costaspap Reviews

Overkill: The Aileen Wuornos Story (1992 TV Movie)

Inferior to "Monster"? Hmm...

[7/10 · 21 October 2023]

Understandably, this low-budget TV movie is compared unfavorably to the acclaimed film "Monster", which, in a sense, romanticizes crime and hence appears more attractive to the public.

On the other hand, "Overkill" is closer to the true story. The one thing that is missing, though, is the part concerning the trial of Aileen Wuornos. There were some really strong moments there, and the courtroom scenes would have added to the authenticity of the film.

In addition, there is some very good acting in this film, not too inferior to the one that won a cinematic Oscar!

In my opinion, this TV movie is unjustly underrated...

Dheepan (2015)

"Dheepan": Cinematic beauty without political didacticism

[9/10 · 24 November 2015]

In our review for Robert Guédiguian's wonderful film "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1852006/reviews-6) we raised the question whether Art should be an imitation of life or whether it should be the other way around. The advocates of realism will make the first choice since, in their opinion, life is full of ugliness that Art must faithfully portray. As is often the case, the artist does not even distinguish between realism and pessimism. In the case of cinema, in particular, the audience must leave the theater full of dark thoughts and feelings of vanity; happy ending is a taboo and a positive message should be hard to find. Idealism, on the other hand, reserves a more noble and ambitious role for Art by creating high standards of human character, thus offering psychological, ideological and aesthetic motivation for man to overcome the inherent weaknesses of his nature and morally elevate himself by striving to reach these standards.

Guédiguian's film masterfully balances between these two opposite philosophical trends. One could hardly say anything less about Jacques Audiard's "Dheepan" (Palme d'Or at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival). In the first place, the subject – immigration to Europe from war-torn places of the Third World – is so timely that the film almost acquires the character of a documentary. The audience, however, progressively witnesses a marvelous transformation from the harsh reality of human survival to the final triumph of human moral exaltation!

Here is the beginning of the story:

"Dheepan" is a freedom fighter of the "Tamil Tigers" in the Sri Lankan Civil War. The war approaches its end and defeat of the revolutionaries is imminent. Dheepan, whose entire family was lost in the war, decides to flee the country together with a woman and a little girl – two persons previously unknown to him as well as to each other – in the hope that, by pretending that they are a family, it would be easier for them to claim asylum somewhere in Europe. Arriving in Paris, the "family" seeks temporary housing while Dheepan tries to earn some money by selling little things under the nose of the Police. Finally, he finds a permanent job as a caretaker in a building block somewhere in the suburbs. Although the place is miserable and, moreover, is a den of unlawful activities, Dheepan works hard to build a new life for him and his new family...

The craftsmanship of the narrative lies in the wonderful balance between the hard realism of the subject and the cinematic poetry that permeates the film from beginning to end. This narrative carefully and skillfully avoids the traps of over-sentimentalism and political didacticism, as well as the temptation of sanctification or demonization of the various characters, as such oversimplifications would undoubtedly undermine the artistic result. The main heroes, in particular, are not a priori "good". They discover the good parts of their own nature as the story progresses, thus developing as human beings in the process.

It is precisely this miracle of character revelation and moral elevation in front of the viewer's eyes that makes cinema such a wonderful art, after all. And, even if it seems too idealistic to be true, this miracle is far from representing a utopia!

Anna Karenina (I) (2012)

The claustrophobic world of "Anna Karenina"

[7/10 · 9 January 2013]

The transfer of a classic novel to the big screen is no easy task. In addition to merely representing facts, the director must guide the actors to express the inner dimensions of the drama. More so when this is the work of a great anatomist of the human soul and character!

Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" experienced several film and television adaptations (notable being those of 1935 and 1948). Recently, another cinematic attempt to approach the classic masterpiece made its appearance in theaters ("Anna Karenina", UK 2012), directed by Joe Wright ("Atonement", "Pride & Prejudice").

Let us recall the story: Anna Karenina is a Russian aristocrat of the late 19th century, married to Alexei Karenin, a mild-tempered government official considered a "saint" in Russia. Despite her affluent and honorable life, Anna is willing to sacrifice her status in society –and even her own son- for a passionate affair with a young cavalry officer, causing a scandal in the conservative Russian aristocracy...

The film inevitably evokes comparison with Laurence Olivier's classic, "Henry V" (1944). Both movies begin as filmed performances of a theatrical play. The basic difference is that Olivier's film masterfully escapes in the real world, eventually acquiring a purely cinematic form, which Wright's claustrophobic approach stubbornly refuses to do (with the exception of a few scenes), exhausting its material (not always in the most elegant way) within the space of an almost metaphysical theater.

The film suffers from a rather loose editing that makes it seem somewhat longer than it should be. The sets and costumes, though, are impressive, as is the wonderful music scoring by Dario Marianelli. With regard to casting, the choice of Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Count Vronsky was an unfortunate one. As another reviewer aptly remarked, he might have been a proper choice in a story where the heroine seduces a schoolboy, but he certainly isn't quite convincing as a fatal lover who could make an aristocrat's wife become infatuated to the point of absolute self- destruction!

Keira Knightley also misses the target. Instead of the refined, mature, morally conscious and deeply human and down-to-earth lady of high society, she delivers a shallow, self-important and emotionally immature young woman who can hardly win sympathies as a heroine of a tragedy. In my opinion, Tilda Swinton would probably have been a better choice! On the contrary, Jude Law gives an excellent performance as an apparently colorless, though deeply tragic, Alexei Karenin.

In conclusion, one should certainly not expect to witness a deep penetration into the intellectually and emotionally complex world of Tolstoy. If, on the other hand, one is simply looking for a two-hour, good-quality entertainment, then this is definitely a film one wouldn't want to miss!

Sophie's Choice (1982)

What Ever Happened to Baby Jennifer (Lawn)?

[8/10 · 21 December 2012]

The only bit of information about her on IMDb reads: "Attended Tulane University" (the field of study is not even hinted at...). Under her Filmography, there is only one title: "Sophie's Choice"... This is all that remains from a very impressive performance of 1982 by a little girl whose name was Jennifer Lawn. Those who first saw the famous "choice" scene toward the end of the film, where the Academy Award winner Meryl Streep was holding terrified little Jennifer in her arms, must have foreseen a bright future for this kid actress who might easily fool the viewers into believing that she was actually living the scene, rather than just acting it!

"A future Oscar winner in the arms of a present one", one might have prophesied back in 1982. Unfortunately, this prophecy never came true...

If you have seen the movie, you are certainly familiar with this intensely dramatic scene (DON'T watch it if you have NOT seen the film and plan to do so!):

costas-music.blogspot.gr/2012/12/sophies-choice-choice-scene.html

What If... (2012)

The butterfly effect and the parallel worlds of "An..."

[7/10 · 19 December 2012]

In his "Notebooks", the famous conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler doesn't make much effort to conceal his dislike for Art critics. He likens the creator of Art with Faust and the critic with Mephistopheles, saying about the latter that, whatever is born of love, he considers worthy of extinction! He also notes that the main concern of the critic is to identify the "errors" in the work of Art, often failing to recognize the greatness of a true masterpiece.

Furtwängler's remarks came to my mind while observing the anxious efforts by movie critics to discover and point out the "errors" in "An...", the first feature film by Greek director Christoforos Papakaliatis (Greece, 2012). I must confess that I myself entered the theater with reservations. Would this prove to be just another cinematic experiment from one more director of television shows who fails to see the difference between the two-dimensional flat space of TV and the much more complex space-time of the cinema?

The result of the "experiment" was a pleasant surprise! We saw an authentic cinematic creation, skillfully directed and possessing a brilliantly self-consistent (albeit not entirely original) script worked well in the details. With regard to the central idea of the film, the influence from the now classic "Sliding Doors" (1998) is more than evident. Like the latter film, "An..." is a cinematic allegory on the "butterfly effect", that is, how a seemingly insignificant detail may dramatically change the order of things and the fate of people. We thus watch two alternative versions of reality evolve in parallel in time by means of two different dominoes of causality.

One basic theme is romantic relationships and their test against deterioration caused by the everyday routine in a typical marriage. Reference is made, of course, to the current economic crisis, this being one of the catalytic factors affecting relationships. Eventually, the film leaves it upon the viewer to decide which version of reality suits best to her/him, hinting, however, at the more optimistic choice (remember "Sliding Doors"!).

We left the theater with feelings of internal catharsis that any true work of Art must induce. Leaving behind for good the painful memories from the merciless (albeit directorially brilliant) "Amour" that plainly shows brutal reality without the much-needed psychological balance offered by the potentially alternative...

Amour (2012)

Cinematic sadism and technique without Art!

[5/10 · 18 December 2012]

A friend recently sent me a PowerPoint file – one of those that are regularly circulating the Internet. At first glance, it contained some relatively good black and white photos. In the end, however, there was a revelation that left the viewer speechless: these were not photographs but drawings made by hand!

My initial, spontaneous reaction was, "what an artist"! I then thought it over: Is it really the purpose of Art a faithful and accurate depiction of reality? If so, then what necessitated such a painstaking effort on the part of the sketcher? Even a moderately talented photographer would have undoubtedly done a better job! Imitating the perfection of photography is not a matter of Art; rather, it is a matter of technique!

Similar comments apply to the cinema. Thus, for example, the creation of a film that mimics the (often hard) realism of a documentary, without the necessary symbolic intervention of a more personal philosophical or ideological filter, may be the work of a good technician but hardly that of an artist.

These were my thoughts as I watched the end credits of Michael Haneke's "Amour" (France-Germany-Austria, 2012). Using two brilliant veteran actors (Jean-Louis Trintignant, Emmanuelle Riva) and taking advantage of his directorial perfectionism where even the slightest detail counts (the first scene with the pigeon, whose shadow is momentarily visible on the glass as the bird flies off the window, deserves an Oscar in itself!), Haneke succeeds in creating a perfect representation of "next- door misery". However, where exactly is Art in all this?

Many viewers may have hastened to recognize a "humanitarian" transformation of Haneke since the notoriously sadistic "Funny Games" (1997). Please allow me to question the "humanism" of "Amour". Personally, I detected a more elaborately disguised sadism toward the viewer, whom the director continues to "punish" for seeing his films! In a sense, the feelings of horror in "Funny Games" are somewhat softened by the totally unrealistic nature of the plot. In "Amour", on the contrary, the director plays almost malevolently with the worst fears of everyday people, notably, their vulnerability to illness and death...

I continue to believe that the main purpose of Art is to create beauty – even when representing the ugly and unpleasant sides of life. Art, therefore, is expected to function as a therapist of the soul. The cruel –even if technically masterful– imitation of harsh reality, without the balsam of catharsis so desperately needed by the soul, constitutes, in my opinion, a deflection from the primary objectives of Art. I might even call it a forgery of life!

The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011)

Art and Life: Thoughts on "The Snows of Kilimanjaro"

[10/10 · 16 December 2012]

The question is simple but is far from being rhetorical: Should Art be an imitation of life, or should it be the other way around? The advocates of realism will surely make the first choice. In their view, life is full of ugliness that Art must faithfully portray, with absolutely no recourse to artificial embellishments. Often, the artist cannot even see the difference between realism and pessimism. In the case of cinema, in particular, the audience must leave the theater filled with dark thoughts and feelings of vanity. Happy ending is a taboo, and the positive message is hard to find (since life itself doesn't support it).

On the opposite side of realism, idealism reserves a more noble and ambitious role for Art; namely, to create high standards of thinking and behavior, thus offering psychological, ideological and aesthetic motivation for man to overcome the inherent weaknesses of his/her nature and reach these standards.

Robert Guédiguian's wonderful movie "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" (France, 2011) masterfully balances between these two opposite philosophical trends. On the one hand, there are the hard realities of our time: the economic recession and consequent unemployment, the growing youth resorting to crime, the refutation of the visions of the Left, and the (non-glorious) compromise of the latter with modern neoliberalism where there is no social care for the weak.

On the other hand –and these are the elements progressively dominating the film up to the final catharsis- scenes of incredible beauty parade through the eyes of the viewer, exhibiting a triumph of friendship, humanity, forgiveness, solidarity (a worthy substitute for absent state care)... And, above all, love and togetherness that keep a marriage alive over time and against the difficult challenges of life!

We left the theater full of positive thoughts and feelings. Finally leaving behind the painful memories of sickening movies by Michael Haneke or the Coen brothers...