Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Spoiler-filled Analysis-

It was only in my last viewing of Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick’s most controversial and polarizing film, at Cinema Rendezvous did I realize what the film-maker was really on about. I believe that Dr. Bill Harford’s journey here captures man’s first encounter with Helen, the second phase of the anima archetype. It is in this phase that man sees women to possess no virtue. Kubrick also addresses sexual incompatibility and the need for communication in a marriage in the film. Additionally, he talks of the necessity for a man to channelize the Warrior/Protector archetype to prevent his woman, his anima projection, from feeling defeminised, and inadvertently him from feeling emasculated, when she compensates by projecting her own animus elsewhere. The film released after Kubrick’s death, giving rise to several conspiracy theories surrounding the nature of his death. One of them suggested that he was killed by cult illuminati.

I always saw Eyes Wide Shut as a psychosexual thriller that revolved around Bill’s drive for sexual retribution. While that is partly true, it is hardly his sole motivation. Re-watching the film multiple times helped peel off the layers and see that there’s far more to it. I firmly believed that Eyes Wide Shut pointed to Bill and Alice remaining oblivious to a seemingly conspicuous distance that had crept in between the two of them. This time though, I felt it was only Bill who was oblivious to the distance. And the causes for this estrangement seem to bring him at fault. His inability to sexually satisfy his wife, his non-possessive nature and his non-confrontational nature would be three to name. He remains blind to the effect they have on his wife and their relationship. Eyes Wide Shut might also point to Bill being blind to the primal, animalistic nature of female sexuality. But, more on that later.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Review-

Jordan Belfort (Leo Dicaprio) likes to play. He plays with people, he plays with stocks, he plays with his clients, he plays with the law, he plays with his marriage, and more than anything...he plays with his life in the free world. What he finds most enjoyable is being put in a situation that he can, and must, turn to his advantage. Winning is something he doesn’t seem to ever get enough of. With every win, he feels less and less mortal, more and more invincible. Quitting seems like a slow kill to him, resigning to the life of a mere mortal in the normal world.  “But, who the fuck wanted to live there?” he asks bewildered. It’s only fun for Jordan when the stakes are continuously raised.

I would expect most people to characterize The Wolf of Wall Street as a dark crime-comedy, and while I agree with that categorization, I think the film is more a biopic than anything else. Jordan Belfort was a stockbroker convicted of stock manipulation, securities fraud and money laundering. Scorsese traverses his storyline while constantly evoking his inextinguishable spirit. And by the end of the film, I felt like I knew what made this guy tick.

The Great Beauty (2013)

Review-

The Great beauty revolves around the life of Jep Gamberdella (Toni Servillo), writer of his only novel and daily columnist. But instead of introducing us to him right away, film-maker Paulo Sorrentino first acquaints us with the world he lives in. He takes us through Jep’s 65th birthday party, infested with people who seem to have made conscious effort to distinguish themselves from one another, at face value. We learn later on that they back up their unique senses of identity by working hard to acquire cultured tastes and artistic sensibilities.

Then we meet our protagonist, Jep Gamberdella. Sorrentino slowly closes in on him, showing him as a man who doesn’t feel part of the happenings despite being involved. Jep talks to us, revealing that he’s proud to have made it into the highlife. He goes on to confess, “I didn’t just want to live the highlife. I wanted to be the king of the highlife. I didn’t want to just go to parties; I wanted to have the power to make them a failure.”

Moeibus (2013)

Moebius is one of the most ludicrous films I’ve seen in quite a while. It features intentional overdoses of melodrama, violence, stupidity, incest, emasculation (both literal and metaphorical), rape, violation, masturbation and visual metaphors I won’t bother decoding; all while keeping the flick free of dialogue. Kim Ki Duk goes all-out here both enjoying and abusing his rank as a well-regarded auteur as he looks to score cringes from his viewers, both the Kim Ki Duk newbies that don’t expect the worst and the fan followers that anticipate it. And while it seems that he did succeed in his intentions (a viewer vomited on his way out at its Venice premiere) the film didn’t really irk me.

The Counselor (2013)

Review-

Even with its compromises and overreaching philosophy, The Counselor is a pretty interesting film. It keeps you involved even when it's falling off the rails.

Michael Fassbender plays The Counselor who intends to make a big buck through a one-off drug trade with a Mexican drug cartel. He works with his friend Reiner and middle-man Westrey. Reiner (Javier Bardem) is playful, trusting and always in the present, reaping the benefits of the seeds he’s sown. He’s heard the worst of the party he’s in business with, but doesn’t seem keen on reconsidering the nature of their relationship. He doesn’t seem too interested in the ifs and coulds. All he knows is that things are fine as they are. Westray (Brad Pitt), on the other hand, is more aware of what he’s gotten himself into. He’s willing to take his chances as long as they come to him. But if things go awry, he has an immediate way out. He’s willing to leave everything behind if he has to. “It’s not that you’re going down. It’s what you’re taking down with you,” he echoes later in the film. The counselor pays heed to both men, who warn him repeatedly, but goes with the plan anyway, telling himself that this is only a one-time deal.

Adore (2013)

Anne Fontaine’s Adore is a piece of tripe. Not only is it the worst film I’ve seen from this year, it is hands down the worst film I’ve seen all year. The film opens with two girls running in the woods, as if they were the last two inhabitants of planet Utopia. Underscoring this scene sequence is a pleasant, playful music. The two girls find their way into a deserted beach and soak it up in the sea. They stare into each other’s eyes and smile. The scene transitions smoothly to the two of them about fifteen years later. They’re still staring at each other. This transition seems to say that their bond remains just as strong and isn’t bound by time. The women have their own sons now. Lil’s (Naomi Watts) husband dies in a car crash while Roz’s (Robin Wright) husband jokes about it with Lil’s fellow employee at the funeral.

As we’re taken through their lives, we find out that Roz’s husband Harold, who suspects a lesbian relationship shared between the two women, feels excluded from his own family, which, by now, includes Lil and her son. This reasonable fear sends the two women roaring with laughter while allowing them to bond with each other over deriding the male species. “Bloody men,” they conclude. Film-maker Fontaine’s characters share the same juvenile worldview as she demonstrates in Adore.

Lone Survivor (2013)

Lone Survivor directed by Peter Berg stars Mark Wahlberg in the lead role of real-life character Marcus Lutrell, to whom the title of the film alludes to. It also co-stars Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, Ben Foster and Eric Bana. The film opens with a montage bearing a heroic, awe-inspiring quality that showcases the training regime of Navy SEAL officers. The physicality of their acts, of them pushing their bodies to its limits, pulls you in.

Film-maker Berg eventually zooms in on a certain bunch of officers. We’re shown these guys as belonging to something of a brotherhood with minimal power dynamics. Peter Berg believes he should induct the viewer into this fraternity. In order to achieve this, he paints the gang in positive light. Berg then introduces a comic foil to contrast how much ‘cooler’ the principal characters are against how much of a dud this foil is. And In a moment of crisis, this dud seems to have both difficulty and delay in recognizing the gravity of the situation. He is, unlike the main characters of the film, a misfit. This is as far as Berg is willing to go with characterization. His is a convenient way to get us to root for the principal characters, without actually developing them. They’re quickly established as courageous, gritty individuals who also have a boyish charm that’s likely to appeal to most people. If only Berg had been subtler.

Harmony Lessons (2013).

Review. Interpretation. Observations. Spoilers.-

The last film I saw at CIFF 2013 was a character study called Harmony Lessons written and directed by Kazakh film-maker Emir Baigazin. The film revolves entirely about a 13-year old boy named Aslan who lives with his grandmother in a crime-ridden village in Kazakhstan. His school is shown to be run by its students. They work with each other through a certain heirarchy. And in this social code, we find Aslan to be a complete misfit.

Some kids at school trick Aslan into degrading himself unknowingly, only to laugh at him later. He is humiliated and ostracized. But the quiet and detached Aslan lets it slide, comfortably withdrawing into his own internal world. You don’t ever get to know Aslan well enough to be able to root for or empathize with him, but you are always intrigued by him.

Omar (2013)

Walking out of Omar at CIFF 2013, I didn’t think for a second that the Palestinian film had the potential to be an Oscar contender. Overall, the film worked for me. But not very well, I must add. It was engaging, eventful, evenly paced, and cleverly plotted. However, it fails to entice, enthral or reward the viewer emotionally.

Omar is part-time baker, full-time revolutionary. He scales Israel-Palestine boundary walls every other day and almost gets shot. But Omar treats it like just another day at the office. He belongs to a rebellion that wants to take on armed forces and evict them out of the country despite being vastly outnumbered. They consider themselves freedom fighters, going as far as ambushing soldiers from a distance. But we never see what Omar gets from all of this. His ideological stance on the war or people around him remains unknown. All we know is that he belongs to a rebellion that provides him a sense of group identity. Apparently, that is all it takes for Omar to risk his life everyday and eventually go to war. Film-maker Hany Abu Assad doesn’t believe he needs to show us what motivates Omar to live this daredevil life. That Omar lives it stone-faced further confounds the viewer. He acts as if he has nothing to lose, when in fact he’s shown to share a strong bond with his ever-smiling naivete lover Nadia.

Walesa. Man of Hope (2013)

Andrez Wajda’s biopic film “Walesa. Man of Hope” revolves around Lech Walesa (Robert Wieckiewics), a libertarian and revolutionary, who brought the first trade union to Poland during its communist regime. The film takes us through his life, his deeds and the driving force behind the two.

The film opens with a lady and her assistant in her car. They pull up in front of Walesa’s apartment and she introduces herself a famous journalist from the West. The two of them sit beside Walesa about to begin their interview. Walesa brashly asks her, “Is this interview going to hurt me or help me?” “That depends entirely on what you say,” she says composed. Meanwhile, we see that someone else is monitoring and recording their conversations. We learn later that this person is an official of the country.

The Priest's Children (2013)

The Priest’s Children directed by Vinko Bresan is one of the more mainstream films I saw at CIFF 2013. It was silly, comical, family-friendly and lacking in substance. However, I don’t feel strongly enough to trash it or dismiss it outright. A film experience like this doesn’t warrant such emotion. My feelings are mixed, somewhere between disappointment and annoyance. I’ll admit though, I was mildly amused.

The premise is plain as day. Set in futuristic Croatia, where the country’s death rate considerably outweighs its birth rate, a man confesses to a priest that he is a murderer. He kills people before they are born, that is, by working for a condom factory. Did that score a chuckle out of you? Then perhaps this is your kind of film. Petar goes on to state that he cannot afford to lose his job, but can’t help feeling guilty for sinning in this manner. The priest lets him in on an idea, one that allows him to eat his cake and have it too. He advises the man to prick a tiny hole in every condom before it is packaged. The two men conspire together on a quest- to reverse the death-rate-to-birth-rate ratio- with the help of an eccentric pharmacist who takes up the task of replacing contraceptives with vitamin pills.

Fill the Void (2013)

Rama Burshtein’s Fill the Void opens with a chirpy young lady, Shira, groom-shopping at a mall with her mother Revka. The women point to different men scattered around and discuss them like potential prospects. All of them sport the conventional-orthodox-Jewish look. Afterwards, we see her run up to her pregnant sister Esther and brace her excitedly telling her that they’ve found a suitor for her. Her brother-in-law smiles in approval, sharing her joy.

This family seems to have quite a bit going for it. And everything does go well in their favour. That is, until a tragedy befalls them. Esther dies in childbirth, only to be survived by her husband Yochay and new-born son. Instead of focusing on the immediate implications of the tragedy, Rama Burshtein skips the melodrama and fast-forwards to a point where they’ve moved on with their lives. The past is no longer a dwelling issue for the family. It's the future. Shira’s marriage is approaching while Yochay himself is considering remarriage. The question lingering in Burshtein’s mind here is whether the family fabric will remain intact after such an incident. This question also happens to prod Shira’s mother, Revka, who dreads the possibility of an empty house.

Salvo (2013)

One of the dullest films I saw in 2013 was a film called Salvo directed by Fabio Grassadonia and Antonio Piazza. I looked it up before the screening, only to find that it received multiple awards at the Cannes film festival. This, I figured, was reason enough for me to choose it over the other five films playing simultaneously at CIFF 2013. However, this choice misfired terribly.

Salvo’s plot is wafer-thin. A gangster named Salvo and his boss go to another part of town to kill select people. Why they do it, what they have at stake, what this is in response to-- we are given none of these details. Instead, the film-maker chooses to focus on the more trivial details; like what time Salvo sets his alarm, what his servants think of him, whether his hostage girl is hungry and whether fish tastes better in a dog bowl.

The Whirlpool (2013)

“Not for the faint-hearted” was all I had to see to choose a screening of The Whirlpool at CIFF 2013 over one of Oh Boy, a European Film Award winning black-and-white comedy. I am naturally drawn to boundary pushing films that can stick a wrench in my gut and effectively reinforce my bleak world-view.

The Serbian film directed by Bojan Vuk Kosovcevic failed to adequately satisfy my cinematic appetite. However, I still remain in praise of what it set out to do and how it attempts to accomplish just that, even though I found the ending quite inconclusive and ambiguous. I couldn’t dismiss away such an ambitious film that has so much going for it. But I wouldn’t deem it a success either.

The Disciple (2013)

The Disciple is set on an island inhabited by a family of four. Vilhelm, the man of the house is in charge of a lighthouse situated here while receiving some assistance from his teenage son Gustaf (Patrik Kumpulainen), who works his days just to be able to prove to his father that he is indeed worthy of succeeding him. Vilhelm’s wife finds solace in music with the help of a piano while their daughter, the youngest member of the family, gets by playing with a dog in their barn. A boat approaches the island. Its only passenger is a young boy who introduces himself as Karl Berg (Erik Lonngren) . He becomes Vilhelm’s disciple.

At first, Vilhelm dismisses the boy as just another kid. But the boy proves time and again that he is young, strong, capable and a quick learner. Vilhelm slowly begins to see that Karl can be put to use and effectively does so. Karl has been sent from an abusive orphanage. He bears signs of whip lash on his bare back. Although critical by nature, Vilhelm eventually takes a liking for Karl. He sees Karl as everything his own son is unable to be. He decides to adopt the boy, welcoming him not just to his new job, but to his new family. While Gustaf doesn’t fare at his academics nearly as well as Karl, Finnish film-maker Ulrika Bengts resists the temptation to paint him as an easily replaceable entity. She shows us that Gustaf is actually more of an outdoor person. He’s an expert with the sextet, good at swimming and excellent at navigating the boat. He even lets these skills rub off on Karl. His father knows nothing of Gustaf’s hidden abilities and continues to find ways to reinforce his own belief, that his son is indeed useless.

Only God Forgives (2013). Reviewed and decoded.

Review-

Nicolas Winding Refn’s earlier venture, Drive, revolved around an ordinary man who felt compelled to embody an ideal action hero. Circumstances present him with the opportunity (and fate) of fulfilling this action hero persona he not only wants to be, but, believes he is. Here, Julian, a terrified boy haunted by mystic tales of a moral reprimander Chang, is thrown into circumstances that force him to confront this ghoul, who also happens to be his worst nightmare. Both films bear similar intent and share the same language. They are based on real emotions, but set in a heightened reality.

The troubled and tortured Julian is both heart and soul of this terribly bleak world. He is the first tragic character in the Refn universe. Ryan Gosling discards his tough guy persona (largely evident in Drive and for a shorter span of time in The Place beyond the Pines) and delivers his most complex performance yet. Just watch him paralyzed with fear when Chang first sets his eyes on him. Or his mouth quiver when a trailed Chang is suddenly nowhere to be seen.

What makes Vithaya Pansringaram such an unforgettable embodiment of horror? A combination of his receding hairline (which is befitting to Chang’s all-knowing nature and intuitive ability), the nonchalant expression borne throughout on his face (you won’t see a hint of remorse) and the fact that he treats both his professions, karaoke singing and slicing limbs, with equal importance. The way the film cuts between him at both of his fortes brings about a matter-of-fact routinely nature, as if it was just another working day. Refn pits Julian and Chang against each other in a fight sequence choreographed with deep thought that will subvert all prior expectations. I expose this to you because it wasn’t nearly what I was expecting.

Kristin Scott Thomas channelizes Crystal, Julian’s mother, a woman who possesses the survival instincts and domination-seeking tendencies of an apex predator. She wouldn’t think twice to serve up her little sacrificial lamb on a silver platter. It’s a delicate role that could veer off into caricature, but Thomas conveys her unapologetic nature so effectively that the abominable Crystal fits in Refn’s world perfectly. The auteur has a clear-cut vision of his characters even though their extreme characterizations tend to border on archetypal.

I’ve never in my cinema-associated life felt a stronger and keener sense of dread. And knowing that this mirrors Julian’s own sense of dread only elevates Only God Forgives in my eyes. Seriously, has there ever been a piece of music to intentionally evoke a sense of queasiness? Or stomach-churning fright? Cliff Martinez seems to have achieved both of these milestones here.

This horror mood piece is intense, sharply impressionistic and Refn’s most definitive work to date. I’ve, seen...no, experienced nothing like it.

Skyfall (2012)

Skyfall opens with a silhouette of Daniel Craig. As the actor walks from the shadows and into the light, we see his character slowly take form. He’s suit up and holding a gun. A typical James Bond introduction. Continuing in the Bond tradition is a long chase, this time ending with Bond’s death. Cue in the Skyfall opening theme by Adele. It is, visually, so damn appealing but it also has some dark emotion lurking underneath. Now you know what to expect from the film.

We see that Bond has survived and is living a luxurious life in secrecy. He needs painkillers to cope with a life amiss of purpose and it’s been long since he’s received that shot of adrenaline he’s become a slave to. MI6 is his only way out. His boss, M (Judi Dench), hands him a new assignment. Bond heads to Shanghai, a city that’s inhabited by skyscrapers, decorated in lustre and coloured in neon. The filming locations are great. Not just in Shanghai but throughout the film.

Cloud Atlas (2012)

Halfway through my first viewing of Cloud Atlas, I knew I had to watch it again. When I finished, I debated. Commercial compromise is much harder for me to take than lack of ambition. Cloud Atlas sold out. I make that statement now after two full viewings. I greatly admire and respect what the film initially set out to do. This is a film with a numerous characters, lesser actors, several events, plenty of scenes and a lot to chew on. They’re all pieced together into a beautiful collage, as if it were the grandest editing project by a film scholar of the highest rank. Nevertheless, the film bears it all evenly. The tone wavers, but never falters.

Cloud Atlas is a large web of narratives, switching back and forth between its sub-plots, each telling a story from a different era and each just as interesting as the other. The film’s talky and quite objectively defined; clearly a film with an agenda. There’s no attempt to suck you in, not an ounce of realism. This is a cinematic achievement that you are meant to experience from the outside. But the perspective is sky-high and the approach is ground-breaking. It requires real audacity to do what Cloud Atlas intends to do and even more to do it the way the film-makers do it.

Argo (2012)

Argo opens with news channel excerpts that lead up to a revolution outside an American Embassy in Iran. The people of Iran are outraged. The Shah that they had overthrown is currently reaping the benefits of giving the country’s oil to America by spending his final years in the comfort of American soil. The people want America to send the dictator back to be tried, and hanged. On that demand, they are uncompromising. And they've had enough waiting.

The rioters jump over the gate, storm into the embassy, capture the Americans and take them hostage. Six of the superiors escape through an emergency fire exit and take refuge at the Canadian ambassador’s house. Back in America, the CIA is busy figuring out a way to smuggle these escaped hostages out of the country and their primary concern is how things appear to the media. They joke about it, throw ideas and then scorn at them. There’s a lot of biting sarcasm at the table. One man, however, has a crazy idea he actually intends to take through. CIA agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) plans on going to Iran pretending to be an associate producer and get these six escaped hostages back as part of his film crew. These six people have parts to play- screen-writer, director, location manager, cinematographer, production designer. They need to convince inspection officers and security that they are the people they claim to be. Tony Mendez gets the green signal from the CIA and a word of advice from his supervisor (Bryan Cranston)- “Good luck. The whole world is watching you.”

Arbitrage (2012)

Nicholas Jarecki's Arbitrage revolves around a problematic life phase of a billionaire named Robert Miller (Richard Gere). It’s his sixtieth birthday and he’s celebrating it at home. You see him as a family man who intends to spend the rest of his life with them even if it means selling off his company. This is just the version of himself that he’s selling to his family.

He heads back to his office. But instead, lands up at the mansion of a young lady who ignores him to build the sexual tension before they pounce on each other with a strong sense of urgency. Cut to Miller walking through his multi-storey office, straight-faced and satisfied. He no longer looks like the family man he sold to you at the table. He looks like the alpha male of the wolf pack that was out to rip apart Liam Neeson in The Grey.

Chronicle (2012)

28 year-old Josh Trank employs the omnipresent found footage gimmick, brought to new light by The Blair witch Project and popularized by Paranormal Activity, in his directorial debut Chronicle. Not only is he keen on using it uniquely, going for a superhero film (as opposed to horror), he uses it wisely. The outcome of his efforts is the most realistic Superhero movie to date.

Premium Rush (2012)

Even the uncharismatic Joseph Gordon Levitt, with the constantly sullen look on his face, can be infused with a hint of excitement as he rides through streets and races past cars in Premium Rush. Considering that both of the film’s main actors, the other being Michael Shannon (playing a maniacal degenerate gambler with a badge), are at risk of being typecast, it is safe to say that the bike is the unique selling proposition of David Koepp’s new film. It’s just what gives JGL the never-say-die attitude he lacks.

Killing them Softly (2012)

Andrew Dominik, who sent Brad Pitt to the peak of his career with The Assasination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford, one of my favourite films of 2007, reteams with the actor in Killing Them Softly. He’s also managed to rope in James Gandolfini of The Sopranos, Richard Jenkins of The Visitor, Ray Liotta of Goodfellas and cast them in what appears to be a crime thriller. Tell me it’s not an irresistible combination. Take into account that the film, not only screened at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival but was even nominated for a Palme d’Or. It has just everything going for it. And I was going to be seeing it two months before the Rottentomatoes consensus was up. I was excited at this rare opportunity.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Wes Anderson is one of the few directors whose style of film-making I absolutely loathe. I took a liking for Rushmore but other than that, I found all his films either plain lazy or too subtle for their own good. I just couldn’t decide which. I never managed to find the motivating factor behind his characters and their actions. It echoed the experience of watching a foreign film without subtitles. But what’s worse is the distant way with which he treats his characters. Anderson writes damaged characters and weighs them down with heavy baggage from the past while he rolls on the floor laughing with his finger pointed at them. I don’t believe Kubrick or even The Old Mallick saw their characters with such iciness. While those two auteurs saw their characters through alien eyes, Anderson sees his through those of a heartless little prankster. Even crueller is the bright-and-sunny exterior; a clear indication that the film-maker takes pleasure in torturing his characters. To make a long story short, I rarely get Anderson’s films but when I do, I’m mostly appalled.

When Terence Mallick returned after a twenty-year hiatus with The Thin red line, I can only imagine how people must’ve felt. This was a different Mallick. He wasn’t just seeing his characters, he was feeling them. This particular trait was predominant in The New World and more so in The Tree of Life. As feeling became more and more abstract, Mallick’s films became more and more amorphous. Wes Anderson takes a similar turn with Moonrise Kingdom.

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

The Cabin in the Woods is a heartless, hilarious, campy self-satire. It criticizes the very techniques it employs. Owing to a few extended pauses, the sound of your heart beating becomes too loud for you to bear. And then, you’re hit with jump scares that will give you convulsions. It’s a shallow and ridiculously loud piece of work. But it’s also brilliant. I was completely caught off guard.

We have two perspectives on a certain event that’s about to occur, shown in parallel. One shows us the event live- a gang of youths are heading for a cabin in the woods, where they intend to spend their weekend. They’re a generic bunch characterized by archetypes, revealed by the film-maker himself. As the emphasized title obviously suggests, there’s going to be mayhem. In all likelihood, it’ll have supernatural forces at the helm. The other point of view is from a setting similar to Eric Byer’s office in The Bourne Legacy. There’s a huge screen, an array of computers and everyone’s pleasantly buzzing around like worker bees. The cabin and the woods are controlled by a large corporation that consists of scientists and technicians. Now, don’t take all of this at face value.

That character in Pulp Fiction you never see.

Ezekiel the Almighty. Jules summons him by reciting Ezekiel 25:17. He makes his first appearance when he lets the bullets go through them without actually piercing through them. Jules acknowledges his existence, takes him seriously and decides to change his ways. Vincent calls it luck and discounts the deed. Ezekiel is offended.

Jules and Vincent discuss the incident in the car. Vincent condescendingly asks Marvin "Do you think god came down from heaven and stopped these bullets?" Ezekiel reacts impulsively by making him blow Marvin's head off. Vincent suggests that Jules probably drove over a bump. Or was that Ezekiel? However, Jules says “Hey, the car didn’t hit no motherfuckin bump.” Well, that leaves us with just one conclusion. Ezekiel squeezed the trigger.

The Expendables 2 (2012)

In 2009, Sylvester Stallone (better known as Rocky) assembled action stars of yesteryear, himself included, and decided to make a motion picture out of their past glory. He decided to call it The Expendables, an apt title considering that that’s pretty much what they are in this film. Not just in the eyes of the people under whom their characters serve but even to us, the viewers. We remained outsiders, merely watching these strangers do things we hardly gave two shits about, waiting with the false hope that our existences would eventually be acknowledged. Bummer.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

As of now The Bourne Supremacy is my favourite of the film adaptations of The Bourne Trilogy. Mainly because it doesn’t involve a pretty lady risking her life simply to be a part of this ride. Of course, their relationship later develops into a half-baked affair. Well, that’s fiction for you. And I’m not complaining. I’m just naturally more inclined towards realism. The Bourne Legacy, within its fictional confines, is the most realistic instalment to date. Rachel Weisz’s character doesn’t hop on because she wants to begin an affair with Jeremy Renner’s Aaron Cross. She has no plan, not a clue about saving herself from a very powerful organization and she needs Aaron Cross, just as much as he needs her pharmaceutical experience to disinfect him. 

 

Despite running in parallel to the previous instalment, The Bourne Legacy somehow doesn’t share so much with its predecessors. It’s the same world but the approach begins from elsewhere, the take is different and the perspective is through another pair of eyes. The hunted doesn’t interest film-maker Tony Gilroy as much as its hunter, or hunters. The Bourne Legacy is The Ghost Writer meets Michael Clayton meets Bourne, in that order. Even the swarm of antagonists are given a fair share of screen-time and their mastermind, Eric Byer (Edward Norton), a good deal of characterization. 

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

The Dark Knight Rises is grim, grand and massive.  It’s the perfect conclusion to Christopher Nolan’s superhero franchise. I think it deserves Oscar recognition in multiple categories. Now, don’t get carried away because I said that. I know what I’m saying. I don’t claim the film to be multilayered or subtle or perched on realism. It doesn’t aspire to achieve any of these. But what it is set out to do, it couldn’t have been done better. The most brilliant aspect of The Dark Knight Rises is the high degree of parallelism- there are several primary characters in so many threads of events that run together simultaneously.

Batman Begins took us through the heart and soul of Bruce Wayne. We knew by the end of it, why he does what he does. The other characters in the series including, and especially, The Joker were strongly characterized. But we never knew why they are the way they are. Character development was absent in the commercially compromised The Dark Knight. In the Dark Knight Rises, the origins of every character are known. Nolan split The Dark Knight into good and bad; like a logician would. Scenes of ‘the people of Gotham’ planted on two ships and forced to choose between the lives of others and that of their own came off to me as a simplistic exercise in moral science. The act of Batman making the selfless choice of playing scapegoat to Harvey Dent’s criminal activities rings false. Particularly because this happens not long after he selfishly chose to rescue his girlfriend over ‘the shining example of justice.’ Even with all these flaws, The Dark Knight still emerged as a successful film. The Dark Knight Rises is the perfect antithesis to both, the central theme of fear in Batman Begins and that one thing that The Dark Knight had to say - “People deserve more than the truth. They deserve their faith to be rewarded.” And I don’t believe I’ve come across another film-maker letting the audience see him take diametrically opposite standpoints on a subject and defend them both with equal conviction.

Michael (2011)

I first saw Markus Schleinzer’s Michael at the Chennai International Film Festival in December 2011. The festival was powered by obscure films from unsung directors and with respect to narrowing down my choices, I certainly had my work cut out. I don’t like going by plotlines. Stories don’t matter to me nearly as much as storytelling and characters do. Critical acclaim was the only deciding factor. But most of these films hadn’t even been released. Michael premiered ‘In Competition’ at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival. I learnt of the premise only after the presenter said “The film is about a paedophile who locks up a kid in his basement.” My hopes were up. I like films that permeate into the dark depths of the human mind. Michael did that and more.

A half-bald man is just getting home from work. The house is a barren place. Empty. Quiet. Lifeless. You hear the sound of things being moved, things being dropped, things being carefully placed. The window blinds fall. He takes the stairs down to the basement and unlocks a heavy metal door. “Come on” he says. A little boy walks out of an unlit room. They share a silent dinner and watch TV hoping to inspire a hint of life into their lives. The boy is urged downstairs, back to the basement. The man follows shortly after and shuts the heavy metal door behind him. The film cuts to a visual of the man washing his genitals. Say Hello to our lead character, Michael (Michael Fuith). And his boy toy, Wolfgang (David Rauchenberger).

The Mill and The Cross (2011)

As interesting as watching paint dry is a phrase that might ring true to many with regard to The Mill and the Cross.  Story, characters, human element… they all take a back seat. It’s all about the visuals.

 At first, The Mill and The Cross seemed to me like a series of paintings with moving objects that were heading nowhere. And I had intended to bring it up in a critical manner. The film evokes stillness and boredom in you. But only as it should; echoing the feelings of an artist who, bored out of his mind, taunts a helpless spider with a stick. The spider hobbles around in its dewdrop studded web but remains unwilling to abandon it. Inspiration gushes in and sets the creative juices flowing. Time stands still, the artist seizes the moment and it all flows onto paper. When he begins to see the beauty of the town, you slowly involve yourself in the film and recognize its beauty. That’s a rich payoff, the realization that all of this documentary-style spying has amounted to something meaningful.

The Goodfellas

You might be confused at seeing a prefix ‘The’ to the title of Martin Scorsese’s ‘Goodfellas’. The purpose of this article is to address, and expose, the characterization of Goodfellas. What makes the Goodfellas so appealing? They don’t give a fuck. The approach director Scorsese and Editor Thelma Schoonmaker employ at making them give off that vibe is more than meets the eye.

Scorsese chooses long tracking shots to introduce us to the Goodfellas. You come to know of their quirks. Take their style of nicknaming, Jimmy Two-Times who always said everything twice”I’m gonna get the papers, get the papers.” Or that the sons were named Peter or Paul and their wives were all Marie. The three principal characters here are Henry Hill(Ray Liotta), Jimmy Conway (Robert Deniro) and Tommy Devito (Joe Pesci). They work under caporegime Paulie (Paul Sorvino).

Let’s begin with Henry Hill and his ambition. “Ever since I can remember, I wanted to be a gangster. It meant being somebody in a neighbourhood full of nobodys. It meant belonging somewhere and being treated like a grownup.” The moment that line falls on your ears, you believe it.

Casino, revisited.

This isn’t a review. This is a write-up of my experience of revisiting, after a few years, the 1995 film Casino. Contrary to its title, Casino is not one of those gambling movies. It’s a follow up to Martin Scorsese’s mafia mob drama Goodfellas.

“When you love someone, you gotta trust them. There’s no other way. You gotta give them the key to everything that’s yours. Otherwise, what’s the point? And for a while, I believe that’s the kind of love I had” says Sam ‘Ace’ Rothstein as he walks out with a cigar in his mouth and into a car that blows up. What does one make of that? Scorsese’s films rarely begin with the beginning. You’re given a glimpse of (mostly) some part of the middle. Just like how Kubrick began Lolita with its ending. By showing us where the story climaxes, our minds aren’t perched on the fate of the characters but instead on their functioning.

Sam ‘Ace’ Rothstein (Robert Deniro) heads a Casino in Las Vegas. He might be working under the title of ‘Casino Executive’ in a Casino owned by Philip Green, who exists as the squeaky clean front man under the orders of the elders of a mafia family, but Sam was the boss. The first time the camera pans into his magnificent Casino, you see it brightly lit and adorned with slot machines lined up against each other. Sam explains about the business, “We’re the only winners. The players don’t stand a chance.”

Shame (2011)

                                    

There’s a creature. This creature is part human- part animal. The human goes to work at day, earns lucratively and lives a high-end lifestyle. At the break of dusk, this creature retreats to his den, morphing into an animal with a voracious sexual appetite and engages in a world of sexual activity. Hookers often visit, cybersex is routine and his store is filled with cartons of pornographic magazines.  This creature is Brandon, Michael Fassbender’s character in Shame.

There’s no guarantee that the beast will remain hidden inside. Even at his workplace, it possesses him unexpectedly, forcing him to masturbate in the restroom. It all works out for Brandon, who keeps his sexual feelings discreet because he doesn’t believe he has complete control over this hypersexual animal inside him. Shame suggests that something has happened in the past for him to be threatened by this inner beast.

Everything is fine until his den is invaded by an intruder, the only person Brandon has a human connection with. Brandon throws out his porn filled laptop, the magazines and the sex toys. Hookers are kept out of action.  The food supply to the sexual animal is cut off and you’ll see it is no easy task to keep it pacified.

Young Adult (2011)

It’s a brand new day. A chick flick is playing on TV but the only person in the room is sleeping on her face. She wakes up and her prominent dark circles catch your attention. Mavis is divorced and in her mid thirties. She binges on coke, ice cream and alcohol. Her social life is confined to one night stands. ‘Waverly Prep’ is the name of a young adult series she’s served as an author for. The series is nearing its end and her boss is pounding her with phone calls asking her to get done with the final edition. This unending loop of events is interrupted by an e-mail from her high-school sweetheart, Buddy. Having grown weary of her lifestyle here she decides to pay hometown a visit and get him back, since “they were meant to be together.” Buddy is a married man now, busy raising his new-born daughter.

Doesn’t it sound like a chick flick? Don’t be mistaken. It’s a personality study; one that’s presented in a darkly comic manner.

Another Earth (2011)

What if there was another earth with another you? What if you met this other you? Would you tell yourself what to do and what not to do? Would you save your other you? Would you ask yourself what you think of you? What would you tell yourself if you met yourself? “Better luck next time” says Brit Marling’s character in Mike Cahill’s Another Earth.

Seventeen-year old Rhoda has just received her acceptance letter from MIT. “I felt like anything was possible,” she says having just finished celebrating the occasion. She’s going out for a drive. On the radio, she learns that another earth has been spotted in the sky. She looks out. Her car swerves off course and collides with another car. She survives with minor bruises but the occupants of the other car are seriously injured, two of whom succumb to their injuries. Being a minor, she’s sent to prison for a short term of four years and her identity remains undisclosed.

Skip to four years later. Rhoda is now an emotionally remote island. Her family and she have grown apart. It’s understood that she hasn’t written to or met with them since. Probably to avoid confrontation, to avoid being faced with the knowledge of what she is missing, to avoid being reminded of her stagnant state. Making matters worse is the fact that they are all people who deal with a problem by not talking about it.

Trust (2011)

David Schwimmer’s Trust opens with the track “Give a little” by Hanson. A teenage girl is preparing breakfast, only to follow it with her morning jog. The camera invisibly places itself on various corners of the room while it continues to scan her every move. But she has not the slightest idea. Cut to the title card “Trust”, designed in the plainest white font on a black background and let the track slowly fade away. You trust that this sets the tone for the film, a light teen drama.

Annie is celebrating her birthday with her family at a dinner table. You sense the unconditional positive regard shared. In school, Annie is merely an existence. The ‘cool’ girl invites her to a party, one that has teenagers doing the most taboo things. Annie is intimidated by their exuded sexual sophistication and returns home with a bad taste in her mouth. She tries talking to her dad about how they freaked her out but he cuts her saying that he’s busy with work. She turns to Charlie, a teenage boy with similar athletic interests. He tells her what she wants to hear. There begins their cyber relationship.

Charlie slowly reveals that he’s actually a twenty-year old sophomore. Annie lets it pass. Soon, twenty becomes twenty-five. Two months in, they meet at a mall. Charlie shows up as a middle-aged man. It deeply upsets Annie. How carefully (yet effortlessly) he coaxes her into sleeping with him from that point is disturbingly real. Deep inside she knows she’s making a mistake, one after the other but she doesn’t think such an opportunity will come again and gives in trusting that nothing will go wrong. The verbal ruses that Charlie uses to manipulate Annie... just brilliant screenwriting. Even petty comments on an ice cream flavour such as “You win, Pistachio rocks” earns her trust.

The Ides of March (2011)

Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling) tells reporter Ida (Marisa Tomei) “I’m not naïve okay? I’ve worked on more campaigns than most people will have by the time they’re forty. I’m telling you, this is the one.” Stephen is a junior campaign manager for Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), a presidential candidate competing against a Senator, Ted Pullman. Between Stephen and Morris is Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Stephen’s superior and senior campaign manager. Stephen has just written a draft that Governor Mike Morris feels urged to accept. While he rides high on that, a call comes from Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), a rival campaign manager diametrically opposite Paul, who invites him to a political tryst and gets the ball rolling.

Stephen meets with him out of an emotional need to feel self-secure and maybe even with the intent of revamping his political career. Tom Duffy praises himself for being jaded, cynical and having the ability to turn things to his advantage. Paul, on the other hand believes that loyalty is the only currency you can count on in politics. Human errors are made but there are heavy prices to pay. Something momentous is going to happen. Bring in press reporter Ida, a scoop-hungry fiend that will pounce on anyone for it and you await the spawn of an irreparable situation.

Le Gamin au vélo- The Kid with a Bike (2011)

The Kid with a Bike. What if that is all it is about?

French filmmakers seem to rely on the beauty of simplicity. I’ve not seen too many French movies but I have seen enough to spot a resemblance. Their style of filmmaking is minimalistic. There’s nothing colourful about their movies. You cannot split them into physical elements (cinematography, editing, direction) and appreciate them. Neither can you single out any particular aspect for having a particularly stronger effect on you and go on about it. Their characters, normal human beings whom you can easily relate to. Their stories, earthly. Not of a man that’s caught in a sticky situation, not of the underdog that goes from rags to riches, not a twisted story that frightens yet pulls you in. There’s nothing cinematic here, no do or die.