Rabbit Hole

Rabbit Hole - or 'How I learned to stop worrying and love Nicole Kidman'

Since Moulin Rouge, Nicole Kidman has done nothing that I liked except that time she went to a premier with a heck of a lot of powder over her face. While it was hilarious, it was also incredibly awkward - much like The Stepford Wives. So when I saw she was in a movie adaptation of the play Rabbit Hole, I immediately clenched.

Kidman doesn't handle fluff films very well, her whispery delivery and statuesque frame don't lend themselves to slapstick, and her forehead's range of motion restricts reaction-comedy. I refer you to the beginning third of Australia where Kidman played some kind of hysterical satire of her own style of acting. Practically unwatchable.

Fast-forward to 2011, where John Cameron Mitchell, director of cult classics such as Shortbus and Hedwig and the Angry Inch (Mitchell playing the titular character), is able to squeeze an incredibly moving and charming performance from what many thought to be an orange with no juice left.*

I'm getting ahead of myself so I'll give a brief summation. Life for Becca (Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) is turned upside-down after an accident robs them of their son. Based on the play by the same name, and expanded for the screen by the play's author David Lindsay-Abaire, Rabbit Hole is a dark exploration of a couple dealing with grief as individuals and as a couple. Having never seen the play I can't comment on the film in terms of adaptation, however as I understand it - the play was obviously expanded to include other characters, like those in the group therapy scenes.

As mentioned before, Mitchell has directed two films with strong cult followings, however this film is a sharp dislocation from his previous work. There's directorial maturity to the film, maybe it's all the muted tones of the suburban furniture, maybe it's the twitch of movement in Kidman's brow,** I can't say for sure, but the film is fantastic.

Eckhart, who has done theatre before, really shines as tortured and breaking under the pressure to appear strong, while Kidman plays everything with a neat subtlety. The script is littered with sass and wit, which makes you want to laugh one minute, and bawl your face off the next. The entire cast is fantastic, including Dianne Wiest as Becca's mother, Nat, and Miles Teller as Jason.

What I don't understand is, Kidman gives a performance far superior to the one she gave in The Hours, far superior to ANYTHING to do with Black Swan*** so why Portman is stealing all the press, I'll never understand. This is one of those films that could so easily fly under the radar. Unlike Revolutionary Road, this doesn't have the quirk of two actors reuniting for the first time since Kate Winslet hogged a door. Also unlike Revolutionary Road, this story is so much richer, with a depth of character and story that is just so fulfilling. I would love to hear from someone if they didn't enjoy this film, because I think it would be difficult to find. Also I like telling people they're wrong.****

*I'll take subtle redhead jokes for 200, Alex
** While I haven't researched it, I'm quite sure this was a result of similar technology used in Tron to make Jeff Bridges look younger.
***Whenever I write the title of that film I vomit acid and a ridiculously terrible script all over the desk, these are just the sacrifices I make for my art.
**** BLACK SWAN FANS, I'M TALKING TO YOU. Now excuse me while I clean up all this acid.

Blue Valentine

Blue Valentine - or 'Thank goodness I'm going to die alone'.

I'm always prepared to enjoy an indie film that looks completely depressing or soul destroying. In fact, the more outrageously depressing a film, the more likely I am to really enjoy it. Which is why I was really looking forward to watching Blue Valentine, directed by Derek Cianfrance and starring Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling. Well, I was looking forward to it because it looked depressing but also because I heard rumors you got to see Ryan Gosling's bum.

The film centers on Dean (Gosling) and Cindy (Williams) at two points in their life. First, we meet the two and their adorable daughter, Frankie, at their home. Married, their lives seem to have run to a point where they seem to have lost all feelings for each other. This storyline of a loveless marriage is intercut with memory-like scenes of the two before they had met, idealistic about love and marriage, leading to their inevitable meeting.

At a heavy 112 minutes, Blue Valentine is not without its problems, which I think stem from Cianfrance's history as a documentary filmmaker. Writing and directing the film, Cianfrance's influence can be traced to the hyperrealism of the script. Arguments in the film seem to run through similar patterns - Dean and Cindy talk over each other, repeat each other, get distressed and stutter. At times it almost feels like there was no script, and the two are just so in character that they're riffing off of each other. It's fascinating to watch in terms of performance, and it certainly adds to several quite confronting scenes, however I feel like there was a poignancy that was lost in the dialogue. While a lot was said in the film, there isn't actually a lot of depth to it. Instead, Cianfrance seems to want his viewers to infer what he is trying to say, to watch the gradual decline of love through gesture and intricate reactions.

Both Gosling and Williams are wonderful to watch, and they truly do a good job of what couldn't be an easy character to play, I just feel like the format of the script was a major downfall in the film. That being said, I do believe this is a very new take on the love story genre, and the marketing of the film as 'a love story' is indeed very clever.

While I didn't mind the film, I think Cianfrance will go on to do bigger and better things.

Catfish

Catfish - or 'Why you probably shouldn't take someone you met off the internet to this movie.'

In order to really convey my thoughts about Catfish, I'll have to address the plot, which unfortunately gives away the main drive of seeing this film - the truth. In order to do so I shall write a brief teaser/critique, followed by four hash marks, where I will then freely talk about the plot, spoilers and all. Please see the film before reading ahead. As a great deal of the promotional material states - the less you read about this film, the better.

One of the other fantastic quotes I read really summarized the experience of Catfish for me: "If THE SOCIAL NETWORK is Facebook's origin story, then CATFISH deals with the consequences" (source unknown). The story is of Photographer Nev Schulman, who shares an office with filmmakers Ariel (Nev's brother) and Henry Joost. Nev recieves a painting of one of his photographs from an incredibly talented eight-year-old artist from Michigan - and the two force a unique friendship via Facebook. This friendship then expands from eight-year-old Abbey to her mother, Angela, half-sister Megan, Angela's husband and a variety of the family's friends from Michigan.

After this relationship is developed, Ariel and Henry become more and more intrigued with the situation, and begin making a documentary about the dynamic between the Pierce family and Nev, paying special attention to the romance blossoming between Nev and Megan. Much of the controversy of the film comes from the fact that people don't believe it to be real - however meeting the film's three mains (Joost and the Schulman’s) I will honestly say I believe the film to be totally factual, if they're fooling their audience, they fooled me. The film is completely simple, but it's gut-wrenching, horrifying and oddly mesmerizing. Not harmed by Nev's odd humor and off-handed comments, or the fraternal bickering throughout the film, it's a very interesting paring of social media and film. The film is being released within Australia in upcoming weeks, and I highly recommend you see it, especially if you speak to other social media users you've never actually met. Without spoiling anything, I can honestly say I really enjoyed the film, and with high expectations, I was not letdown whatsoever. Documentaries can so often be dry and slow, but this film manages to build tension, character and lead the audience by the hand down a story, which twists and turns like you wouldn't believe to be true. While most of the time is spent trying to decode if the men are actually 'acting' or faking any of the film, suspend your disbelief for 86 minutes, and allow yourself to really engage in the story, you wont be disappointed.

If, by chance, these three men have duped audiences, and have crafted a film so well to fool people into believing its sincerity, I'd still recommend it. The truth of the story only engages the viewer more so in thinking about how often we interact with those we really know nothing about. Too much time has already been spent nitpicking the veracity of the film, personally I find it to be a waste of energy. The woman next to me in the cinema obviously thought the film to be fictitious, and had already assigned herself to that long before the film had finished - she then huffed and rolled her eyes for an hour or so, and completely disengaged. It wouldn't have bothered me but her dress was really ugly.

Make sure you wear something cute, and do go see this film.

####

SPOILERS TO FOLLOW:

In all honesty, I thought this film was going to take a Cloverfield-esque turn and have Nev killed horribly by a deranged farmer or mutated squid creature hiding behind a shed. When the men approach Megan's horse ranch there was just such a perfect moment for some kind of chainsaw massacre to occur, and the very fact that I had no idea what the major 'twist' was allowed me to come to several insane conclusions at once, hyping myself up to the point where when the truth was revealed, even that itself was still incredibly twisted.

I will admit there are some things that have left questions which raised the questions in my head - were the filmmakers already quite aware that the Pierce family was not what they appeared to be much earlier than they pretended to, yet continued their 'journey of discovery' in order to have a better plot? The fact that Nev never followed up on the delivery of the postcards, or the fact that many of the facebook profiles only had 10-15 friends, *no one* only has 10 friends. Even my mother has about 200, and she has trouble remembering how to scroll with a trackpad. But even still the scenes of discovery were amazing, when the men were finding the original artists of the songs Angela 'records' is fantastic. One can’t help but smile through the whole thing, fascinated by what is actually happening.

What I also found incredibly interesting is once Angela's truth is revealed, the film never really portrays her as a villain or as an insane person, but as someone tortured. When she is drawing Nev and begins to talk 'as Megan', I was actually horrified, not just for Nev (though mainly) but for Angela as well. Her husband's monologue, where the title of the film hails from, is beautiful but also devastating. In fewer words, Vince tells the camera plainly that his wife may have aspirations, but she chose to abandon them and stay with him. To him, she obviously made the right decision, to the audience it is not as clear.

I'm still tentative to say that this film is completely true, but I do believe there is a lot of truth behind it, and even more important - I think it's a fantastic exploit of film and internet. While The Social Network really lays out the genius behind facebook, Catfish lays out the genius of the users, I can only hope this is the beginning of a new kind of documentary, one that documents human experience in real-time with the audience.

Burlesque

Burlesque - or 'What's the hardest thing about seeing Burlesque?'

The same thing as taking up roller-skating - coming out to your parents. This 'review' will probably have a lot of gay jokes in it- but I don't think you could really expect anything else, considering the only people who will be interested in this movie are homosexual men and straight women with a lot of homosexual friends and/or glitter fetishists.

Oddly, for a film that is supposed to be all about jazz-hands and theatrics, the beginning of this film is really sudden, so sudden in fact that most of the theatre patrons didn't actually realize the film had actually started. When it does however, abrubtly begin, we meet Ali (Christina Aguilera’s acting debut) in a small town in Iowa. Sick of working as a waitress, she decides she's going to move to LA to become, well, a waitress - but IN LA! The writing in this film is really consistently awful, but by buying your ticket, you're obviously going for the showmanship, Cher's comeback and Aguilera’s vocals.

My problems with this film are simple, and in list form:

1. The horrific laziness of the script - for instance, in order to give Cher a second number, rather than writing a bonding duet between Ali and Tess (Cher), the crafty writers simply put this dialogue in;

Lighting guy: "Hey Tess, you need to rehearse the moody ballad we'll never mention again because you need a second number."

Cher: "UGH. Being a performer sure is a tough life. Let me just perform my spanx off."

2. This is going to be a caps-heavy problem, so I apologize beforehand. Alan Cumming is in this film. You wouldn't actually know it from any of the film's publicity, nor would you know it from watching the film. Alan Cumming is like a beacon of amazing burlesque/cabaret heaven. He gets four lines. FOUR LINES. ALAN CUMMING IS NOT A DOORMAN. While Stanley Tucci makes for a fantastic Sean, Tess' right-hand man, but I honestly cannot believe in a film about burlesque, someone as seductive and talented as Alan Cumming is THE DOORMAN. This did not work for me at all. Also I can't believe that the guy Stanley Tucci played in The Devil Wears Prada moved to a small Burlesque club in LA. TYPECASTING.

3. Christina Aguilera has two emotions, confused and sultry. There was almost a slapstick kind of element to Ali's expression range, walking the streets of LA with her index finger at her pouted lips and a glazed look across her face. Then, instantly she becomes a sex kitten.

4. Kirsten Bell should have sung. KRISTEN BELL SHOULD HAVE SUNG.

5. Cam Gigandet is seriously good looking. But a man that dresses like he does, and wears eyeliner as well as he does is not a heterosexual male lead. That man is Adam Lambert's more attractive double.

Basically, my major critique of the film comes down to one confusing point: Christina Aguilera has had a successful career for more than a decade - yet this film seemed to be a vehicle to showcase her voice, with special cameo by Cher. The cast was a mixed bag of seasoned stage performers, so why aren't there more ensemble numbers? Even Kristen Bell and Alan Cumming doing a duet would have given me a Cabaret-boner to last at least 72 hours. And then the ever-necessary battle of the divas - a Cher/XTina duet. The film should have finished with one. It would have been predictable, cheesy, and a perfect way to end a film that had embraced both those qualities with open, shimmery arms!

All in all, this movie is one glittery hot mess, and I loved it. I looked past the fact that the script seemed to have been written in forty minutes and Cher's frightening appearance and accepted the film for what it was supposed to be -incredibly camp fun.

Tron: Legacy

Tron Legacy - or 'How the Combination of Daft Punk and 3D Films may have cured my Vertigo'

Just kidding about the Vertigo thing- if anything the film made me a bit nauseous and I'm still kind of dizzy. For some reason whenever I go into a 3D film I immediately turn into every octogenarian, complete with dizzy-spells and complaints about 'kids these days'.

Visually this movie was stunning - and I'm not talking about the Benjamin Button Shit they did to Jeff Bridges' face - and the music was great. Though on the topic of music, I can't say I understand why everyone is so excited about Daft Punk's soundtrack. I can honestly only remember one scene where the music wasn't comprised of that "VROOOOOM" noise made famous in the trailer for Inception.

The film itself is not a groundbreaking story; a sequel to the 1982 film Tron, director Joseph Kosinski continues the story of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), and his grid world. Back in 1982, Flynn disappears, leaving his young son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) without so much as a quarter. After some business with his father's company and a pager (such technology even existed? Can you imagine?) Sam then discovers his father's secret office, and secret computer where he did his secret business. Sam is transported into the grid, and must find his father and escape before the unfriendly local villain (Kevin Flynn's double, Clu) is able to kill the Flynns and take over earth. Republicans, you just can't trust them.

I was about to say, "obviously there's more than that" but there actually isn't. It's a simple plot - Bridges actually brought a Zen Buddhist as a story consultant in order to add a sense of spirituality to the film - but honestly all of that is really heavy-handed and I almost pulled an eye-rolling muscle. Sam describes his father's meditation as "knocking on the sky and listening to the sounds" or some such rubbish. Pause for momentary vomit and roll of the eyes break.

Olivia Wilde as Quorra was surprising, a wonderful mix of two incredibly overdone models of female action characters - both the strong fighter and the vulnerable doe-eyed character. But none of the characters were really written in a way that made me care for them at all. If I’m honest, I was waiting for a major character to die as my attention wavered while they were just sitting on a train or flying something.

Also - I'll have to admit, the one major thing that really confused me was that Tron isn't the grid. It's a guy. Tron is actually a character in both the original and in Legacy. And he has one line. Going to this film and expecting anything other than fantastic visuals and a pretty basic plot is a mistake, but that isn't a critique on the film, in fact for what it was - I enjoyed it on the whole but I'm not sure I could watch it again. Nor do I have much faith the film will be interesting to own in 2D on DVD- without the graphics it's just a run of the mill sci-fi action flick where Garrett Hedlund hardly even takes his shirt off!

Black Swan

Black Swan - Or 'How I learned to stop worrying and watch Natalie Portman masturbate for two hours'.

It's dawning on me why so many people desperately see films on opening night. Hype is like a drug, a merciless and cruel drug that builds up your expectations then crushes your heart with saddening reality. Recently my general lethargy has meant that I have been late to see many highly recommended films - The Social Network being one - where the collective mind of society is imploding in orgasmic appreciation for the film, which afterwards leaves a dry taste in my mouth. Just like missing the punchline of a joke, hype makes you feel like you've missed the greatness of the film.

I will be honest, as a flagrant homosexual the idea of Natalie Portman, ballet and casual lesbianism is more arousing than I'd like to admit. Seeing the trailer for celebrated director Darren Aronofsky's dark 'psychological thriller' Black Swan was like soft-core pornography of the highest caliber. (Note: I say 'psychological thriller' in sarcastic finger-quotes because the film is no more a psychological thriller than Confessions of a Shopaholic, but more on that anon) So when I was given the opportunity to own quite a high quality version of the film more than a month before it's Australian release date- I jumped at the opportunity. I'll try and avoid writing about the plot too much for those who still haven't seen it (it is not released in Australia for another few weeks). However the main plot focuses on Nina, a ballet dancer in a company who is given the lead role in Swan Lake. Nina must embody two parts of the same role, the fragile and pure White Swan and it's evil conniving twin, the Black Swan. Feeling the pressure of perfection, Nina begins to feel concerns of being replaced, not being good enough, and needing to feel herself up all the damn time.

I mentioned the supposed genre of the film - a 'psychological thriller', yet the film does nothing to delve into the psychology of the characters, nor does it thrill. It attempts to shock the viewer into a state of frenzy to mirror that of frail and deeply unlikable main character Nina (Portman) with cheap and pointless scare tactics. In once scene Wynonna Ryder takes a nail file and begins stabbing her face - screaming, "I'M NOTHING, I'M NOTHING, I'M NOTHING." The irony was not lost on me, considering the same could be said of Wynonna's recent career - however I wasn't afraid, I wasn't overwhelmed, I was just amazed that this film had been going on as long as it had. Possibly the most psychologically taxing element of this film is that apparently every man within the ballet company is a heterosexual - still, days later I cannot understand this.

This is not an original film, what it is, however, is a combination of preexisting films, fused together for no real reason, which makes it clumsy and clunky. It's said that Aronofsky 'conceived the premise' after watching a production of Swan Lake and connecting it with a preexisting yet unrealized screenplay about understudies. This 'preexisting yet unrealized screenplay' being 1995 classic Showgirls, however where Black Swan is broody and confusing, Showgirls has boobs. So at the moment we have Black Showgirls, a film about ballet dancers fearing replacement. But what about the 'psychological' elements- lets add the concept perfected in the 1999 film adaption of Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club. One man, two characters - reality fractures and he is consumed with destruction. In Fight Club, we see one man's complete destruction, in Black Swan we see Natalie Portman go to the ULTIMATE rebellion against ballet and her mother (who I will dedicate a paragraph to in all good time) by having sex with a woman. I honestly don't think ballerinas would be so interested in oral sex - sounds like a lot of empty calories. So, combining these three filmic elements, Black Showgirl Club is born. I hesitate to call this movie Black Showgirl Club Shoes, including 1948 classic The Red Shoes because honestly the ballet elements of the film aren't original either, but I like the imagery of Black Showgirl Club. If Kanye calls his next album that, I want royalties.

Possibly the only redeeming part of this film for me was the character of the mother (Barbara Hershey). For no reason at all, the mother is insane, now it's debatable if some of her antics are just projections of Nina's insanity, or if she actually is just sitting up late at night painting pictures of Natalie Portman and weeping (but honestly, who hasn't done that?). Due to the ever exhausting character of Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) the ballet company director who really only exists in the film to remind the audience that Nina is pure and virginal and cannot achieve the darkness of the Black Swan- Nina is urged to (say this in a heavy French accent) "go 'ome and play wiz 'erself". Nina wakes up the next morning and decides to say good morning to the vicar downstairs - midway through mounting her own hand she turns and there, sitting next to her bed is HER MOTHER. Luckily she's asleep, but the situation alone is one of the funniest and most scaring scenes in the history of film. And I thought my mother liked to smother.

The film is like that, though. It's not subtle in the least. The plot itself is so overdone that one can pretty much guess what is going to happen within the first ten minutes of the film (extra time allotted if you haven't seen the trailer). Unlike Fight Club, there is no clever twist at the end because we know Nina is crazy, and by the time you've finally made it through her transformation from lacking any substance or personality to a sex-crazed, psychotic and uninterestingly crazed woman - you really don't care what happened to her mother's 'good girl' (remember that she's a good girl, you might forget in-between the four or five minutes where a character doesn't say it).

I would have given Aronofsky credit for creating an interesting element to the film by having all the characters within the film mirror that of the ballet - however he credits his characters with their character name AND the name of the character they're based off of in the ballet. Like the delicate kiss of being slapped in the testicle with a pregnant trout, Aronofsky actually spells everything out for the viewer. It's condescending and tiresome. Similarly, the cinematography - akin to that of his earlier film The Wrestler, shot close and using handheld cameras to create a sense of claustrophobia and psychological chaos - it's wasted in this film. Portman obviously went through strenuous dance training and it's not shown when the camera is shakily consumed with a shoulder or a knee rather than a distant, still shot of dance.

Understand these are my opinions only. I do not represent a majority with my reaction to this film - in fact I believe the only reason I'm so tragically upset by it is because I had such high expectations for its success. I plan to view the film, legally, in the cinema for a second time to see if my views change. If they do I will change my opinion here - however if they don't, I'll probably just have more of a reason to whine to my friends about how much time I wasted watching Natalie Portman masturbate in ballet shoes.

The Social Network

I'll admit I took my time seeing The Social Network, for no particular reason other than poorly timed final assignments and a general lethargy. When I finally had time to see 'the facebook movie', I had heard so many great things about it I was generally confused. How could a movie about the development of a website be so mind-blowingly miraculous that it makes your head and bowels explode in a Jackson Pollock-esque fantasia, and you cannot continue living until posting a hilarious status on your facebook, about the facebook movie. I did feel a bit like I was the last person to see this movie, after reading everyone on facebook's hilarious statuses about it - however I was pleased to see three or four elderly couples joining me the moving-going experience. Octogenarians may not have facebook, but they're suckers for a bargain movie ticket price.

Needless to say, no film can live up to the hype of the general public. Objectively, however, I did enjoy a lot of The Social Network. A retelling of the development of Facebook via the two lawsuits of creator, Mark Zuckerberg, the film tracks the highs and lows of Zuckerberg's creation, resulting in his monolithic fortune, and the relationships he sacrificed to get it.



My feelings on this film are conflicted; my undying love and potential stalking of writer Aaron Sorkin get in the way of criticizing the screenplay at all. Sorkin's particular heightened style of writing seemed perfectly suitable for this kind of film. Characters like Zuckerberg, socially awkward and incredibly intelligent, only accentuate Sorkin's incredible, fluid dialogue. While there were too many moments of characters looking longingly out windows only to be pulled back to reality by someone continuously calling their name, on the whole the script seemed quite strong. Moments of incredibly well timed comedy coupled with some very Sorkin monologues of revelation and denunciation, the cast seemed well equipped in this very particular style of script.

My one criticism of the plot, however, is quite major. On several occasions the film seemed to highlight moments that were completely irrelevant. During the opening credits, we are treated to a lengthy montage of Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) running through his college. Similar attention is lathered onto a regatta scene that simply leads into a conversation back to facebook. While I can understand the juxtaposition between the Adonis-like Winklevoss twins (both played by the stunningly attractive Armie Hammer) and Zuckerberg as old-world/new-world, I didn't need to see them losing a regatta to do so.

I'm not sure if blame should fall on Sorkin's screenplay or Director David Fincher, however my instincts (and blood oath to the church of Sorkin) point to the latter. Similarly, I questioned the choice of color filters used throughout, as, especially in the beginning of the film, there was a propensity towards using greenish-grey filters, commonly associated with dystopian/sci-fi films like The Matrix. While there were computers present in The Social Network, the color scheme almost made it seem like something extraordinary or action-packed was about to happen.

It wasn't.

As with the long shots of regattas and running, Fincher placed an underwhelming amount of energy into scenes like the 1 millionth facebook user or the creation of the site. While the regatta was paired with an epic score (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' re-do of In the Hall of the Mountain King) and an enema of enthused, wealthy British men, the 1 millionth user was greeted with lazy applause from Justin Timberlake and some computer generated fireworks.

All-in-all, I feel like it was a really nothing story, I didn't know if it was supposed to be redemption or condemnation of the entire process, nor do I know if the film really knew what it wanted to be - I feel like Fincher was not content simply making 'the facebook movie' and therefore attempted to lather it in techniques and artifice that just seemed to conflict with Sorkin's style of writing.

While enjoyable enough, I'm obviously in the minority thinking the film left more to be desired, but that isn't to say I didn't think it was quite enjoyable. I'd say it's a 6.5, pending friendship approval.

The Hedgehog

The story of an 11-year old wise beyond her years is a complex story to tell. In doing so, Muriel Barbery’s novel The Elegance of the Hedgehog uses her entire apartment block and her newfound love for documentary filmmaking, allowing the audience a first-hand look at Paloma Josse’s life (played by Garance Le Guillermic), or what is left of it. As we find out early in the Writer/Director Mona Achache’s 2009 film Le hérisson (The Hedgehog), Paloma has decided that on her twelfth birthday, she will kill herself, and end what she believes to be a pointless and tortured existence - to avoid being consumed by work (like her father), insanity (like her mother) or her own sense of self (like her sister). Before Paloma is able to go through with her dark deed, a gentleman, Kakuro Ozu (Togo Igawa) moves into the building, and with his help, the two begin to unlock the mysteries behind the building’s concierge, Renée Michel (Josiane Balasko)

The film walks the thin line between a comedy and a drama, dealing with incredibly morbid notions such as a suicidal 11-year old - whose approaches are eerily surgical and understandable ­­– to the concept of finding long after you gave up on yourself. There is a heavy critique of the French bourgeoisie, most of the people in the apartment block are vapid, fake and particularly unkind, trapped in what Paloma describes as a fish-bowl which she refuses to conform to. I had heard many reviews of the film dwelling on the fact that it was overly morbid to the point that it was uncomfortable, however there are some fantastic comic moments that are so understated it’s hard not to laugh-out-loud.

Long before Ozu’s character is introduced, there is a heavy crossover between French and Japanese cultures, while in the beginning this is heavy and overt; it settles mid-way through the film. The film disguises itself within the art of Meditation, and in highlighting the vast differences in two cultures, manages to create a cultureless environment where humanity is key. Ozu physically transforms his apartment from a typical French space to something so uniquely Japanese, complete with comical-robotic bathroom facilities. And while there is some culture-clash, the film is strongest when it is not bothering to comment on the difference in culture. Rather, the idea that within this culturelessness, human relationships are key, without those, there is nothing grounding us to anything.

The film uses a lot of various techniques to shift it from being a typical narrative to having long pauses of animation, introspection and voice-over, which again feel like a moment of meditation for the characters and audience simultaneously. I just wish there hadn’t been this use of sound-bites repeated over each other, which rather than being charming, came off as amateur and unnecessary.

While most people would shudder at the notion of a ‘senior love-story’, The Hedgehog really manages to make it charming to watch. Balasko is dumpy, unattractive, snappy and rude to most people, but as soon as she begins to open up, she blooms into this incredibly likeable and devastatingly charming character.

Balasko and Le Guillermic are both excellent, I can honestly say for two actresses at such different points in their lives, they both provide such different energies and spirits to the film that it’s really lovely to watch.

This film is not predictable, it is not smarmy, and it’s definitely not morbid. Heartbreaking as it is, this is one film I think not to be missed.

The Waiting City

Touted as the first Australian film to be entirely filmed in India, The Waiting City (2009) is Claire McCarthy's first major film. McCarthy wrote and directed the film after travelling to Calcutta with her sister. Whatever the motivation for the film, I'm excited to see what McCarthy produces after The Waiting City, as I believe time will only add to quite an elegant filmmaker. The film follows the story of Fiona Simmons (Radha Mitchell) and her husband Ben (Joel Edgerton), as they travel to Calcutta to collect the daughter they have adopted. Due to a series of administrative delays, the two are trapped in an interlude where they are forced to look at their relationship. With a flamboyant cast of Indian characters supporting them, led by their Driver, Bell Boy and Manservant, Krishna (Samrat Chakrabarti).

After seeing the trailer for the film, I had no intention of seeing it as the storyline looked overdone and clichéd, as if someone had taken any film about a struggling married couple and thrown them in India. However when I saw the director and main performers would be introducing the film, I ambled to the cinema with no real expectations. What I will say about the film is that I hated the first quarter. The writing horrifically clunky and reads very much like a student film. What irks me about McCarthy is that she seems to have the most eloquent understanding of people and is able to bring forward tiny details without making them too overt, Fiona's slight comments and comportment when she first arrives in India is so telling of her 'uptight' character. This quaint writing talent is then juxtaposed, and in my mind totally dwarfed, by a need to be very obvious with what is happening in the minds of characters. A story that is so based in a sense of reality and detail, and realistic self-discovery has the propensity to force characters to become caricatures; Fiona juggling telephones, Ben's artistic need to join everyone he meets in song. A businesswoman and an artist in a relationship, the Odd Couple theme music isn't required to get across the point that they're very different. Similarly some of the religious messages seem a tad misguided and only occasionally less than awkward.

The other problem with the film is this unnecessary secondary story-arc, Ben struggling to find his feet between being a real adult, and his drug-fueled musician past. This, coupled with the stunning Scarlet (Isabel Lucas) brings tension to Fiona and Ben's relationship. Isabel Lucas was in Transformers 2. I am still not entirely convinced that Isabel Lucas is not actually a robot, because she is not an actress. Harsh as that is, I can honestly track my enjoyment of The Waiting City by if Isabel Lucas is onscreen and/or talking. Mitchell, on the other hand, really gains momentum in the film.

Once the very pretty Scarlet takes a backseat role the film really begins to warm up, and finds its heart. To be clear, this isn't a film about overseas adoption, thank god, nor is it a film about India. The apolitical nature of the script allows the viewer to absorb some stunning scenic shots, and the interactions between Fiona and Ben, which really begin to gain strength in both their performances as their story progresses. The film actually contains a few narrative surprises that I honestly didn’t see coming, which was considerate. What could have been a very stale and overdone narrative really took on a life of its own.

While the emotional climax occurs when Ben sings what is possibly the hokiest first-draft of a teenage girl's poem to her crush is cringe-worthy, but on the whole the film embraces tiny, endearing moments that are far more powerful than the overt. I'm curious to see where McCarthy will go from here, in a waiting city of my own.

Mademoiselle Chambon

From Writer/director Stéphane Brizé, Mademoiselle Chambon (2009), an adaptation of Eric Holder's novel, tells the story of a married builder, Jean (Vincent Lindon), who falls in love with his son's teacher, the titular Mademoiselle Chambon (Sandrine Kiberlain). A simple enough story told through somewhat unconventional means, Brizé utilizes drawn out shots, lengthy pieces of classical music and silences which make 101 minutes feel like 45, however I'm not sure I'm convinced that is a strength of the film.

What began as a curios and charming portrait of family, loyalty and forbidden love, quickly became lost and confused, eventually finishing in neither a confronting or shocking resolution, rather the film simply placed the viewer back into the banality of Jean's life. Understandably the film opens with glimpses into Jean, his wife, Anne-Marie (Aure Atika) and their son's lives, happily sharing an afternoon attempting to work out Jérémy's (Arthur Le Houérou) grammar book. This is one example of Brizé's ability to present sincere realism, funny and sweet in a way that lacked all cliché or pretention. Then, faced with Jean caring for his aged father, we again are reassured this is a tight family unit. However all this is to change when Jean walks into his son's school to pick him up, meeting the charming and flawed Véronique Chambon. After their brief encounter, there is obviously something between them, and what develops is a passion beginning as tiny embers that burn and thrash until the two are unable to escape their passions for each other.

I believe the greatest strength of this film was the emotional manipulation Brizé is able to achieve. The audience is forced into the strange and sometimes confusing mindsets of both Jean and Véronique. When Jean leaves a rambling message on her answering machine, she doesn’t flinch to pick up and talk to him. The next call she gets, the audience expects the scene to repeat, perhaps this time she'll break and pick up, however it isn't Jean calling, it's her mother. Initially there's relief, yet as her mother begins to talk, there's disappointment. Why isn't he calling? The audience is physically thrust into this relationship, even if it is forbidden.

As I mentioned earlier, Brizé's use of a sincere realism really adds a much-needed charm to the film, Véronique arranging cakes on a plate in the shape of a smiley-face or the awkward conversations she has with Jean in the beginning of their relationship give you something tangible, a connection with the characters that can otherwise be missing in the heavy scenes of softly delivered dialogues.

The use of music in the film is poignant, i'll give it that, but it didn't seem to anchor itself in the film enough. Obviously the beauty of the violin and the piano (arguably symbols for Véronique and Jean - "more beautiful as an ensemble than separate") are integral to the passion between the two, which is then juxtaposed by the provincial song which concludes the film - a signal that Jean has left behind his notions of his more 'cultured' life with Chambon and is settling for his pragmatic life with his family.

I feel somewhat ambivalent to the film, I didn't feel any emotional connection to any of the characters, if anyone I felt sympathy for Anne-Marie, the wife, which I doubt was the point. The film read like a series of snapshots - on their own they were beautiful, poetic and very well produced, however they did not fit together as a metaphorical album, the connective thread just didn't seem to be there. As individual scenes, I could see a great deal of beauty and clever direction, but when they were placed side-by-side, it became almost overwhelming, heavy and ineffective.

I am not, and don't think I would commit to, saying that I did not enjoy the film, I am saying that I don't think it was something I would happily recommend simply because it wasn't whole. I feel like it was lacking heart and a solidness that could have made it a really potent story about love and an impossible decision.

I am Love

You can tell from the poster, Io Sono l'Amore (I am Love) is not a generic Hollywood film, even the opening credits harken back to classic European cinematography, which should serve as a warning to those hoping to see a a love-story. Tilda Swinton dethrones herself from forever being seen as the White Witch in the Narnia films and steps into the fall of the haute bourgeois at the hands of passion, and unrestricted love. This is a gracious film, while many may compliment it by crowning it a 'beautiful film’; the director unselfishly provides a fantastic and raw story, complete with a cast of complicated and real characters. While not always easy to watch, the film - as cinema - is near perfection, if you consider yourself a fan of cinema, especially European cinema, this is a film you should not miss.

On the surface, you could simply say the plot centers on Emma (Swinton) and her affair with her son's friend Antonio (the confusingly sexy Edoardo Gabbriellini). If you want to push deeper, as Swinton herself has spoke of many times, the film may read as an allegory to capitalism, and the self-destruction behind those that have too much wealth and not enough love. I prefer to see this film as a far more moving family portrait. Edoardo Sr (Gabriele Ferzetti), patriarch of the Recchi family even announces: "Our family fortune, is built on unity." This is exactly what the film begins with; a family built on unity, structured and together. With the undercurrents of unhappiness are all but apparent, it is not until Emma begins to have what appears to be a hedonistic affair with Antonio's cooking. Her curiosity begins with fascination, her lust with a single bite. While the rest of the family begins to unravel, Emma becomes helpless in love, helpless in loss - helpless in life.

An argument for true auteurism, this film does not tell you everything; you leave the theatre still contemplating the lives of the characters - a gift that can only be attributed to the Writer/Director Luca Guadagnino. Emma's identity itself is only a creation of her husband, as she is just as much a product as the industry her husband's factory creates, and finally 'Emma' is reduced to what she began as - not existing.

There are so many scenes in this film that are touching, shocking or moving – juxtaposed with great silences and quiet movements of snow crunching or heels clipping hardwood floors. The entire film is a visceral feast for the senses; poetic, clever and stunning, one of the best films this year has provided.

Mother and Child

Written and directed by Rodrigo García Mother and Child (2009) hinges its entire story on the delicate relationships between mothers and their children. The son of Gabriel García Márquez, storytelling is rife within García's blood, a skill which reveals itself slowly throughout Mother and Child. The film is not without flaw, in fact a bulk of the script comes off as clunky and awkward, but the true beauty of this film comes in the moments between what is being said.

Imagining the film like a web of interconnected people, it begins close with the story of Karen, the stunningly heart-breaking Annette Benning, who became pregnant at fourteen, and gave up her child for adoption the day of its birth. Thirty-seven years later Karen's life revolves around her elderly mother, the woman who "ruined her life" by forcing her to give up her child. All grown up, Karen's child, Elizabeth (Naomi Watts), is a successful lawyer who begins an affair with her boss (Samuel L. Jackson) and married father-to-be neighbor (Marc Blucas). While it is never fully revealed, it is inferred that Elizabeth's upbringing was not the most idillic, however after moving around for most of her adult life, she has settled down in the hometown of her birth-mother, yet neither woman is actively seeking the other. At the same time, we meet Lucy (Kerry Washington) a woman unable to give her husband the one thing he wants, a son of their own, turns to adoption as a final solution.

Through these three women we meet a constantly expanding cast of mothers, lovers, children and friends all of which provide some input to the various approaches to adoption, parenting and love. Admittedly I went into the film knowing nothing about it, after one of those days you'd rather hide away under the covers, so unexpectedly I sat in the theatre alone, constantly having to readjust myself so no one could see me weeping like the emotionally stable person I truly am. I think the power in this film comes from an immaculate cast and a wonderful cinematography. As I mentioned before, García's writing did grate me the wrong way for some portions of the film, but he is a master at quiet moments of introspection which I felt really made up for heavy dialogue.

As I mentioned, Annette Benning was lovely to watch, her only rival was a surprisingly fantastic performance by Kerry Washington, who I was unfamiliar but totally enthralled by. The character of Karen was obviously one the director loved, her quirks and blunt approach to people exposing her as the fourteen year-old that was never able to move forward with her life - "I'm not a weirdo. I'm difficult." Washington, on the other hand, gave one of those performances that are theatrical in nature, complete and well-formed. Possibly one of the best scenes - the others being any of the early moments of Karen's interactions with Paco (Jimmy Smits) - occurs when Lucy's mother is called in to assist the new mother after sleepless nights. These are the moments when the film truly comes alive.

Like his father, García's notion of time does not follow any strict pattern, he takes small steps in the timelines of his characters, yet launches the spectator months into the future without much notice. Sex featured a few times in the film, and on the whole it was well done, almost poetic, however a scene with Elizabeth and her boss was too much for me, a film that was so littered with innocence and passion did not need what felt like a cheap porno interlude. Obviously not without problems, the film is easy to watch, but I do believe you need to be in a particular mindset to really enjoy it, that mindset being completely devoid of happiness. I'm not sure I would recommend this film to just anyone, it has a necessity of viewership that forces you to ignore the troubled dialogue of religion and sex - or the terrible use of swearing that comes off as so labored - or every character's want to divulge their innermost philosophies at the drop of a hat. That's the world García exists in, the world he has created, a world of philosophizing and missed connections, a world of mothers and their children.