Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Pain and Glory (2019) in Movies
Feb 3, 2020
Well acted by Banderas and Cruz
One of the reasons that I go on the trek this time every year to catch all the Oscar nominees in the all of the "Major" categories is that it forces me to catch films and have movie going experiences that I most likely would have elected to skip. This is especially true with Foreign Language films, like Spanish Director Pedro Almodovar's semi-biographical musing, PAIN AND GLORY.
Antonio Banderas, rightfully, has earned his (surpisingly) first Oscar Nomination for portraying a somewhat fictionalized version of the Spanish auteur - a once prolific film Director at the tail end of his career coming to terms with who he is, the physical pain he is currently feeling as his body ages and the reverent feelings and fond memories he has for his mother.
It is a strong, subtle and nuanced performance by Banderas - one that is in stark contrast to the bravura and panache that he has shown previously in such films as ZORRO, ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO and as the voice of Puss 'N Boots in the SHREK films. Banderas' acting his been getting better with age and while I do not think he'll win the Oscar, I do think that this is not going to be the only Oscar nomination he will receive in his lifetime.
I was happy to see Banderas work in his native Spanish language - the same goes for Penelope Cruz who plays Banderas' character mother in flashbacks. I recently saw Cruz working in Spanish in 2018's EVERYBODY KNOWS and was just as transfixed by her performance in this film - worthy of a nomination. She is very good in English Language films, but she elevates to a different level when she works in Spanish. I would have loved to see a whole film about her character - and not just get a few scenes in flashback form.
Watching these 2 performances was well worth the time of watching this film, and that is good for I did not connect with the themes, struggles and plot set forth by Almodovar.
PAIN AND GLORY is Almodovar's semi-biographical meditation on life - and as such is a little to "navel gazing" for my tastes. When I watch these types of films either I get sucked into the narrative and characters (like I did with Alfonso Cuaron's ROMA last year) or...I do not.
And...unfortunately for PAIN AND GLORY...I did not. It is a good picture with 2 really good performances but one I was kept at a distance from and one that I never really connected with.
Come for the meditation, stay for the performances. And...PLEASE...if you watch this, DO NOT watch the dubbed version. Listen to the performances of Banderas and Cruz in their native Spanish and read the subtitles.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Antonio Banderas, rightfully, has earned his (surpisingly) first Oscar Nomination for portraying a somewhat fictionalized version of the Spanish auteur - a once prolific film Director at the tail end of his career coming to terms with who he is, the physical pain he is currently feeling as his body ages and the reverent feelings and fond memories he has for his mother.
It is a strong, subtle and nuanced performance by Banderas - one that is in stark contrast to the bravura and panache that he has shown previously in such films as ZORRO, ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO and as the voice of Puss 'N Boots in the SHREK films. Banderas' acting his been getting better with age and while I do not think he'll win the Oscar, I do think that this is not going to be the only Oscar nomination he will receive in his lifetime.
I was happy to see Banderas work in his native Spanish language - the same goes for Penelope Cruz who plays Banderas' character mother in flashbacks. I recently saw Cruz working in Spanish in 2018's EVERYBODY KNOWS and was just as transfixed by her performance in this film - worthy of a nomination. She is very good in English Language films, but she elevates to a different level when she works in Spanish. I would have loved to see a whole film about her character - and not just get a few scenes in flashback form.
Watching these 2 performances was well worth the time of watching this film, and that is good for I did not connect with the themes, struggles and plot set forth by Almodovar.
PAIN AND GLORY is Almodovar's semi-biographical meditation on life - and as such is a little to "navel gazing" for my tastes. When I watch these types of films either I get sucked into the narrative and characters (like I did with Alfonso Cuaron's ROMA last year) or...I do not.
And...unfortunately for PAIN AND GLORY...I did not. It is a good picture with 2 really good performances but one I was kept at a distance from and one that I never really connected with.
Come for the meditation, stay for the performances. And...PLEASE...if you watch this, DO NOT watch the dubbed version. Listen to the performances of Banderas and Cruz in their native Spanish and read the subtitles.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Prey (2022) in Movies
Aug 12, 2022
Less Is More - And It Works!
In 1987, at the height of the ‘80’s action movie craze with the likes of Stallone, Van Damme, Segal, Norris and Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger came out with what on the surface looked like a throw away macho, sci-fi action flick, PREDATOR. What it turned out to be was one of the all-time classic action films.
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated The Oxford Murders (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
From the first couple of scenes you’d half expect to see Inspector Morse and Lewis step out from behind one of the great pillars that surround Oxford University – sadly that is not going to be the case here. The story itself could have been taken right out of an Agatha Christie novel but the subsequent plot gets mixed up like the mathematical equation it is trying to lay out.
John Hurt plays Arthur Seldom a university professor whose life revolves around mathematical equations and whether or not we can prove truth and probability. Martin (Elijah Wood) is a graduate over from America looking at using Seldom to help him with his thesis.
The pair get mixed up in an altogether different set of circumstances when they must work together to solve a series of murders based around mathematical symbols. The Oxford Murders falls some way short of delivering on any tension or drama, which is a real shame. The script is over complicated and there is no real time to develop the characters before we are thrown head first into the first murder.
All in all it seemed rushed together. More strangely was the choice of director; Spanish born Álex de la Iglesia who also wrote the screenplay. A background largely based around foreign film I find it odd that he should have any idea about the true reflections of historic Oxford. Maybe that is where amongst other things The Oxford Murders falls down. In the hands of a more traditional English director we may have had a better outcome.
John Hurt plays Arthur Seldom a university professor whose life revolves around mathematical equations and whether or not we can prove truth and probability. Martin (Elijah Wood) is a graduate over from America looking at using Seldom to help him with his thesis.
The pair get mixed up in an altogether different set of circumstances when they must work together to solve a series of murders based around mathematical symbols. The Oxford Murders falls some way short of delivering on any tension or drama, which is a real shame. The script is over complicated and there is no real time to develop the characters before we are thrown head first into the first murder.
All in all it seemed rushed together. More strangely was the choice of director; Spanish born Álex de la Iglesia who also wrote the screenplay. A background largely based around foreign film I find it odd that he should have any idea about the true reflections of historic Oxford. Maybe that is where amongst other things The Oxford Murders falls down. In the hands of a more traditional English director we may have had a better outcome.
JA
Juliet: A Life in Memories
Book
Juliet Peck, who died at the age of 45, was a courageous foreign news reporter. She was fearless,...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
The Marinated Meeple (1848 KP) created a post in Oscars Discussion
Jan 29, 2020
100 Shakespeare Films
Book
From Oscar-winning British classics to Hollywood musicals and Westerns, from Soviet epics to...
The De Havilland DH.60 Moth
Book
In this book Stuart McKay tells the story of the ground-breaking DH.60 Moth, an aircraft that was to...
