Gorris' THE LUZHIN DEFENSE: Measured Sadness

The Luzhin Defense, based on a Russian novel by Vladimir Nobokov, recounts a very sad, SAD story. A painfully sad story. However – TLD as a film - directed by Marleen Gorris & adapted by Peter Berry - is not a crushingly emotional, sentimentalized film. It is poignant. It is compassionate towards its subject - a troubled genius - without sapping his dignity in the process of the telling of his story.

Briefly, set in pre-WWII Italy, TLD is about a man (portrayed by John Turturro) who is a chess master. Once a child prodigy on the chess playing scene, he is now a man playing for the title of world champion. He is a troubled man, an introvert, a socially inept & clueless individual wrapped up in his own brilliantly theoretical mind. He is a kind soul. Alone in a world that he does not understand. All he has ever understood is chess. Raised as a child in a dysfunctional family – chess was – and continues to be – his escape from reality.

Then – at the world championship – he meets a woman (portrayed by Emily Watson) & falls in love. An emotional vacuum – he is drawn to this woman who is equally drawn to the mystery of him – who accepts his idiosyncracies with grace & love.

She is a remarkable female character. Badgered in the film by her conservative mother to pursue & marry a rich man, she obstinately follows her own path. Her love for the chess player is genuine. She is drawn to his mind. Though he is child-like & awkward toward women – she does not become his surrogate mother. She becomes his lover. They become equals. Both social misfits in their own way. He because he is so totally socially inept, she because she refuses to follow societal expectations for women. In the end – which I won’t give away - she becomes the woman NOT BEHIND the man, but the woman WITH the man – though he be absent. TLD mercifully avoids inscribing this female character with tired old gendered coding.

When all is said & done in this film - all ends badly. Sadly. Poignantly.

Turturro & Watson are simply marvelous as this man & woman. The depth of characterization that they bring to their performances is truly stunning. Gorris’ direction is spot-on. There is no extra shot in this film. Every shot – even scene transition shots – draws the story along. The pacing of the film resists building to falsely sentimentalized crescendos. Even when all spirals out of control – this film maintains a measured level of objectivity. Not a cool objectivity but a respectful objectivity to the incredibly personal sadness of the characters. This story could so easily have disintegrated into an overly sensationalized, maudlin mess. Gorris resists this without diminishing the impact of the story’s conclusion.

Needless to say – I was very touched by this film.

A Sexy, Sexless Film: PRICELESS

A couple of weeks ago I went to see PRICELESS (2006), a light-hearted, fluffy French comedy directed by Pierre Salvadori.

Fluffy? Yes – fluffy. This film actually goes out of its way NOT to have a strong thematic point of view which, in a sense, IS it's point of view.

But – I am getting ahead of myself. There are 2 main characters in this film. A young woman (Audrey Tautou) & a young man (Gad Elmaleh). The young woman is a professional “mistress” to aging, wealthy men. The young man is newly unemployed. The young woman takes him under her wing & teaches him how to be a professional mistress – or the male equivalent – a gigolo.

Both of these characters – who shamelessly use the rich older men & woman they encounter – are incredibly likable people. They really are. Downright charming in a golly gee whiz kinda way. So much so that one finds oneself, while watching this film, almost accepting their way of life as perfectly reasonable & above board. They are just so NICE. (of course the fact that they are slowly & ever so romantically falling in love with each other heightens the sappy, sentimentalized content of the whole thing!)

And their “victims”? Well – not really victims. They are adults who know the score. Buying companionship & sex is a practice prone to pitfalls as they are perfectly well aware. The film goes out of its way NOT to paint them as victims. They are willing partners in the game of sex as well.

As I said – this is a film that ducks being critical of anything or anybody. Fluffy fun.

In order to heighten this sense of selling sex/favors oh so sweetly & unoffensively – this film deliberately keeps actual sex – even nudity – entirely out of the picture – literally. Considering its subject matter one might think there’d be a sex scene with every new plot twist BUT – no. Not a one. Nudity? None of it. A “squeaky clean” film about selling sex!

OK – so for the feminist perspective – I think this film thinks it’s more “enlightened” than it actually is. Yes – BOTH a man & a woman sell themselves for a living to BOTH willing men & willing women. So far so equal, right? Yeah – well – not quite. The woman’s selling of herself is presented as perfectly normal whereas the man’s selling of himself is presented as comically somewhat of a curiosity.

And then there is the INSISTENT male gaze of the camera. My goodness! Despite the fact that the young woman’s body is never on naked display – the lusting eye of the camera leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination – long lingering camera shots up & down the length of her body – a body decked out in one clingy, revealing outfit after another (every new rich man buys her a whole new wardrobe). There are NO such shots of the young man. NONE! So much for equality of sexual objectification.

Feminist sarcasm aside – this is an entertaining film. It really is. It’s not great – but then it does not presume to be. It's fun escapism. Even the oh my god in your face over & over again shots of the woman’s body somehow manage to not be offensive – just like everything else in the film! Oh the irony! After a while the lusting eye of the camera was so BLATANTLY sexist I didn’t care – it was so hopelessly, honestly sexist. No pretenses.

Honesty is always appreciated.

Twice In One Day

Tomorrow I am going on a road trip to a family gathering - me & SOOOO many other people - which has me thinking of other road trips I have known . . .

I have already told my story about getting stranded in the Utah desert. I'm not sure this story "tops" that one in terms of road-trip-from-hell stories - but here goes. . .

Many years ago - with the same car that stranded me a few years later in Utah - I was once again driving west to east across the US. I woke up early one morning in Nevada to discover that one of my tires was flat. I sighed. I grumbled. I changed my tire.

Having accomplished this I consulted the fates - could I make it to Colorado that night - now with a late start - without wasting time buying a new spare tire? Luckily - wisdom won out. I went in search of a new spare tire. The town was so small that I only had one option - the only service station in town. They didn't have much to choose from so I bought the cheapest they had (cursing the extra expense - I was low-budget-traveling) & then finally headed in the direction of Colorado.

At some point that day I decided that I was sick of route 70. So I decided I would take the back way, the scenic route from Salt Lake to Denver.

Well, yes. It was scenic.

HOWEVER - this road less traveled would eventually wind south through the Rockies. I forget the route number but it goes past Steam Boat Springs (ski resort) & then heads south past Winter Park (ski resort), eventually meeting up with RT 70 about a 1/2 hour from Denver. By the time I headed south towards Winter Park, it was quite dark. There was snow on the ground & it was cold - early March I believe. Now - this particular winding, mountain road is not known for street lights or guardrails. Oh no. Not at all.

So . . . I came around this bend & my headlights suddenly lit upon this rock in the middle of the road (only one lane each way). There was someone coming the other way - I had little chance of safely swerving to miss it - & I didn't. It blew out one of my tires.

Second flat tire in one day.

I pulled over to the side of the road - about 2 ft wide. It was pitch black. I had no flares - only my own headlights. My car was still mostly in the road. I knew I would have to change my tire - AGAIN!!! - very quickly if I had any hope of living to tell this story. Then - just as I was getting the jack out of my car, a pick-up truck - coming the other way - pulled over in front of my car with its headlights shining. A very nice man got out & offered to help. It never occurred to me to be worried about him being a safe bet - me being a woman alone in the wilderness dark with my car half in the road. I fully trusted him. Had no choice really. But he was very helpful. I said that if he wouldn't mind staying long enough to shine light on my tire I would quick get it changed. He asked if I knew how. I told him about Nevada. He shook his head in disbelief at my bad luck. He said well, I'll change this one for you. I oh so gladly stepped aside.

A short time later I was headed towards RT 70 & Denver.

And yes - before I left Denver for the east - I got another damn spare tire!

The Children of Stephen Frears' LIAM

Watching director Stephen Frears' film Liam (2000) & Lynne Ramsay's film Ratcatcher in the same week was an interesting experience, providing much food for thought about the resiliency of children. The children in both films find themselves living, growing, coping within extraordinarily harsh circumstances - circumstances which they are too immature intellectually & emotionally to process. Yet they do. All of this begging the question - at what cost? Are they really children or just pint-sized adults?

Frears' LIAM (written by Jimmy McGovern) is set during the 1930's in Liverpool, England - a period of great economic hardship. A period of time during which Liverpool - similarly to Berlin - found its moral/ethical center at risk. Local men are out of work. Suspicion mounts that outsiders - the Irish - are taking what few jobs there are. As economic despair increases so does anger at those who are perceived to control all of the money - the Jews. A local fascist group gains in membership. Jews become the target for the violent release of all of the tension born of such fears & suspicions. The innocent suffer. A child is maimed for life. Doing absolutely NOTHING to help the situation - almost to the point of willful blindness - is the Catholic Church. In many respects - Frears' film is as much a stunning condemnation of the Catholic Church (& its notion of how to properly educate children during the 1930's) as it is a condemnation of predatory fascism.

Echoes of pre-war Nazi Germany haunt this film. I confess this was all new to me - the thought that such a parallel could be drawn to a place such as a city in England. How naive of me. And how disturbing.

In the midst of this adult created & nurtured chaos, Liam (played by Anthony Borrows) & his older sister Teresa (played by Megan Burns) who is about 12 years old, go about the business of coping & surviving. Liam attends Catholic school while Teresa works as a maid for a Jewish family. Young Liam is traumatized daily by the sanctimonious cruelty of his Catholic school. Teresa's earnings help support the family while their father is out of work. Their parents love them. Care for them. As best they can. However, the reality is that their children are largely left to their own devices - having to draw upon youthful survival instincts they didn't know they had.

LIAM - a very well acted & directed film - is not an inspiring film - deliberately so, I think. Throughout the film, Frears deliberately steers clear of allowing certain moments to become overly sentimentalized. He never allows the film to become more about the emotions of the situation than the facts of the situation. He strikes an even balance between the two. By so doing he forces us - his audience - to take in the whole picture of the world of these children.

The ending of LIAM is extremely troubling. Almost heartbreaking. We are left to wonder what will become of these two children. Frears resists giving his film an emotionally or intellectually clear ending. The film does not neatly tie up lose plot ends within easily identifiable moral parameters. The last we see of the children in the film they are together. Alone. Being resilient not because they want to be necessarily but because they have to be. And what are we to make of that?

A Girl in Lynne Ramsay's RATCATCHER

Lynne Ramsay's Ratcatcher (1999) is a marvelous film. Set during the dustmen's strike in 1973 Glasgow, Scotland - this film tells the often touching & disturbing story of a young boy's dreams of a better home for his family - away from the rats & the lice from the garbage accumulating outside of his family's working class council flat dwelling. A much acclaimed film - deservedly so - RATCATCHER - for me - is also the story of a young girl that the young boy befriends.

She is a secondary character in the film but her story speaks volumes. When the boy (performed by William Eadie) & girl (performed by Leanne Mullen) first meet in the film it is by the side of a filthy canal that runs behind their homes. A gang of neighborhood boys are cruelly tormenting the girl. They have taken her glasses, refusing to give them back despite her pleas, finally pitching them into the canal. The young thugs stroll off. Unable to retrieve her glasses she sits by the boy's side by the banks of the canal. She is a gawky girl. Clearly a few years older than the boy. She quietly smiles a genuine smile. She seems - somehow - older then her girlish clothing. The boy looks at her bare knee. She tells him he can touch her knee if he'd like. He does. She touches his hand. It's a quiet moment. A rare moment of belonging for them both.

The boy comes from a stressful home - no money, irritating sisters, a stressed mother trying to make ends meet, a father who drinks & is surly when he does. All of his moments of positive human contact in this film will be with this girl who we learn, as the film progresses, also lives an unbelievably sad life.

She is the local "easy lay" for the young thugs of the neighborhood - including the thugs that threw her glasses in the canal. They periodically show up at her flat & then take turns fucking her while the others watch. She is compliant. She awkwardly teases the boys - as if she is trying to sound maturely "dirty" for their enjoyment. Her tone is forced at best. She is a young girl play-acting at being the local whore.

Why? How did she become the local fuck for the local lads? Why does she allow them to treat her this way? Does she REALLY have a choice? One girl against a horde of boys - all egging each other on. The film never tells us. The larger picture of her life is left a mystery.

The scenes involving her & the gang of boys are heartbreaking. Their total disregard for her is painful to hear, to watch. She is such a lost soul. Perhaps so lost that any form of human connection is better than none? Such a disturbing idea to consider.

BUT - she & the young boy become friends. Two young people, children looking for something positive, reinforcing in their lives. They find this in each other. They care for each other. One night he crawls into her bed & she holds him - like a loving sister. Another time - the young boy combs the lice out of hair. Just as his mother did for him. He mothers this poor girl. He gives her a bath & scrubs her lice-ridden head for her. She is naked - & un-selfconsciously so. No hint of sexuality in her nakedness. He climbs in the bath with her. They splash & play like children.

This scene stands in sharp, poignant contrast to the scene of the group fuck of this same poor girl.

There is much more to this film than the story of this girl & her sweet friendship with the boy whose story guides this film. She is - again - a secondary character. However - thematically - she is not. She represents yet another child - a girl - trying to find her way growing up in slum-like conditions. She represents yet another female taken for granted - the boy's mother is also taken for granted by his father.

Ramsay manages to draw extraordinary performances out of all of the young actors in RATCATCHER. Her handling of the scenes involving this poor, abused young girl is respectful as she simultaneously conveys the startling lack of respect for this girl by her world.

In a sense, the very secondary nature of the girl's role in this film's story is yet another layer to her secondary place in her world - living as a female outcast in a world that is guided by the desires of brutal boys who - horrifically - will be the next generation of husbands & fathers.

Frears' MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS

When I first saw the previews for this film a couple of years back, a voice inside my mind said - Anna, steer clear of this one - it will only make you mad.

I should have listened to the voice inside my head. For some reason - I got it into my head to watch it. I did. It made me mad.

Oh dear.

I am a great admirer of Judi Dench's & generally like director Stephen Frears' films. This is probably what drew me to this nonsensical, dangerous fluff - like a moth to their flame.

So - ok - in a nutshell - Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005) is the somewhat true story of a bored rich widow who bought a theatre, hired a manager, & introduced naked women to the British stage - bullying the Lord Chamberlain (Britain's theatrical censor dating back from Shakespeare's day) into allowing her to do so.

This film is extremely well acted & slickly directed. It's entertaining, keeps up a brisk pace, & is somewhat lavishly produced.

So - what is there to gripe about? No doubt this film - with Dench & Bob Hoskins leading the way - garnered no criticism for its blatantly (mindlessly?) sexist theme. I suspect most film reviewers (who are mostly men) thought it charming & that many women were similarly suckered.

Well - NOT ME!

When all is said & done this film dares to wrap the sexual objectification of British women on the British stage in the British flag. In the face of ardent patriotism - phooey on women.

Mrs. Henderson's argument is this - no brave young British soldier should die on the battle field bravely defending his country without having ever seen a naked woman. This service her theatrical musical reviews patriotically provided.

This of course begs the question - what about the British women who died in the Blitz without ever having seen the naked body of a man? Who is providing such a service for them?

Now - before anyone says to me - "BUT, this question, of course, would never have been asked in 1940's Britain. It would have been thought improper & absurd." My response is this. THIS FILM was made in the 21st century when such a question ought not to be so absurd. When plays or films or novels revisit the past it is in order to re-examine the past through the lense of the present. This is done all the time. This is how we learn about then & us now. There were a few moments in this film when I thought MAYBE now the film is going to cast a 21st century, discerning eye at this historical set of circumstances. Only one of these moments really worked BUT, sadly, was completely & utterly undercut by the "FLAG WAVING" monologue of Mrs. Henderson at the end of the film.

That one moment is this - it is the first rehearsal at which the young women finally have to fully disrobe. Male director & male stage hands watch. Eagerly. The women become uncomfortable. The men say - but you'll have to do it in front of hundreds (of men) eventually. Yeah, they respond, but we don't know them. The women were rightly taking the men to task for gawking at them. The women then insist that the men take their clothes off first so that all is fair. They do - including the director (Hoskins). This was a wonderful - albeit ultimately unsupported - moment of enlightened examination of this historical story.

In addition, there are other sentimentalized plot points by which the film tries to justify or excuse this whole issue. But playing for sentiment in this way only supports the already sentimental pull of patriotism & the flag. In other words - it's is just more sugar coating - though I do believe somewhat well intentioned.

In the end, in one of the final scenes of the film, Mrs. Henderson wraps the issue in the British Flag, daring the Lord Chamberlain to close down her theatre. He relents. OF COURSE. He got the message. Naked women are a matter of patriotism. Certainly he wouldn't want to seem unpatriotic.

I give up. This kinda stuff just simply makes me tired. Even beyond feminist issues - I am sick of things being wrapped in patriotic flags & sold to we the unquestioning masses. And woe be to she or he who dares to question anything wrapped in a flag.

I should have steered clear. Too bad - really. It's a very interesting story which could have been so much more complexly explored.

Greek Class On The Other Side Of The Door

The other day I received an alumni bulletin in the mail from the study abroad in Greece program I participated in while in college. In the bulletin there was this picture of two smiling students in their Greek apt making baklava. I don’t like baklava, actually – too sweet - & dislike cooking & baking even more, BUT somehow this picture got me to thinking which recalled to mind this VERY silly – if not downright absurd - story from my days of living in one of those student apts in Athens.

It was early afternoon. After lunch. We all ate in a communal dining room in one of the main buildings of the school on the street below. At the time the school was located up on one of the hills of Athens. Our apt was on the street above. Most of us were there, I guess, as usual after lunch, gathering books & whatever for our afternoon of classes. Six of us shared the apt. Before heading out to class I went to use the toilet. Now for a while the latch on the door had been sticking & hard to make work properly. None of us, of course, had thought to report this maintenance problem to the school.

You can probably guess where this story is headed. I got locked in. I could not get the latch to open. Various apt mates on the other side couldn’t get the latch to give either. It was locked/stuck & determined to stay that way. One of my apt mates said she would go down to the office to get help. I asked her to quick stop by my Ancient Greek class & tell my Prof that I wasn’t able to come to class. There were only 4 of us in the class so being absent was a bit conspicuous, to say the least. I remember thinking to myself – he’s NOT going to believe this. He’s going to think I’m making it up.

So – there I was – stuck in the bathroom. Not much to do. Laughing at me, one of my other friends passed me a deck of cards under the door. Sitting on the floor I began to calmly play solitaire. Happy as a clam. (I actually love playing solitaire. It’s addictive for me. Once I start playing it may be weeks until I kick the habit.)

My apt mate returned from the street below with the news that she had informed the office of the situation & that help was on the way. She said she had also told my Prof. I asked what his response was. She said – a bit dubious. My classmates had guffawed. I sighed & shrugged. Not much I could do about it at the moment.

So – I continued to play solitaire & then – what do I hear – but the sound of my Prof’s voice! I couldn’t believe it. AND! The voices of my classmates! He arrived on the other side of the bathroom door & inquired after me. I said hello & see I really am stuck. He said – well, I didn’t want you to miss class so we’ll just hold class right here. He wasn’t kidding. He had my apt mates bring chairs & he & my classmates sat on the other side of the door & held class. Herodotus’ Histories is what we were translating. (I have an undergraduate degree in ancient Greek to go with my “ever so lucrative” theatre degrees?!!) They started translating Herodotus while – unbeknownst to them – I was oh so quietly playing solitaire – my apt mates didn’t rat me out on this – bless them! Occasionally my Prof would ask – Anna, do you have any questions on that last part? Is the Greek clear? The usage of the word such & so in that sentence? To which I would “attentively” respond – nope, no questions. I understood that part. Thanks.

As if this wasn’t ABSURD enough – a locksmith then arrived. Did this deter my Prof from his mission of holding class that day with ALL of his students? NO! While the locksmith started banging away with his tools my classmates just started translating a bit louder. My Prof every so often asking, Anna can you hear us OK? I think at one point they had to move their chairs so the locksmith could work – you’d think this would have been a hint! But no – my Prof was determined. I can only imagine what the locksmith must have thought about this little excessively academic scenario . . .

Eventually class time would come to an end just as the locksmith managed to release me from the bathroom (with the deck of cards carefully hidden lest my Prof see them as he left the apt).

Later on some of my classmates told me that they felt really sorry for me when our Prof announced that they were going to hike up the hill & take class to me since I couldn’t come down to class. They were certain I was making it up & was about to get caught.

BUT! – oh no – it was true – oh so very true.

Too, too silly.

Ramsay's MORVERN CALLAR

Lynne Ramsay’s Morvern Callar (2002) is an intriguing film – mostly. When the film began I found myself immediately drawn into its story & images; however, by about half way through the film I found myself starting to drift, the intensity of my engagement as an audience member lessening. Ideas presented & initially explored in a provocative fashion seemed not to be building in any direction towards anything in particular. Which I found disappointing in light of its somewhat shocking, fascinatingly disturbing beginning.

So its beginning – Xmas time somewhere in Scotland – a young woman is lying next to her boyfriend, cuddled up next to him, caressing his hand, his wrist, his arm. Xmas lights flicker across the room of the flat. The look on the young woman’s face is blankly thoughtful (if that makes sense). All is quiet & still except for caressing fingers. Now here’s the shocking part – her boyfriend is dead, by suicide, his wrists slit & he is lying face down in a doorway of the flat.

OK – wow!

So right off the mark this film begins to thematically, visually explore the often murky intersections between grief, love, passion & violence.

The dead boyfriend has left his girlfriend, Morvern, some money & a book manuscript. He has also left her with the names of publishers to submit it to. Morvern doesn’t have much money herself. She uses his money to take herself & her friend “on holiday” to Spain - a trip that goes awry. She also submits the manuscript – in HER name. It gets accepted by a publisher.

Other compelling moments in the film involve the body. She never calls the police. For days she simply steps over the body – almost as if it wasn’t there. AND – eventually – she chops up the body & disposes of it herself. In this scene Ramsay is great once again as she visually represents her intertwined thematic ideas about passion/love & violence. Stripped down to panties (knickers?) only - a semi-nude shot - Morvern takes a knife & starts to carve him up – her boyfriend’s blood splashes on her naked body.

Now – because of these incredibly complex scenes – & all of the emotionally fraught issues introduced of suicide & grief & love – the young woman – Morvern – is a sympathetic character. And she continues as such for the first half or so of the film. Even her body-carving is sympathetic as it begs the question of just how traumatized she truly must be - and no doubt now more so due to her actions. However – at least to me – her sympathy factor begins to wane about mid-way – causing some of her ethically questionable choices to begin to seem a bit selfish & self-serving.

Why? I’m not really sure. I’ve thought a lot about this film & my reaction to it. The film is full of rich visual ideas, complex thematic ideas – yes – but they just don’t seem to be headed any where. And – I confess – I did not particularly care for Samantha Morton's performance as Morvern. I often did not sense any inner tension or turmoil from her. In the beginning this was ok – makes sense that she’s a bit drained & wrung out. But – her continual, blankly staring demeanor just did not drive this film. As a result, the pacing of the film began to drag. Her performance just didn’t tap into Ramsay’s visually haunting imagery – such as the numerous shots of Morvern staring at her hands – haunted by the memory of what they did? And continuous shots of bugs – which initially in the film seemed to represent the fact that the corpse was rotting.

Ramsay throws a lot of powerful stuff into this film. But for me - the stuff doesn't ultimately gel into anything. I was really at a loss at the end of the film with its all too quick conclusion. I just didn't know what I was intended to make of it all. And - I no longer really felt any sympathy for Morvern. I'm not at all sure this was intended.

Almodovar's WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS?

Pedro Almodovar’s What Have I Done To Deserve This? (1984) is one of the earliest films of his that I’ve yet to see. I enjoyed watching this film though it did make me feel more uncomfortable than any of his other films to date. Usually I relish his daring disregard for moralistic boundaries sanctified by patriarchal/Judeo-Christian notions of propriety. However – this film made me squirm a bit. Why?

The presence of children.

What Have I Done To Deserve This? defies easy plot summary (typical of PA’s earlier films). It contains a cast of loopy, comical characters who all consider themselves & each other to be perfectly normal. Again – the classic “fringe dwellers” of PA’s film world. Oh so briefly - & just hitting the “high points” – this film tells the story of a woman (yes another woman-centered PA film) who works as a charwoman & is married to a taxi-driver who is also an occasional forger who once forged some letters by Hitler for a French woman he was having an affair with. ??!! I’m not making any of this up. AND – they have two sons – one who seems to be gay & both of whom are drug dealers. These boys are about 14 years old. The husband’s mother lives with them – a tight-fisted woman who befriends a lizard & names him “Money.” Their neighbors include a hooker & an abusive mother of a young girl. Times are tough for the family – they are broke. Husband & wife do not get on too well. The mother decides to give her young gay son to a predatory Dentist to raise in order to save the family money. The French Hitler-letter woman suddenly contacts the husband again - the wife gets angry – the husband gets mad – hits wife – wife defends herself with a ham bone & accidentally kills the husband. Meanwhile the French woman commits suicide. Again – I am NOT making any of this up. Then there is the impotent police officer who is investigating the murder of the husband who seeks "help" from the prostitute . . . .

You get the idea. (AND – believe it or not – there are more characters & plots!)

Now – if you’ve never seen a film by PA this probably sounds absolutely ridiculous (it is) & you probably think that this couldn’t possibly work well as a scenario for a film (it does – welcome to the genius that is PA).

As I said above, I generally love this typical PA looniness which always seems oddly normal. HOWEVER – did you notice in my plot summary the mention of children? I found it very hard to have a sense of humor about the abusive mother neighbor. And – as for the lead mother’s adopting out of her gay son to an obviously predatory dentist – yikes! AND! – very disturbingly – earlier in the film when this same young son comes home late the mother angrily asks him whether he had just come from the bed of his friend’s father!!!!! Yes – she is angry – but that’s it. She does nothing to protect her child or to counsel him. He is a young teenager – this is disturbing. And then to give him to the dentist . . . wow.

In fairness to PA – lest I make him appear totally callous about "pedophilia" – he addresses this issue much more sensitively & seriously in his recent film Bad Education (2004). However, in Deserve This this issue is still disturbingly handled.

So – I guess my appreciation of this early film is the extent to which it is a forerunner to the style that PA will develop throughout his career. Edgy, often women-centered, eccentric as all hell & hopelessly optimistic. Yes, optimistic. Even in this film. In the final moment of Deserve This the young gay son returns home to be with his mother. A happy ending.

A final note about the characters of the wife & prostitute - these women are strongly developed characters. They are presented as much more together than any of the men with whom they must cope in their daily lives. The prostitute (portrayed by Veronica Forque) is savvy & kind & entirely unapologetic about what she does for a living. Her best friend, the wife, never criticizes her for her profession. She simply accepts it. As for the wife – she is a woman who is up against it in every respect. A woman trying not to lose her sanity while she tries to stay afloat in a sea of domestic chaos. And her husband - he is a classic stereotype of a sexist pig - PA shows him NO mercy, grants him NO sympathy in his film. Interestingly, Carmen Maura – the actress who portrays the wife – will later star in PA’s Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown (1988). Many similarities between the two characters she portrays.

Finally - My favorite moment in the film – the mother & one of her sons are standing at the door to their apartment. The prostitute knocks & walks in wearing a skimpy black leather outfit & casually & un-self-consciously asks – “Have you got a whip I could borrow?” Mother & son don’t even blink.

From Greece To Scotland

ANOTHER EPISODE IN MY LIFE PAST

Awhile back – 15 years I think – I was backpacking around Greece with a friend – a cousin to be exact. We spent a good bit of time on Crete – much of it staying at a youth hostel in Rethymnon. Youth – yeah! – I was about 30 at the time. Believe it or not I was NOT the oldest resident.

Anyway – at one point while we were there we met a guy from Scotland – Edinburgh to be precise. I remember him as a funny, smiling, grinning man with a very carefree approach to the world around him. Cute too. Don’t remember his name.

As I’ve mentioned before – I’m shy. Yes, well, my cousin is not. She’s a lot chattier than I am. AND – her chattiness got us an invitation to Edinburgh. I guess. Well – sort of. Anyway - at one point I remember her informing me that this guy had invited us to Edinburgh – the only thing was – he wasn’t going to be there. (Huh?)

I should take a moment here to explain our somewhat off-kilter itinerary for the summer. We were going to spend 2 months in Greece – why? Because it’s my favorite place on the planet & I wanted to go back (she was tagging along on my trip). THEN – we were going to go to England for 2 weeks to visit a friend of hers. We were “training it” across Europe from point A to point B – a plan made incredibly difficult by the Balkan war (another story for another day). When you are “young” & foolish – such an itinerary makes perfect sense (?!).

SOooooo – my cousin figured – since we were going to be in England anyway – why not just hop on up to Edinburgh? Now – as I said – this guy we met on Crete wasn’t going to be home from his travels yet. He had given my cousin the phone number of his flat-mates. No – he didn’t call ahead of time to tell them about us. He just told us that he was sure they would be happy to put us up – just call them when you get there. No problem. (This was all before international mobile phoning) My cousin was bound & determined to take us to Edinburgh.

Weeks later – we finally made it to England. She was still gung ho for Edinburgh. I had nothing against the idea – really (I had been raised on a heaping helping of Scottish culture courtesy of my Scotland-born maternal grandparents) it was just that I was a wee bit skeptical that these 2 guys were going to put us up based on our claiming to have met their flat-mate on Crete. My ever-optimistic cousin gave them a call. The guy she spoke to said “sure – no problem” – or whatever the Scottish version of that might be.

We were off to Edinburgh. We arrived &, with map in hand, found our way to the Crete-traveling Scotsman’s flat. And – yes – his flat-mates were more than willing to take in a couple of American women that they had never met before. Really nice guys – as it turned out.

The tale of the 3 days my cousin & I spent in Edinburgh is perhaps a post for another day.

What still amazes me about this story – after all these years – is the incredible openness & trusting-ness of all concerned. We - 2 women - stayed in a flat with 2 men we had never met. Reckless? Naïve on our part? Perhaps. But they cheerfully took us in – never having met us & having no way to confirm our story about having met their flat-mate in another part of the world. The guy traveling on Crete completely trusted his mates wouldn’t mind his sending 2 strange American women their way. AND! It all worked out! My cousin & I got to go to wonderful Edinburgh on the cheap because of the genuine kindness & hospitality of 3 Scotsmen we stumbled upon – incidentally - accidentally. If only human interaction could always be so open & generous.

UNDER THE MOONLIGHT with compassion

Under The Moonlight (2001), written & directed by Reza Mir-Karimi, is a quiet, thoughtful, compassionate film about a young Iranian man (portrayed by Hossein Parastar) who, in deference to his father's wishes, is studying to become an Islamic cleric. Throughout the film he struggles with serious doubts NOT about his faith BUT about his ability to serve his people properly as his grandfather did before him. He is a quiet, thoughtful, searching soul - wanting to, trying to, do the right thing for the people of his world. The primary question of the film is - will he ultimately decide to become "turbaned" in a special ceremony by which he will become a vested (official) Islamic cleric.

Fascinatingly, his official world - the Islamic school for clerics - is depicted as less than perfect - and - somewhat daringly - not at all idealized. The head cleric is portrayed as a stickler for rules & paperwork who is perhaps a bit too enamored of his new mobile phone. And - some of the students are shown to be less than strict in their observance of prayer & proper food according to the Islamic calendar. I can't help but wonder what Iranian officialdom thought of all of this.

Somewhat prophetically? - the soul searching journey of this young man brings him into direct contact with the completely "un-vested," the totally disenfranchised, of his world - the homeless. The central core of the film takes place under a bridge - an open-air commune of homeless men. These men - though portrayed as somewhat eccentric - are caring & supportive of each other. They demonstrate a genuine sense of community - in stark contrast to the not-so-cohesive or supportive environment of the Islamic seminary. Consequently, the young student is drawn to these men with a sense of compassion & wonder. He tries to "minister" to them - in his own quiet way - by bringing them food. He does not preach at them. They, in turn, take him in & accept him - without ever knowing his story.

As events unfold, the young student searches his soul for the path that he should follow - all the while trusting in signs that he believes he receives from God. Ultimately - he decides to become a vested Islamic cleric.

Under The Moonlight is a curious film. On the one hand somewhat critical of Islamic clerics yet on the other hand validating of the existence of God. This film dares to humanize the very personal path towards service to God. It also dares to humanize those most forgotten by their Islamic world - the homeless. Though the film strives to be subtle, I think, with its comparisons of clerics to the homeless & a clerical community to a homeless community - in the end - it's comparisons are not subtle at all - & are quite telling.

The only weakness to this otherwise well done, daring, compassionate film is its ending - a bit too quick, neat & tidy. In light of all of the richness of ideas explored throughout the film, I think a more fully embraced conclusion was deserved.

Arnold's Very Gutsy RED ROAD

I've been watching a number of films lately directed by women. It occurs to me that I have never done a proper post on one the BEST films I have seen in the past few years which - as coincidence would have it - was directed by a woman. Andrea Arnold's RED ROAD (2006).

The fact that I have never done a full post on this film doesn't mean that I don't have anything to say about it. NO! In fact - quite the opposite. I almost have so much to say about it that if I were to try to write about all of my thoughts on this film I would end up writing the blogosphere's longest film post.

BECAUSE - Arnold's RED ROAD is a mind boggling, brain numbing, provocative, gutsy-as-all-hell, feminist thriller.

Yes - feminist. I think.

And this is the tricky part with this film. I have been grappling with this question for months - whether or not this film is a feminist nightmare to be avoided or whether it is in fact a film that feminists can embrace as empowering. Or, is it somewhere in the middle?

Very briefly - set against the backdrop of the run-down housing (flat) development know as Red Road in Glasgow, Scotland - this film tells the story of a woman (portrayed by Kate Dickie) torn apart by grief for a child & husband. A grief that will drive her to do what many would consider to be unthinkable & unethical. Her grief is so intense, her heart such an emotional vacuum that she is desperate to feel - anything - be it rage or sexual passion. In an explicit sex scene that makes David Mackenzie's infamous custard scene in Young Adam (another Scottish film) look downright tame, this woman's emotional emptiness & grief collide in shocking fashion - raising all sorts of moral, ethical questions that problematize this woman as a sympathetic protagonist. She is a victim. She become a victimizer. Maybe. Sort of?

This is a film fraught with palpable moral ambiguity - a gritty, intense, aggressive film that presents no easy answers to many troublesome questions raised. Written & directed by Andrea Arnold, RED ROAD is an intelligently crafted & conceived film - a film with which I am still struggling to come to terms.