the characters that inhabit them. Zbigniew Zamachowski’s facial features and naturally friendly nature lend the character of Karol such a demeanour that one can’t help but feel we are in the presence of an all around decent human being. He has been wronged and is afflicted with a thirst for vengeance, and despite the fact that his ultimate plan on striking back at Dominique is indeed harsh as some might put it, I couldn’t help but cheer him on during the entire journey. There is a dopey but lovable look to the actor which suits the growth of the character within the context of this story. In the early goings we don’t think Karol will display enough courage, wit or cunning in order to put forth in motion his plan. This is sometimes due to his funny and uncomfortable demeanour (the ‘stranger in a strange land’ setting helps in this regard) , at other times due to his terrible misfortune. We witness a rapid series of events which not only make it clear that Karol’s luck has run out, but that even in his attempts to earn a fighting chance, such as his failed seduction of Dominique in her store one morning before she has him flee from the authorities, this man is pretty much worthless. Zamachowski’s performance is one that shines for its many comical elements, but there is an intelligence and a courage which belies his harmless facial features. I think it's precisely this intelligence which delivers an added layer of quality to Karol’s journey and our appreciation, or at very least our fascination with the character. While earlier in the film there may have been some pity felt towards him, about halfway through we begin to understand that there is far, far more to this man than we believed. Director Krzysztof Kieslowski is quite clearly fascinated with creating characters that can elicit many emotions and thoughts from the audience. On a more surface level, Karol is a kind and sadly unfortunate soul who requires our support, but once the full extent of his intentions towards Dominique are exposed, there is a definite malice behind the man’s actions. ‘An eye for an eye’ or ‘revenge is a dish best served cold’ and so forth. I shan’t fully reveal what it is he does to his former wife, but suffice to say that it is very cold, borderline evil. So why do I still feel an attachment towards Karol, even during the bittersweet final moments of the White? Ah, well, that is the magic of great acting and storytelling.



The comedic quality of White is also in plain sight in the setup and evolution of many sequences. Shortly after meeting Mikolaj in the Paris subway, the two begin to better understand one another and become so enwrapped in their sudden friendship that there is sense that they no longer pay attention to the fact they are sitting on a bench in the subway. Card tricks, drinking straight from the bottle, Karol even does Mikolaj’s hair! As with its predecessor, the titular colour is very throughout the film, but its first appearance is an oozing drop of bird dung which lands on Karol’s shoulders. The fascinating thing about all of this is in how such silly oddball moments fit in perfectly with the rest of the film. It isn’t at all a case of a film trying desperately to find a just balance in tone but never quite attains it. On the contrary, Kieslowski appears to pull all of this off effortlessly.

The golden nugget in White is its treatment of the theme of equality. Once more we witness Kieslowski take a much cherished and of course worthy ideal from the French flag and puts a drastic spin on it. Karol fights for equality and so he should, but what sort of equality is he fighting for exactly? The opening scenes suggest that we are about to witness a story of an immigrant’s fight for equality in a new country where his rights are currently limited, but that is not even close to the notion of equality White is mainly concerned with. The equality of White is on a more personal level, one that reaches into interpersonal relationships, the difficulty in satisfying two peoples emotions equally and how easily we humans forget that even in the darkest of scenarios, a little of respect and equality is required by both parties, otherwise rash decisions are made which in turn lead to harsh reactions. Like the best films, such assessments are always open to interpretation and someone may very well discover another aspect to the ‘equality’ studied in the film. That’s also what sets Kieslowski apart from many other filmmakers. He displays an ability to continuously suggest with ever telling the viewer something specific. Every scene is filled with enough information and clues to chew and ponder on, but rarely can we quickly and with certainty arrive at a definitive conclusion.

There is no Three Colours trilogy without the inimitable effort from score composer Zbiniew Preisner . How in heaven’s name that man succeeded in creating scores that simultaneously suggested they were part of the same series but also retained their perfectly unique individuality is beyond me. That’s without even mentioning how simply beautiful and memorable the music is. Whenever the main theme for White began to kick in there was a ridiculously wide grin on my mug, each and every time.

Kieslowski takes some unexpected turns in White in regards to the tone and mood, which sets it apart from the rest of the trilogy, but makes it no less an effective piece of cinema. I suspect that one could make a case for White being Kieslowski’ mainstream film (I wonder how many people cringed just now). It has a more straightforward plot than many of his other films, has an easily lovable central character and often goes for outright comedy. Make no mistake however, Three Colours: White is still a prime example what can result of art and cinema crashing into one another to make sweet, sweet love.

Review: Green Zone (2010)

Green Zone (2010, Paul Greengrass)
B


‘If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.’ That’s a fantastic saying, one which frequently proves to be true. When it comes to film however, a filmmaker’s decision to stay the course with the typical themes, stories and cinematic styles he or she is known for could come back to haunt them. After all, it is nice to see some variety every once in a while. In the case of English director Paul Greengrass and his Bobby DeNiro, Matt Damon, the time for him to explore new movie horizons has not yet come. He’s still great at what he does.

Employing the shaky cam style/ quick editing he masterfully constructed the latter two Jason Bourne films with, he and star actor Matt Damon team up again to tell audiences another story involving shady U.S. government wheeling and dealing. This time they turn back the clock (so to speak) to 7 years ago, in March of 2003. Roy Miller (Damon) and his team form a special unit of WMD investigators. In essence, they receive intelligence about the presumed locations of stockpiles of various deadly bombs and chemical materials, travel to said locations and confirm or deny the existence of those weapons. The strange thing is, time and time again Miller’s team has been coming up empty, and it isn’t because they perform their searches in the wrong places. No, Millar rightfully suspects that the actual intel which higher ranking officials are providing is bogus. Along with a journalist and a CIA data analyst, Roy Miller chooses to follow his own path and learn the truth about the American military’s source of information.

Tackling such subject matter is dicey for one significant reason: very generally speaking, the audience knows what happens. The Iraq war and the many debates and politicking which led to its initiation have been made known to everyone the world over, not to mention that the raging arguments about the legality of such a war and what factual or fabricated evidence existed to engage in combat took place only a quaint 7 years ago. Spoilers for history: the war is still raging on. Matt Damon doesn’t prevent the Iraq war in Green Zone. It becomes crucial for the filmmakers to create suspense, action and a credible tale through other means than a ‘protagonist must prevent a war from starting’ plotline, because that probably wouldn’t do. So if the macro doesn’t work, then go for the micro, which is precisely the approach adopted by Greengrass and company in this fairly thrilling hunt for an infamous and mysterious source of intel known only as Magellan.



My immersion into the film was not immediate, mind you. The qualities of the movie are strikingly reminiscent of last year’s The Hurt Locker (reviewed here), another Iraq war film which followed American soldiers who dealt with weapons of mass destruction of a certain kind (they formed a bomb diffusion unit) and which made heavy use of what is now known as ‘shaky cam’ cinematography. I was afflicted with a slight sense of ‘been there, done that’ uneasiness in the early stages of the film. It was the quintessential Greengrass immediacy that thrust my attention into this deadly and treacherous world in the streets and alleyways of Baghdad. He’s a director who enjoys taking just a little bit of time to set up all the elements for the ride to come so everyone knows who is who and what they are doing here, and then he lights the biggest match you’ve ever seen when the suspense kicks in. Bloody Sunday, The Bourne Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum and now Green Zone are all graced with this up tempo method of storytelling. It’s an intense style that requires expert control of editing and cinematography because, if used improperly, it can become an utter mess. I can only fathom the amount of time spent in the editing room for this man’s films, but I tip my hat to him and his team for creating lively action sequences that, while characterized by a certain messy quality, nonetheless retain coherency. If I may share a gripe, it would be in the late stages of the movie, during which time an extended and elaborate chase sends our protagonists and antagonists through buildings and streets at night. Most of the intense moments in Green Zone benefit from natural sun light, which I have to assume comes to the assistance of the shaky camera cinematography. At night, especially when the chase is occurring in tight spaces, it became a tad difficult to follow. It never became an incomprehensible thankfully, but there were some brief moments when I wasn’t sure how Damon got to where he was and where exactly the antagonists were heading, this despite that fact that there is a helicopter team following them from above with radar assistance.

Greengrass also shows tremendous deft at handling the intercutting of scenes in offices or bureau’s with those that transpire in the dust filled sweaty streets of downtown Baghdad. Because events and scenes are moving along at such a brisk pace, the editing choices required precision and attention so viewers don’t lose themselves among this apparent cacophony of sights and sounds. Film editing is an art that’s equally if not more important than cinematography. Greengrass and his crack team are without question up to the task yet again.

A peculiarity that should be pointed out is Matt Damon’s screen presence. There was a bit less depth to his character, Roy Miller, than I had anticipated. His raison d’être can be boiled down to questioning the same weapons hunting methods that most of us observing the real life events 7 years ago questioned. He’s a soldier and wears the American flag on his sleeve, but has a conscious in that he’ll only go along for the ride if his country is at war for the right reasons. It’s not a role for which a great amount of originality went into the writing, but there is an honesty and even a ferocity to Damon’s performance that is more than welcomed. It’s a case where the actor adds as much as he can to his role to make up for what I assume lacked on the page. Brendan Gleeson, as a senior CIA agent, hides his British accent in a decent performance, although nothing to shout about. Greg Kinear, an actor I always enjoy seeing, is also fine as the slimy high ranking official fighting for the U.S. interests. It was interesting to see some scenes featuring only Iraqi characters speaking purely in Arabic, a bit of respect to the home team after all. Unsurprisingly though, many of the Iraqi characters pretty much remain random Arab faces throughout the film.

Because we know that there is only one way the ‘bigger picture’ of the story can end, Green Zone contents itself with a fast paced plot in which characters are mostly just going from point A to point Z in a wild chase to either reveal or cover up the truth, one that audiences, if familiar with recent historical events, are already informed of. In that respect it is a bit of a strange viewing experience. The action is properly intense and well executed, there are some fine actors giving decent performances and the setting is appropriately exotic and dangerous. Having said that, there can’t possibly be any surprises for the audiences, so the enjoyment must rest in the experience of the hunt, not the story. Greengrass wears his politics on his sleeve, which some might not appreciate, but in the case of Green Zone’ s story setting, there’s no controversy. After all, there were no WMDs hidden anywhere. It’s not as though there’s a debate raging about that till this day.

I don’t predict Green Zone will retain the attention and imagination of movie goers as dramatically as some of Greengrass’ previous work. It’s a fun ride, it has its moments and it makes for a solid outing at the theatre, but in the wake of The Hurt Locker ’s Cinderella success story, Green Zone, at least until something else comes out, is the second best Iraq war film.

Star Wars marathon: The Phantom Rebuttal

The Phantom Rebuttal

*As part of the ongoing Star Wars marathon, a rebuttal formulated by each co-host is presented each Sunday following the publication of our individual reviews. Naturally, in order to fully appreciate this article, a proper reading of Bill’s review over at Bill’s Movie Emporium is required. Besides, if there's a link to a site or blog here at Between the Seats, it's because it has our stamp of approval.



Bill, let me start by saying that I appreciated your attempt at shielding yourself early on by admitting that you consider yourself to be somewhat of an oddball Star Wars fan and that such a reality would lead to opinions that wouldn’t jive well with most fans of the franchise.

Yeah, nice attempt.

In fairness, I shall begin by revealing the areas where we find common ground. Strangely enough, the more I thought about your assessment of the Darth Maul character, the more I found myself understanding such a point of view, the fact that his existence serves no other purpose other than to show a peeved off Sith who relishes at the chance of destroying the Jedi. No other depth is required for Maul and any attempt at creating some would incurred great risk of tampering with the main reasons why we like him: he’s a visually cool bad ass. I think what turned me around regarding Maul was when I sat and thought about some counter examples I could use to make you look like a fool. I began to think of a franchise I myself am extremely familiar with, the James Bond franchise, and reminisced about the various heavies in those films and realized that pretty much all of them had a) little screen time b) only made the full extent of their strengths known in the late stages of the stories.

Oh, and the medi-chlorians suck. High five!

With that out of the way, it’s time to get down to business. Tatooine. I’m willing to concede that a bit too much of the film’s running time is spent on the desert planet. Maybe things could have been sped up a bit, but I’ll defend a lot of what transpires there. This is in fact the crux of the story. Why is there an original trilogy? Because Anakin Skywalker went from heroic Jedi to evil Sith Lord, thus creating a huge clusterfuck of problems around the galaxy. To fully understand where all these problems started, one must return to the beginning and discover the character as he was. The time spent on Tatooine serves two primary purposes. The first, and one that I think is the less important of the two, is the sense of familiarity which the viewer can appreciate. Tatooine is Star Wars after all. It is where the two most important characters of the entire saga hail from, therefore in the telling of their respective stories, a decent amount of time will be spent there. The second purpose is that of character background. I liked that notion of Anakin Skywalker coming from nothing, literally nothing, to eventually become the most feared person in the galaxy. I liked how Qui-Gon Jin and company come across the boy, almost accidentally and how that fateful encounter gains in significance through Qui-Gon’s realization of the boy’s Jedi potential and how he must deal with Watto to take Anakin away, otherwise an amazing opportunity is lost. It was one of the few moments in Episode 1 where I think the story elements came together and became interesting. The culmination of the Tatooine sequence, and one that importantly leads to Anakin’s freedom, is an amazing podrace, something I don’t think Star Wars fans saw coming based on the type of action we had witnessed in the original films. The time spent on Tatooine is not perfect, I’ll grant you that, but I liked it enough.

You go on to say that the 'meat and potatoes' of Episode 1 are found in Palpatine’s politicking on Coruscant. Although I can understand why you would say that, I have trouble getting behind that statement. Much of what worked in the original trilogy rested in the character relations, not the wheeling and dealing between Galactic Empire officials or whatever debates Palpatine had with his councillors, something I briefly touched on in my original review last week. It’s funny because you and I seem to be coming from completely different places when analyzing Episode 1. You think the more important element rests with the politics and Palpatine’s slimy manoeuvring whereas I champion more of the character driven storytelling elements, not to mention a lot of the dryness in those politics scenes. I always feel like the only one who understands what in carnations he’s supposed to be doing on set is Ian McDiarmid. Remind me again why Terrence Stamp is the movie... To me it just feels as though the politicking on Coruscant is something one of those Lucas Film approved authors could write about in a spinoff novel. Lord knows how many of them there are by now. In an actual Star Wars movie? I’m not so sure that was a good idea.

Ah, the idiocy of the Jedi Council in their decision to have Anakin trained. It is absolutely idiotic, it is one of the worst decisions they ever made (actually, it is the worst because they eventually all end up dead). Your assessment of that decision is spot on, which is why I’m surprised by your reaction to it. The Jedi are held up to such high standards I think it becomes difficult to imagine them as imperfect. But as the case of Anakin will demonstrate down the road, everyone, even an ‘I’m supposed to have no desires or emotions’ Jedi, is imperfect. The opportunity presents itself before the Council to train a boy who may, may, become the most powerful Jedi ever. Jedi, not Sith. They’ve been training these guys for centuries, they know what they’re doing. The fallibility in the Jedi Council’s behaviour in Episode 1 is but an extension of the fallibility we the viewers witness in the character of Anakin later in the saga. They saw an opportunity to cash in, recognized that there was in inherent danger in the choice (emphasized by the fact that the Council refuses at first to have Anakin trained), but thought about it twice and gave in to the potential of having a demi-god on their side. It’s this ‘idiotic’ decision which shows the first signs of cracks in the almighty Jedi armour. Their wisdom is suddenly put into question. They might not be as bright as they think they are and, in the long run, it leads to their destruction. There are reasons why the Galactic Empire rules the universe at the start of Episode IV, one of them being that the Jedi got caught up in their so called greatness and messed up royally.

This has been strange article to write. My overall opinion of the film is lower than yours Bill, and yet here I am defending so many aspects to Episode 1. Not much of what I have written above forgives the film for its inherent blandness in countless scenes and the horrible acting which permeates throughout. Story elements are one thing, and as I wrote last Sunday, I like the world in which Episode 1 transpires, but if it isn’t conveyed in a manner that feels interesting, then the film is problematic in my opinion. You and I both attacked certain aspects of the film, only that we rarely attacked the same ones. Have you tried to use reverse psychology on me, Bill?

N.B. Hey Bill, what did you think of the film's title, The Phantom Menace?

Three Colours marathon

Trois Couleurs: Bleu (1993, Krzysztof Kieslowski)
A

In the purest sense, film is about moving images and sound. If a filmmaker and his crew can get that part right, they more than likely have a film on their hand. If, however, they use the moving images and sound to create a great story, convey emotions and transport the viewer to a different place, have the viewer feel what the characters feel and react to what the characters are reacting to, then the filmmakers have hit the preverbal ‘jackpot.’ Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski knew how to do just that, and while the man’s career boats an impressive body of work (such as The Decalogue), it can be argued that he is most remembered for his sumptuous Three Colours trilogy, a collection of films inspired by the French flag, with each strip of colour and, by extension, each film representing a thought, a feeling, a desire, an ideology cherished and defended by the French.

Blue represents freedom, and in the movie Blue an unfortunate woman named Julie (Juliette Binoche) discovers the most terrible kind of freedom. As the movie opens she, her husband and daughter are driving in the French countryside on vacation. Their car smashes into a tree, the result of which ends up being the death of the two members of her immediate family. With her husband and daughter gone, Julie chooses to set herself completely free of her former life. Not the sort of liberty one would expect to be studied in a film about ‘freedom.’ Relinquishing the past is a daunting task in Julie’s case. Her late husband was a famous and highly regarded music composer. Not only is the artist’s legacy a lasting one, but his colleagues know full well of the remarkable piece of music he had begun to work on before his sudden demise and wish to finish the man’s work and make it public. At first Julie will have none of it, preferring to sell off their beautiful property and destroy the music sheets written by her late husband, but certain things may persuade her to behave otherwise...

Story, growth of character and emotional beats are told in the most unique ways sometimes in Three Colours: Blue. Consider, for example, the visual setup for the scene in which Julie learns of the death that befell her husband and daughter. It is a marvellous, but at the same time devastating close up shot of her eye which reflects the vision of the sorry doctor who must deliver the news. Later we witness, in a sense, the burial ceremony through a small television set Julie is watching underneath her hospital bed covers. In both instances there is an intimacy and urgency to the scenes, all the while presenting some story development with visual flair. The colour blue itself makes consistent appearances throughout the film, be it the wrapping of a candy bar, the water in a swimming pool or the light’s reflection on a chandelier made of blue coloured rubies. In each instance, a different emotion is vividly evoked. What is so surprising is how this never comes across as obvious or, as the saying goes, ‘ham fisted.’ There is brilliance to how the camera angles, lighting and colour schemes of scenes all help to tell the story of this lonely and emotionally bruised woman. Never did I think that Kieslowski’s methodology was heavy handed or redundant. On the contrary , I was continuously impressed with how the filmmakers made succinct, intelligent and visually pleasurable use of cinema. True, pure cinema comes to the assistance of the storytelling. If the term ‘auteur’, often used by cinema buffs in reference to directors who make films with similar themes, stories and filming techniques, could only be applied to a select few directors, I cannot imagine how one would not put Kieslowski on that list. I don’t even see how one could hesitate.

But the visuals alone do not make up the staggering qualities of the film, no sir. To describe the music score, provided by Zbigniew Preisner, is a daunting task. At times gentle, at times operatic, the musical cues never clash with what the viewer sees on screen. Rather, they compliment the visuals. They aid Kieslowski and company tell this sad but hopeful story of a woman wishing to start anew after the tragedy to end all tragedies presents its cursed self. The music and editing are married together and provide the viewer with a unique experience that so few other filmmakers could ever replicate. The moments when a character asks a question or makes a remark which reminds Julie of her past life, she closes her eyes while the screen fades to black for a brief moment and a stunning piece of operatic music blasts its way into our ears. There is a sheer, naked force to Preisner’s score at times that struck me like a lighting bolt. Rarely had I witnessed a film in which virtually every piece of the cinematic puzzle (isn’t making great cinema a bit of a puzzle after all?) came to together as perfectly as they do in Three Colours: Blue.



I’ve discussed about nothing but visuals and sound thus far, which is rather unusual given how the actress at the center of this milestone picture is the talented and ever classy Juliette Binoche. Binoche’s resume is littered with interesting films and fine performances, but her abilities are, for some obvious reasons, put to the test in Blue. With so much of interest to be found in the music and cinematography, it could become quite easy for the main actor or actress to disappear, so to speak, in this plethora of cinematic creativity. Such is not the case with Binoche as Julie. She is living her character and all the technical aspects I have showered with praise until now really form an extension of who she at this point in her life. Her actions and mood changes are guiding the technical storytelling elements, not the other way around. And this is just as it should be in a good movie. That isn’t to say that if everything else took precedence over Binoche’s performance that Blue would be a disappointment, but it is reassuring to know that Kieslowski, who is so adept at giving life to such audio and visual experiences, respects the art of acting. Julie, as a character, is a fitting role for an actor of Binoche’s calibre. Despite the shocking early developments in the story, she never becomes purely embittered and distanced from those who live around her and choose to interact with her. Late in the film a character expresses how she had known all along that Julie is guided by a tender heart regardless of the circumstances, and this complexity in the emotions Binoche must convey only makes the performance all the more impressive. The interesting thing was how the quality in her performance that I describe now mostly made itself evident upon my second viewing of the film. I did like her when I first watched Blue, but perhaps I was too occupied with everything else on the screen at the time to take full notice of just how good Binoche is in this.

Which brings me to the warning I would like to share with certain movie audiences, some of whom may be reading this review. Three Colours: Blue might, and I stress the word ‘might’, come off as a bit overwhelming for certain people. It is different, it is bold, it is quiet, it is loud, it wears some emotions on its sleeve, at other times it is subtle... Not everyone will ‘get’ Blue. It is less of a film where character X does A, then B, then goes to point C to accomplish goal Z, and more of an experience through which the viewer is invited to understand someone befallen by tragedy and how they are pushed to overcome their initial period of darkness. There’s art house cinema and then there’s art house cinema. Blue is art house cinema. It is an opera, a painting, a collection of pictures which tell a thousand stories, a soundtrack. It is a perfect movie.

Star Wars marathon: Episode 1

Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (1999, George Lucas)
B-


Warning: Even though I provide a brief plot synopsis, most of this review will assume that a) the reader has seen the movie and b) the reader is familiar enough with the Star Wars saga as to not start asking questions when I casually drop names like, for example, ‘Senator Palpatine.’

It’s quite remarkable how certain films become ingrained in popular culture. Throughout the years and decades, the lasting power of these films is not merely limited to a hard core fan base, but is etched in the memories of many, many people in our society. People can quote lines, they can correctly guess which elements are being borrowed when spoofs and rip offs are created (the mere fact that a spoof of a film exists is already a strong indication of its popularity) , they even recognize references to said films in other films! What it boils down to though is how they continuously entertain us, regardless of how many times we’ve seen them. Whether it is our first viewing or our seventh, we are transported to the fictional worlds of those movies and follow the memorable travels of our protagonists, especially when they occur a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

Like many mentally sane boys and young teenagers, I too was a big Star Wars fan back in my day. I owned the original trilogy on VHS, I owned a few novels, I owned a few video games, I even recall taking a crack at what is commonly known as ‘fan fiction’ whereupon an admirer of a franchise will write a poorly constructed and embarrassingly shallow story inspired from the universe of said film, purely out of admiration. All guts and no glory, as they say. However, as I grew into the later stages of my teenage years and eventually into adulthood, the intensity of my appreciation for the Star Wars franchise waned somewhat. Gone were the novels that populated my bookshelf, gone were the video games I no longer played (with perhaps an exception or two) and my career as a Star Wars fan fiction story teller proved to be short lived (1 story, and not a very good one at that if I even remember what it was about). My enjoyment of the films always remained however. Today, in 2010, if you say ‘Star Wars’ I think about the films only and not the hoard of merchandising that comes along with the territory. I may not watch them as frequently as I had during my youth, but till this day I still think the franchise is massively entertaining, strengths and flaws both taken into consideration.







It was with excitement that me and Bill from Bill’s Movie Emporium (and the Filmspotting message boards) agreed upon watching the 6 film saga and writing reviews for each instalment. The last time I watched any of the films must have been about the time when the final one released, 2005’s Revenge of the Sith, came out on DVD. 4 ½ years ago at the earliest essentially, and that would only count for Episode III. The last time I had sat through any of the others was surely 5+ years ago. And so after a long hiatus (and I’m serious when I say this. If I don’t watch a Bond film for 4 months I’ll consider that a long hiatus), I dove back into the world created by writer director George Lucas so many years ago.


The film

Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, released a full 16 years after Episode VI, turns back the clock in the Star Wars universe and begins to show audiences where our favourite characters such as Darth Vader, Obi-Wan Kenobi and C3PO come from and how they came to be who they are in the original trilogy. Sounds like an exciting prospect? It most certainly does, especially if you enjoyed the original trilogy as much as I did. But as some other film franchises would demonstrate a few years later, it is mightily difficult to return to form after so many years. 16 years between instalments is a heck of a long time, not to mention that audiences already know the outcome since the new film tells a back story rather than a continuation of what we have already seen. With this massive endeavour resting squarely on George Lucas’s shoulders (in the sense that he wanted to go back and tell the prequel stories, he wrote them and he directed them), could Star Wars fans such as myself ever be satisfied with the results?

The galaxy in which The Phantom Menace takes place is vastly different from the one we knew in the original trilogy. Rather than the evil Empire ruling with an iron fist, it is a Republic attempting to govern as a democracy from the galaxy’s core planet, the very metropolitan Coruscant. Instead of Stormtroopers being the policemen of choice, it is the Jedi. Instead of constant war, there is mostly peace. I shan’t delve into a lengthy plot description because, firstly, I don’t think anyone reading this hasn’t seen the film, and secondly, I think the plot is fairly complex and convoluted enough so that a short paragraph to provide a synopsis would amount to nothing more than ‘The characters do this, then they do that, then they do this, then they do go there...’. Very, very generally: a fabricated trade dispute aimed at the peaceful planet of Naboo, orchestrated by a mysterious Sith lord named Darth Sidious (Ian McDiarmid) with the help of a massive and surprisingly well armed company known as the Trade Federation (although come to think of it, maybe they specialize in armaments) causes panic in the Republic, who send two Jedi delegates, Qui-Gon Jin and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor respectively), to settle the matter and protect Naboo’s queen, Amidala (Nathalie Portman). This wild adventure will take them to Coruscant, but also the desert planet of Tatouine, where a fateful meeting between Qui-Gon Jin and a young boy named Anakin Skywalker (Jake Loyd) takes place.









Enough of this prancing around with exposition already. Is the movie any good? We need to know what Edgar thinks of it! Well, even after all these years since I last watched it, I think the movie is decent but still not what I had hoped for. It’s also a strange film in that many of the elements I like are also hampered by things that annoy me to a certain degree. Take for instance the mechanized soldiers utilized by the Trade Federation to conquer the planet of Naboo. It lends a completely different feel from what we had back in the day with the Stormtroopers. These are sophisticated battle droids who look sleek and even have personalities to an extent (I even felt that many of their lines as well as the delivery of said lines were quite funny). But when faced with a considerable opposition, such as two Jedi, they are terribly feeble, dare I say pathetic. Another element was when our protagonists arrive at Coruscant near the middle of the story to meet up with Senator Palpatine (also Ian McDiarmid) at the Senate to plead for Naboo’s cause. Now, I majored in Political Science, so talks of Senates, delegates and votes of no confidence interest me, and I will admit as much that seeing Palpatine, who we know will eventually become the gruesome Emperor Palpatine, play the bureaucrats like puppets in his attempt to slowly ascend to ultimate power is interesting in many ways. Whether he is using the Force on everybody’s mind or whether everyone really is being duped I’ll allow the reader to ponder on, but it is an important element to want transpires in this prequel trilogy. On the flip side, I did think the pacing of the movie, which already showed troubled signs up until that point, was hurt during this 10 or 15 minute sequence. Scenes of politicking are intercut with scenes at the famous Jedi temple where Qui-Gon Jin tries to convince the Jedi Council that the young boy he has discovered on Tatouine, Anakin Skywalker, is especially gifted in the Force and must be trained to become a Jedi Knight. Both of these story elements are important, but neither prove be very terribly interesting on film. My feelings regarding the political scenes of Episode 1 are indeed ambiguous, but I can’t hide the fact that while that aspect of the prequel stories is relevant, they feel out of place in a Star Wars film. It felt as though I was watching a different movie suddenly. In the original trilogy, we knew there was an Empire and an Emperor, but we never saw Palpatine sit on his thrown debating about what he was going to do next. We just saw the results of his actions and decisions. It was then up to the Rebel Alliance to fight back against the injustice done to the innocent. Episode 1 seems to want to show us everything, and as a consequence stretches itself too far and slows down to a crawl at times. I like the world in which the characters live in, but I didn’t need to see everything in it or have so much explained.

I think that is a major concern which plagues much of the film. The hosts of a favourite podcast of mine often remind us that directors should ‘show us but not tell us’ what’s going on or what elements in a film refer to, and I do think George Lucas, certainly a visual story teller if there ever was one, attempts that but sadly fails on many accounts. Not only are a ton of things shown and explained, I feel that there is a stale quality to Episode 1 which I cannot abide by. The setups of many scenes, various dramatic beats that should resonate, revelations which are meant to surprise the audience (such as when Padmé reveals herself to be the actual Queen of Naboo), so many of them feel as though a certain energy was lost in the translation from script to screen. The most glaring example of this is in how dry much of the line delivery is. There are moments when I feel the actors are still preparing to get into character on set and are not actually having conversations with their opposites in the film’s world. Ewan McGregor and Nathalie Portman, who have both, in my opinion, given good performances throughout their careers, seem to suffer the most from this. A lot of what they say sounds really, really boring. I’m a believer that a good performance can make a terrible line sound fun, or interesting, or at least passable. Such is not the case with the acting in Phantom Menace. I suspect that was the first time many of them found themselves on humungous sets for a film of unimaginable proportions. They felt lost and Lucas, who is known to for his prowess regarding editing and special effects supervision but not his moulding of performances, probably didn’t help much. Liam Neeson is one of my all time favourite actors, and even he has some poor line delivery in the film. I mean, come on. When Liam freaking Neeson sounds a bit stiff in a movie, something’s up. With poor line delivery, it becomes difficult to invest one’s emotions into the characters. Obi-Wan in A New Hope is a person. Obi-Wan in the Phantom Menace is a pretty face with a lightsaber. Things only become stranger when fine actors like Terrence Stamp and Samuel L. Jackson are just there for decorating the set with accomplished performers and not much more.







I imagine that, given the importance of Anakin Skywalker in the saga, Jake Lloyd’s performance should be assessed. Evaluating child performances always troubles me. On the one hand, I feel I shouldn’t be too hard on a kid because he or she clearly lacks experience, but on the other hand I know the director chose them for a reason, and therefore I expect a result. Much like the other performances in the movie, Llyod’s is a mixed bag. I find it interesting how he seems more engaging earlier in the movie, but he grows more uncomfortable as the story moves along. I don’t mean that in the sense that Anakin is taken out of his element and therefore feels lost as a person. I truly mean that Jake Lloyd’s acting grows worse the more we see of him in the movie. His character isn’t given many favours either. I just don’t think the Episode 1 Anakin is very interesting. Nice kid, good at pod racing, seems to have been bitten by the Force bug. That’s it. I think Lucas knew how to introduce him (slavery on Tatouine, a touch I actually like) but wasn’t sure what to do with him afterwards. His involvement in the climax is rather groan inducing if you ask me. I also find his innocent and pleasant demeanour a bit off putting considering that he will eventually become a complete monster later in life. I can understand that he is but a child wishing to be free from slavery, but good luck finding hints that this boy will become Darth Vader at some point.

I can’t go on indefinitely about the hoards of characters which populate the film, but it would be a shame not to touch on Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) and Darth Maul (Ray Park), Darth Sidious’s apprentice. Jar Jar is such a bizarre creation in that he ended up being a rather significant milestone in filmmaking. His existence in a movie showed how good computer generated imagery had become. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if when Peter Jackson, who I’m sure was preparing his Lord of the Rings trilogy in 1999, saw Jar Jar, his immediate reaction was ‘well, now I know we pull off Gollum!’ Having said that, the character of Jar Jar per say is more than a mild annoyance. I know perfectly well that he has been scolded countless times on the internet, so I won’t spend time creating new insults for him. Suffice to say that he isn’t funny, isn’t useful to the story (Lucas could have easily, easily created a more likable sea-lizard creature to accompany the protagonists) and speaks very poorly. I swear, till this day there are lines I don’t understand! It’s not Jamaican, it’s cheap imitation Jamaican. As for Darth Maul, he sadly ends up being nothing more than a curiosity in the story. I remember being so pumped up in the weeks leading up to the film’s release back in 1999. I somehow believed the villain would play a greater part in the story, so to see him for about 20 minutes in a 120 minute movie was quite disappointing. There is absolutely going on with this guy. He literally just stands around and waits for orders from Darth Sidious. He looks soooo cool, but hardly does anything at all. Feel free to disagree, but that was one of oddest decisions made for Episode 1 if you as me.







Speaking of looks, that is one department in which Episode 1, 11 years following its theatrical release, never ceases to impress. The film is gorgeous to look at. There is an attention to detail that is truly wonderful to behold. The set design, with the exception of perhaps the interior of Trade Federation starships which look rather drab and uninspired, is beautiful and clearly shows off the hard work the crew invested into the project. Every place looks different and adds a new flavour to the scenes which unfold. While the costume design for the Jedi may not be very memorable, it’s the polar opposite with Queen Amidala’s wardrobe. Holy cow, those costumes are elaborate! They certainly strike a perfect balance between fantasy royalty. But probably more so than any costumes or set design, it is the visual effects that carry a lot of weight. Some movies made several years ago feature CGI that might not hold up very well by today’s standards, especially in our post-Avatar world, I’d wager that The Phantom Menace still boasts some massively impressive shots. Time and care went into the creation of the effects in this film I truly appreciate such craftsmanship. This in turn spruces up a lot of the action sequences. The pod race near the middle of the film still blows tons of action sequences we see today right out of the water. I honestly don’t think it’s close. Everything about that sequence feels different and unique. Notwithstanding the few minutes involving speeder bikes in Episode VI, we hadn’t seen anything like that in a Star Wars up until that point. Not to mention that the actual design of the pod race vehicles is impressive and unique in their detail and structure. I really think that is an excellent, excellent sequence, not to mention that is one of the few times when the story elements come together in the right way, what with Qui-Gon Jin having placed a bet against Watto (a slave owner who currently has Anakin and his mother under his ownership) to win the boy’s freedom in the event that the young lad emerges victorious from the race. Qui-Gon knows Anakin is far too gifted with the Force to rot away on Tatouine and must use this final resort to get the boy off the planet and to the Jedi temple.

And while I’m on the topic of the action in the movie, the eventual lightsaber duel between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan at the end of the film is still rather cool after all these years. Much like with the podracing sequence, I think the story elements come into play nicely during this battle. The Sith have mysteriously reappeared, taking the Jedi by complete surprise and forcing them to show off some epic skills. It also goes back to what I said earlier about liking the world in which the film takes place even though the film gets bogged down into too much detail at times. It’s interesting to finally see an era when the Jedi were in their prime.

Finally, I would just like to mention the John Williams score. As a great admirer of film scores, I think this is some of Williams’s best work, and not just in the Star Wars franchise. I think it’s some of his best work, period. The emotional cues are terrific (to the point where they almost make up for the dry line deliver by the actors), the actions cues are rousing and instantly memorable, and finally the score is impressive in how it melds together both new themes for the prequel trilogy and some of the older themes heard years ago in the original trilogy. I encourage anyone with an appreciation for film scores to have a listen to the music of The Phantom Menace.





The film’s place in the franchise

This is a special section of the review created specifically to discuss how The Phantom Menace fits into the overall story arc of the Star Wars saga. Seeing as how till this day people, including myself, still see the original trilogy as the benchmark by which the more recent films are judged, I thought this might be an interesting tool.

Overall, I believe The Phantom Menace’s connection to the rest of the franchise is very average at best. Because I keep forgetting that Palpatine is a senator from Naboo (it always feels like an afterthought to me) the entire plot of a trade dispute opposing the Trade Federation and Naboo seem pointless. There is nothing very epic about that storyline and following Episode 1, Naboo is not at all important in the saga. The notion of Palpatine, as a senator from Naboo, using this crisis to gain power is interesting in a way, but it feels like a rather wishy washy Star Wars plot. Trade disputes? Really?

Ah, the midi-chlorians. Yeah, that’s pretty different from we saw in the original trilogy. Before Episode 1, I thought the Force was a gift, an energy you could control or you couldn’t, which made you a Jedi...or not a Jedi. Its description in the original trilogy was vague enough to keep its mythology interesting, but enough was said for the viewer to understand sufficiently what it was and how it was used. Much like with the politics of this prequel instalment, a heck of a lot about the Force is explained in Episode 1. I’m not among the rabid fans who felt the mythology of the Force was completely butchered. No, I just thought it was a boring explanation. I just didn’t care for it. To be perfectly honest, I now find it interesting that this more scientific explanation of the Force is never mentioned in the original trilogy. It’s as if Ben Kenobi, Yoda and Darth Vader agreed that the midi-chlorian proof behind the Force sort of killed the ‘cool factor’ of their powers so pushed it under the rug. More to the point, it’s sounds silly and boring.

So what we’re left with is a 120 minute film to show the viewer how Palpatine becomes Chancellor and how Obi-Wan becomes Anakin’s mentor. That’s a lot of beating around the bush if you ask me. The counter argument to that might be that George Lucas wrote a story, whether closely or loosely connected to what happens later, in order to introduce the characters we know and love as well as some newer ones that we know will probably die at some point. Fair point, I get it. I just don’t think he told a particularly interesting one and, if I may be picky for a moment, yes I would have liked a story that was more closely connected to the original trilogy. Without giving too much away on my thoughts about the next two prequel films, when I view the saga in its entirety, I can’t help but feel as if Episode 1 is the odd one out in terms of relevancy and story. But of course, more on that in my reviews of Episode II and III in the coming weeks.

For me, the best aspects of Episode 1’s place into the Star Wars mythology was finally seeing the Jedi during their glory days as well as space battles made with special effects to wow audiences.



Conclusion

Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace is often hurt by wooden acting, some pacing issues, as well as story elements which simply don’t feel necessary. However, there is little doubt regarding the quality of the sights and sounds of this more modern looking Star Wars world. There are some fine action sequences (there is pleasure to be had in finally seeing the Jedi slice through a room full of enemies) and, despite some story-specific problems, I enjoyed that overall setting in which the story occurs, that is, the Old Republic in which democracy is breaking down and the Jedi are the sheriffs. Now if dear George can give us a cooler story that fits into the overall saga as well as some more interesting characters, things might be really interesting...

I wrote this review at my own pace without consideration with what Bill has done, so whether or not he went all out and into as much if not more detail than myself, I do not know at this time. I think I’ve gone on long enough, but even if there are certain elements you, the readers, believe I should have touched on but didn’t, remember that next Sunday is for our rebuttal posts, which could easily open the door to deeper analysis of Episode 1.




Make sure to check out Bill's review at Bill's Movie Emporium.

Star Wars marathon

Alright then, let's get down to business, shall we?

This Sunday will see the launch of a joint Star Wars saga marathon, featuring reviews not only here at Between the Seats, but also at two of Bill's blogs, that is, Bill's Movie Emporium and The Domain of Nihilus.

The saga will be looked at with a fine toothed comb in chronological order. Essentially, we are studying the franchise starting with Episode I, then II, then III, and so on.

On our blogs this coming Sunday you will find our individual reviews of The Phantom Menace. 7 days later, we shall publish response posts to our reviews. We may agree or disagree, I honestly don't know yet. I know Bill is a huge Star Wars, and I have some general ideas about where he lies with the individual instalments, but that's about it. Of course, any comments from you the readers are welcome as usual.

So after 2 Sundays of The Phantom Menace (reviews and then rebuttals), we then ignite our lightsabers again for Attack of the Clones (a Sunday of reviews and then a Sunday of rebuttals). So on and so forth until the climactic battle in Return of the Jedi, which I hope will prove to be more exciting than the climax in that final instalment, if I may indulge in a little review-spoiler.

You ask me if this is going to be pretty cool? I can offer only one reply:

'I know.'

Another development.

Hello again.

This is a bit of information I could have posted a few weeks back but never got around to doing so, so I do apologize. The news in question is that yours truly is now a writer for The Reelists, a website I believe I've mentioned a couple of times before on this blog. It was started by some Filmspotting message board members and has grown a decent bit to include contributers from across the web.

In fact, The Reelists are starting to gain exposure to the point that two contributers have started the site's official podcast. Yes, they have a podcast called The Movie Dictator Club. While it is still young, I can assure you it is a quality product. So make sure to check out their site because a) It's darn good, and b) because it features my column, 'Flip Side of the Frame', in which I take a brief look at one strong and one poor performance from the same actor. The column might not appear on a weekly basis, but I hope to make it a fairly regular column on their site.

Thanks again.

Coming Soon: a 2 blogger marathon...

In cooperation with Bill from Bill's Movie Emporium, although his other blog, The Domain of Nihilus, might be used by him instead.

Whatever happened to?...

Whatever happened to that 'queer cinema' marathon? Excellent question, I'm glad you asked.

Life happened. It is as simple as that. Work, social life, etc, etc, etc. The mere fact that I posted in-depth and reasonably lengthy reviews on a rather consistent basis (6+ times a month) for 1 1/2 years surprised even yours truly himself. I honestly thought a lengthy forced hiatus on my part was going to occur way sooner in the existence of Between the Seats. Well, it happened now.

Okay, so regarding the 'queer cinema' marathon: Yes, it will still happen, but not at the pace with which the other marathons have developed up until this point, that is, a breezy 1 to 1 and 1/2 month blitz through a director's work or various movies within a single film genre. The reason being that whenever I asked readers of the blog to vote on a future marathon's topic, the more indie/art house topics always won.

That in of itself is fantastic. Even before I changed the format of Between the Seats to a strictly marathon inspired format, I think it was evident that I had an eclectic taste in film. Between the Seats was never a 'review the Friday Hollywood release' kind of blog, even though there were the occasional reviews of the recent big budget productions. The thing with an entire marathon of indie/art house films is that those movies are not necessarily easy to find. There was a time when Between the Seats was still young that your host made use of...less than legal means to acquire all those non-English language movies I reviewed. I just picked and chose what sounded interesting and clicked a button. Last autumn however, I made a commitment to stay clear of illegal downloading. As it stands, if I'm watching an art house or indie film, it's because I borrowed it from the local library or one of the local multiplexes where I live felt generous enough to play it for a few weeks.

Do you have any idea how hard it was to do that 'Female European directors' marathon?!? I'm exagerating of course, but still.

So again, the 'queer cinema' marathon will occur, please rest assured. But don't expect it to be a '1 review/week' type of marathon. Having said that, I think it is high time we get back on track here at Between the Seats. No more hiatus time. Within the next week, more reviews will start pouring in, but a bit like I did in December with the 'Long arms of the law' marathon, I'll be choosing some easier topics (movies I can easily acquire).



Two franchises will be studied in the coming weeks. The first shall be the original Planet of the Apes series. I watched the entire franchise recently and would very much enjoy spilling some of my thoughts on those films.

I think the one project that promises quite a bit will be a 2 blogger Star Wars marathon. Yes, a 2 blogger marathon. Every now and then I'll post a link to reviews writte by other bloggers I know at the end of my reviews. I'm sure you've noticed that I've posted a few links to Bill's Movie Emporium. Bill is a massive Star Wars fan. I myself used to be a good fan, but over the years my interest has waned somewhat. I haven't watched any of the Star Wars films in at least 5 years, some for an even longer time. What would I think about them now, several years onwards and with considerably different film tastes from 4-5 years ago? We'll find out in the coming weeks. The finite details of how Bill and I will work the marathon out shall be revealed soon, but we do truly want to make it a team effort, with similar formats on our blogs, to the point where it will seem that we practically watched the films in the same room and spoke about them together (impossible, as we don't even live in the same countries).

Stay tuned. Oh, and sorry for being away for so long.

Edgar Chaput.

Review: Nine (2009)

Nine (2009, Rob Marshall)
B


I rarely watch musicals. It isn’t a genre of filmmaking that gets me excited or has ever struck my curiosity in any particular fashion. This made my reaction to the trailer to Rob Marshall’s latest grandiose and lavish production, Nine, all the more surprising, even to myself. From the moment the trailer ended with that powerful lines of ‘Be Italian’, I knew that I’d be in line for the film on opening weekend. I believe it was the audacity of the trailer which aroused my interest. It didn’t explain anything about the story, although anyone familiar with Federico’s Fellini’s 8 ½ or the Tony award winning show upon which Nine is based arguably had a relatively clear idea. In those two and a half minutes, I was transported to a world in which the arts of song, dance and filmmaking are married together to concoct tantalizing escapism. Would the actual film deliver on such a promise however?

Guido (Daniel Day-Lewis), or ‘Maestro’ as he is lovingly referred by colleagues and fans alike, is an Italian film director whose early works captured the imaginations and hearts of movie goers worldwide. Through a light and comical press conference scene, the story quickly establishes that the director’s last few efforts were not up to par, but the producers claim next outing promises to be something for the ages, something that will exemplify the very best of, what else, Italia. In fact, that is the very title of this next venture, Italia. The producer is ready, the set design crew is ready, and so is his faithful and witty costume designer, played by dame Judi Dench. The great starlet of the hour, Claudia Jenssen (Nicole Kidman) has even been attached to the project in the lead role. There is but one slight hurdle to overcome before filming can commence: a script needs to be written. Guido hasn’t the faintest idea what his story is about, and the stress begins to mount on his shoulders as the production team grow increasingly impatient. All the while, Guido takes refuge (and possibly searches for inspiration) in the many love lives he juggles, most notably with his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard) and Carla (Penelope Cruz). Before we know it, an American magazine journalist (Kate Hudson) is also trying to seduce him. Let us not forget of course that the Maestro also has imaginary discussions with his late mother, who takes the form here of Sophie Lauren.




With a decidedly stunning cast, a director with previous experience in the genre of film musicals (he brought the 2002 Academy award winning Chicago to life) and, lest we forget, a kick ass trailer, how does Nine play out after all? To put it bluntly, the film delivers both the best and worst of musicals, or at least what fall into my definitions of best and worst qualities musicals can espouse. On a positive note, the cast is, almost without exception, irresistible. Of course, if you don’t enjoy seeing Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench and Nicole Kidman on the screen at the same time…then I suppose you might be in trouble if you choose to see the film obviously, but I highly suspect that such a category envelopes a clear minority of movie goers. Lewis’ Italian accent took a few lines to grow accustomed to since I often find adopting Italian accents can more often produce less convincing results than adopting an American accent (naturally, I am comparing the accents the English actor adopted for his Nine and is previous work, There Will Be Blood), but all the necessary eccentricities and the ‘devil may care’ attitude of a man in Guido’s position are present. The Maestro is a man as adept, if not more so, at writing love stories for his own life than writing one for is next project. His wife Louisa used to be a fine actress and in fact saw her career be born on the set of one of Guido’s previous movies. While their love may have been the stuff of fairytales, the director’s devotion is now split between his wife and the stunning, playful and rather needy Caro. Their escapades are quite light hearted and embedded with a sexual intensity too irresistible for anybody. His life distracts him from work on this bold but empty movie project just as his work on this bold but empty movie project distracts him from life. Daniel Day Lewis brings an undeniable charm and energy to the character of Guido, which is pretty to be expected from an actor of his calibre and history of truly getting into the roles he is hired to interpret. I don’t if what Lewis practices is what film buffs and scholars describe as ‘method acting,’ but however you want to name his style, it works bloody well. While Lewis may not be as big here as he was in There Will Be Blood, there is an eccentricity to the performance reminiscent of what many of us attribute to those who are members of the artist community. Some flare, some tempers, volatile emotions and such. With a supporting cast as vast and glamorous as the one found in Nine, the film should be forgiven if not everyone feels equally important to the story and character interactions. Honestly, how does one juggle with supporting actors the likes of Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson, Marion Cotillard and Judi Dench? Something has to give sooner or later. Of that bunch, I’d wager that the ‘loser’ is Nicole Kidman, who only appears reasonably late in the film and, even then, for not very long. Her character, it is hinted, also had a romantic involvement of sorts with Guido, although this is never fully developed and Kidman essentially leaves as quickly as she arrived. Cruz is allotted more screen time, which is fine by me given how I’ve often thought she was a better actress, but her character is sadly a little bit typical. She is the needy, sexy little sideline thing whose emotional grip on her own husband is fast slipping and wishes to be alone with Guido, despite the fact that the latter is married. It’s a fine performance, I thought Cruz was having some good fun with the role, which works quite well otherwise the character would have felt rather bland. Cotillard is given some real emotional weight in the film however, and her performance only improves as the story moves along. Honestly, the latter part of the film does showcase some very solid moments from the French actress. Dame Judi Dench is the sassy costume designer, and in my mind Dench can practically do no wrong, so no complaints from me on that point. Hudson doesn’t appear too much, but she is alright as well. Nothing spectacular, but as the American fashion/pop culture journalist taken aback by Guido’s…sexiness? popularity? eccentricity? she is adequate. Truth be told, the more I think of it, the more her character comes off as a mediocre ploy to further test Guido’s faithfulness towards his lovely wife.



I’ve done a fair amount of chit-chatting thus far about the story and acting, but this is a musical after all, so is the music any good? Well, the reason why I saved this section of the review for later is because I am as musically inept as a 5 year old. I have little to no knowledge of what constitutes a good song, and my familiarity with the musical genre within the art of film is minimal at best. Alright then, let’s get this monster out of the way finally: the music is mostly good. There are a handful of very catchy tunes that my mind retained as I walked out of the theatre. Dench’s ‘Folies Bergères’ (for which she sings a bit in French. From the perspective of a movie goer who speaks that tongue, she has a pretty darn good accent!), Hudson’s ‘Cinema Italiano’, Cotillard’s ‘My Husband Makes Movies’ and Fergie’s (!) ‘Be Italian’ were all superb. Cruz’s ‘A Call From the Vatican’ and Sophie Lauren’s ‘Guarda la Luna’ were fine. The rest were more of a mixed bag. At times, particularly as during the songs performed by Daniel Day-Lewis and Nicole Kidman, that I felt the songwriters were trying to put too much story and explanations of emotions into the lyrics. Some verses sounded awkward in that the performers were trying to shove too many words into lines. As I wrote already, my musical competency is quite limited, so I may not be the best person to articulate these issues, but suffice to say that for the most part the songs were catchy, touching and amusing, with the few disappointing exceptions I mentioned.

The one thing that always troubles me about musicals is how the worst ones always require the movie to stop for the actors to break out into song. For a few minutes the story simply does not move forward. Nine…kind of, sort of tries to work around this but I don’t think it succeeds entirely. The musical numbers are often the emotions of what the characters are feeling at the time and provide some backstory to plotlines (as in Cotillard’s ‘My Husband Makes Movies’) while other times the songs are nicely integrated (somewhat) into the plot directly, as in Cruz’s ‘A Call From the Vatican’. Some are served through flashbacks (‘Be Italian’) or have a decidedly existential feel to them (‘Folies Bergères). Other times the movie really does stop for no reason (‘Cinema Italiano’, despite how catchy the song actually is). I guess it is a mixed bag overall.



Nine is a flashy film, filled with memorable set and costume design, handsome cinematography but sometimes mediocre editing. It features a story that rests on the shoulders of the actors and songs due to a certain lack of originality, but thankfully those two elements, acting and song, are both rather swell for the most part. I think what I felt most of all as I left the theatre was how, even though the film is imperfect, it was worth the 12 dollars. It’s pretty to look at and sounds great, kind of like real musicals performed on stage, only this time you don’t have to pay as much.