Passion for Movies

The horrors inflicted by holocaust and the insane ideology behind it harbor a lot of deeply affecting incidents, which could still bring in some new perspective to that era’s distorted principles. However, the sentimental approach and a typical style of inordinate direction have made the milieu of post-war Germany a stale subject. The old European auteurs like Alain Resnais (“Hiroshima mon Amour”), Roberto Rossellini (“Germany, Year Zero”), Rainer Werner Fassbinder (“The Marriage of Maria Braun”) tried to explore the psychological fallout of the people, living in post-war & holocaust Europe, whereas most other films extorted melodrama from the same subject. Six decades have gone past since the end of Second World War and Germany of 1945 is widely considered as out-of-date scenario in films. But, German auteur Christian Petzold’s recent film “Pheonix” (2014) proves that you could still render the trauma of that era in intimate terms.

In “Phoenix”, Petzold studies the themes of guilt, the scarred notions of national & personal identity, and asks many moral questions without seeking easy answers. He doesn’t take a vain attempt to explain the actions of Germans during the Nazi regime. His story is powered by yet another incredible performance by Nina Hoss (sixth collaboration of Petzold and Hoss). In the movie’s opening reel, a car is stopped near a check-post by US soldiers. In the passenger seat, a woman writhes in pain, her face covered in blood-soaked bandages. It is revealed that the woman named Nelly (Nina Hoss) is a survivor from Auschwitz, who had undergone severe torture. She is driven to Berlin face surgeon by her friend, Lene Winter (Nina Kunzendorf).

The surgeon says that there is no chance to reconstruct her original face. He even says that ‘a new face can be an advantage’. It could be an advantage since Nelly has lost all her loved ones, and this new face may help her re-build an identity in a damaged nation. But, Nelly the singer just wants to live her old life (the one before all the wars) with her pianist husband, Johannes aka Johnny (Ronald Zehrfeld). Lene informs Nelly that since most of her family members are dead, she has inherited large amount of money. Lene also warns that it is Johnny who has betrayed Nelly to the Nazis. The dilapidated streets and demolished houses doesn’t offer any solace for Nelly, and so she searches for her husband.

She finds him in a Cabaret bar, working as a janitor. She calls ‘Johnny’, and he turns and looks past her. The first time he watches the ‘new Nelly’, he thinks she is there to find some work. Later, Johnny realizes that she bears some sort of resemblance to his dead wife, Nelly. He drags her to his basement apartment and pitches an idea: to impersonate pre-war Nelly in order to claim the inheritance. Johnny says they can split it 50-50. In the ensuing weeks, Johnny hides her in his apartment and teaches her how to be the old singer Nelly. And, Nelly rather than revealing her re-constructed identity tries to sew together her old personality. But, she is also grappled with a doubt on whether he knowingly betrayed her to the Nazis.

The storyline might seem implausible, but the scope of Petzold’s film is largely metaphorical. Johnny actions may seem dubious since he knows all the little details about his wife’s movements. But, his failure to recognize Nelly sort of makes a comment on how we connect all our idealized memories to the face. The war which has damaged Johnny’s psyche only allows him to come up with an idealized image of Nelly, the ebullient singer. The story offers loads of chances to fill it with violent or melodramatic confrontations, but Petzold’s steady hands avoid those convenient elements, saving all those fireball of emotions. Nelly’s existential dilemma and her quest to re-build an identity functions as a allegory for all the people affected by war, who struggle to forget their blemished past.

Petzold also tries to imbue his character’s psyche through certain images rather than trite dialogues. In one scene, we suddenly see Nelly without bandages rummaging through her demolished house. On a broken mirror on the floor, she alarmingly looks at her reconstructed face for the first time. It is hard to believe that Nelly hasn’t seen her new face in the hospital, but then the broken mirror and her face in it suddenly become a symbol of her fractured inner and outer self. The riveting cinematography of Hans Fromm uses the dark and light colors to go in synch with the protagonist’s dilemma (especially in the scene when Nelly tells her reasons for finding Johnny to Lene). The initial noir-like images of the dilapidated city also offers a haunting quality to the proceedings.

Director Christian Petzold (right) and actor Ronald Zehrfeld

Nevertheless, movie wouldn’t have been as compelling as it is, if not for the complex performance of Nina Hoss. Petzold offers a gutsy ending, the one which doesn’t have a warped sense of resolution. This eloquent ending takes us through variety of emotions because of the sensitive & sublime reactions of Hoss. It is the kind of ending that leaves us wanting more unlike other Holocaust or post-war films that overstays its welcome. Eventually, the way Nelly walks out of the frame sort of symbolizes the uninhibited scars left behind by that historical period.

“Phoenix” (98 minutes) is an effective portrait of a disfigured woman & nation yearning to find a way to re-build. It inquires into history’s most traumatic period from a deeply psychological perspective.

Trailer

Phoenix -- IMDb

The Gallipoli Campaign or the Battle of Cannakale is often considered as the campaign which awakened the national consciousness of Australia and New Zealand. Like the ‘Remembrance & Armistice’ days, the ‘Anzac day’ (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, on April 25^th) represents the vital commemoration of military casualties, suffered by these two nations in the Gallipoli battle. The battle also marks the humiliating retreat of the Allies (British& France) in the WW1 and bestowed greatest victory for the crumbling Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Although 110,000 men died in the battle, the Australian continent’s losses hold a special significance because it is widely believed that those men were sacrificed due to the incompetence of British Leadership. On the Turkish side, the Gallipoli Battle brought Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to prominence, who played a very significant role in the Turkish War of Independence and declaration of Republic Turkey (from the ruins of Ottoman Empire, in 1922).

As the 100^th anniversary of Anzac Day is on the horizon, actor Russell Crowe has got both behind and in front of the camera to make big-hearted drama on the Gallipoli Battle. The 51 year old Oscar-winning director makes his directorial debut with “The Water Diviner” (2014), in which he goes back to play the rugged man from Australian Outback. Crowe doesn’t tackle the gruesome battlefields of Cannakale. When the movie starts, the wise senior Turkish military officer Major Hasan (Yilmaz Erdogan) leads his to men to the enemy trenches, only to find out that the ‘Allied troops’ have retreated from the island. Then we see an Australian farmer, Joshua Connor (Russell Crowe) with his dog tries the ancient art of dowsing to find water.

He digs through a particular point in the parched land and for a stirring second Daniel-Day Lewis’ Daniel Plainview comes to our mind. But, Joshua is more exuberant when he finds the water and returns to home, where his wife (Jacquline Mckenzie) asks him to read Arabian Nights to their sons. Joshua hesitates, says he is ‘bone-tired’, but his wife compels him to read. Joshua reads, and the camera zooms out to show us three empty beds. The year is 1919 and it’s been four years since the death of Josua’s three sons. The couple couldn’t give their sons a proper Christian burial, since the whole town of ‘Cannakale’ was turned into mass grave, leaving no time to identify the bodies. Joshua’s distraught wife drowns herself one day. He begs (and even bribes) the priest to bury his wife on consecrated ground. Joshua also promises that he will bring back the remains of his sons, and bury it next to her.

Joshua travels to Turkish Peninsula, which is now under the control of British Administration. They wouldn’t allow him to enter into the island, claiming that it is a militarized zone, where Allied forces and Turkish officers are collaboratively working to retrieve their men’s bodies to give a proper burial. In Istanbul, Josua stays a hotel, run by a beautiful & young widow (Olga Kurylenko) and her cute son. His relationship with mother & son travels on the overly sentimental territory, but the narrative holds strong whenever Joshua comes across Major Hassan. Both are morally upright men trying to trust one another.

From the historical perspective, Crowe does justice by exploring and respecting the Turkish side too. He depicts how the Gallipoli victors were transformed to ailing losers at the end of their WW1 campaign. Crowe acknowledges that the losses didn’t just belonged to the Australian side, but to everyone involved in the battle. However, at times you could feel that Crowe & his writers (Andrew Knight & Andrew Anastasios) have been overly sympathetic to the plight of Turkey after Ottoman Empire’s collapse. There’s been a proud mention of ‘Mustafa Kemal’ and sad comments about how ‘rebellious Greeks’is pillaging the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Since “The Water Diviner” is also a film about the subtle friendship between Australian farmer and Turkish Army man, the script didn’t bother to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide (in fact the Australian government denies to consider the mass killing of Armenians by Turk army as ‘genocide) or the massacre of Greeks (between 1919-22). That mistake could be overlooked for this storyline. And, Crowe too doesn’t portray battle as the event that dignifies human spirit.

Director Crowe effectively showcases the despair & darker side of the battlefield, capturing the stench and sickness. There’s a sad ironical depth to Joshua’s gift (the recurring water motif), which is portrayed in a scene, where in a parched land (similar to the earlier scene in Australian Outback) Joshua uses his skill to find his sons’ remains. There’s also an allegorical touch in the way Joshua’s newly found love interest Ayeshe (Olga) profoundly interprets cups of coffee. As far as their psychic energy, they make up for a better couple. Alas, those scenes between Crowe and Olga come off as very cutesy. Ayeshe’s character sketch -- the widowed woman – doesn’t rise above the Turkish national stereotype. Performance wise, Crowe does justice to his role, keeping away his outsized personality, to give us an understated performance. Ryan Corr gives a genuinely heartrending performance, especially in that gruesome flashback scene towards the end. Crowe and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie (“Lord of the Rings” trilogy) repletes the frame with exquisite images, full of distinctive symbolisms.

“The Water Diviner” (111 minutes) is a crowd-pleasing war drama, which makes some commendable statements on tolerance, forgiveness, and redemption (do you think it is right to use the words ‘crowd-pleasing’ and ‘war’in the same phrase?).

Trailer

The Water Diviner -- IMDb

American Independent movies seem to be fascinated by the concept of ‘cult’ in recent times. We have had the enigmatic and philosophical “The Sound of My Voice” about a charismatic cult leader (Brit Marling) claiming to have come from the year 2054. There was this haunting psychological thriller “Martha Marcy May Marlene” (2011) about a young, damaged girl (Elizabeth Olsen) who suffers with painful memories after escaping from a cult. Ti West and Kevin Smith’s atmospheric horror-thrillers “The Sacrament” and “Red State” were also about mysterious cults. Writer-director Riley Stearns for his feature film directorial debut also takes the subject of cult, but in his “Faults” (2014), he approaches the same subject from a strangely funny point of view. The storyline has many predictable elements, but its intriguing message and the couple of fascinating primary characters keeps us engaged.

Ansel Roth (Leland Orser) is a middle-aged guy who has let his life walk all over himself. When we first see him he is in a restaurant of a posh hotel and attempts to pass off a voucher for the meal. The manager insists on cash since Ansel has used the voucher previous night. He pours ketchup on the plate and eats it with a fork, and the manager forcefully throws out Ansel. He then picks up a board announcing that Dr. Ansel Roth is there to introduce his new book on cults and mind control. He claims to be a leading expert on these topics to his disinterested audiences. A man gets up, physically and mentally humiliates Ansel for what he did to the man’s sister. The audiences doesn’t bother about this encounter and they remain serene as if they are attending a funeral.

It seems that Ansel’s profession has died a long time ago. He is the guy who has had his own TV show and was author of a best-selling book. A professional scandal claimed all his wealth. His wife divorced him and got the rights to his best-seller. Eventually the guy lost his credibility and confidence. Ansel has become the man, who steals batteries from hotel room’s TV remote, and the one who asks $5 to sign his book. He is also submerged in debts to his manager Terry (Jon Gries) and the new book Follower: Inside The Mind Of The Controlled is a total failure. The distressed Ansel in his desperate search for money comes across an old couple (Beth Grant and Chris Ellis), who begs him to save their daughter Claire (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) from the cult ‘faults’.

Ansel in his own words says that ‘he doesn’t give a shit about his profession’, but since he has hit rock bottom, he agrees to do the job. Ansel also warns the couple about the risks involved in ‘deprogramming’and that they may not really get their old daughter. Soon Ansel kidnaps Claire and transports her to a motel room to make her believe the fraudulent activities of her cult. Claire’s parents have taken a room next door and something is wrong with these two. As the DE-programming progresses, we lean more about Claire and Ansel, although it becomes hard to say who is controlling who.

The constant humiliations and assaults endured by the story’s protagonist Ansel sort of reminds us of the Coen brothers’ protagonists. The silly and insecure activities of Ansel might seem as an element to provide comic relief since the second & third acts mostly concentrates on paranoia and dramatic tension of the story. But, these countless petty actions make us empathize with this individual, who was once a trusted authority figure. It is interesting that writer/director Stearns has approached the sad-sack of a character from a darkly comic viewpoint rather than using teary monologues. We could also perfectly feel Ansel’s humiliation and unyielding stress because of Leland Orser’s terrific performance, who himself has only played marginalized characters in blockbuster or mainstream movies (“Taken”, “The Guest”, “The Bone Collector”, “Pearl Harbor”). In the 2^ndhalf of the film, Orser provides a window to look into his characters’ bafflement and determination to regain control.

The character of Claire is another intriguing element in the movie, which was played by Winstead (director Stearns’ wife). She is fascinatingly mysterious. Her silence, challenging gaze, and half-finished sentences imbue a disquieting nature to the proceedings. As the conversation progresses in the motel room, Claire’s looks sort of conveys us that she is playing a con game with Ansel. Visually, Riley Stearns doesn’t do much to elevate the conniving premise. The TV, VHS tape and lack of mobile phones conveys us that the story is set in the late 70’s, but the look of the film is quite generic. Narrative wise, Stearns strings together a good lot of gripping scenes. He takes dig at the suburban parents (of Claire’s) who are as controlling as the dreadful cult. The tonal changes are all quite good – from black comedy to motel-bound psychological thriller – although the mysteries are quite predictable.

“Faults” (89 minutes) is a slow-burning thriller, blessed by sharp characterization and fantastic performances. The movie does possess its share of ‘faults’, but for a directorial debut it proves to be a pretty impressive attempt.

Trailer

Faults -- IMDb

Brazil is one of world’s largest nation (fifth), both in terms of population and geographical area. And, like every other nation, our perception of Brazil is dualistic: Its untouched wilderness, rich football tradition and rhythmic annual carnival represent the happier side, while its trash heaps, favelas, rampant corruption, and drug wars showcases the irrefutable bleaker side (as seen in films like “Pixote”, “City of God” etc). But, Brazil isn’t comprised of these black & white visions. It is a country like China or India, enjoying an economic boom from the early 90’s, and this modernization has brought up an increasingly prosperous middle & upper-middle class populations. Movies (of all the countries) often fail to observe these people, mostly because their uneventful life doesn’t afford much for a dramatic narrative.

The so-called economic boom has bestowed us with tower blocks, LED TV’s, smartphone, & other every state-of-the-art gadgets we yearn to possess. But, what has remained in these places of high-rise residential buildings? Did those places have a haunting past? What do we (middle-class people) feel about this moderately wealthy mundane existence? Does this comfortable, compound-like urban environment enrich our spirit, like our social status? Brazilian film-maker Kleber Mendenco Filho’s debut feature-film “Neighboring Sounds” (aka“O Som ao Redor”, 2012) is based upon these questions (& many other ponderous ones), which could be termed as a ‘blistering social study’ on the class of people living in high-rise concrete buildings. Set in the Brazil’s rapidly developing coastal city, Recife (director’s home town) the film offers a realistic slice-of-life and almost avoids all the trappings of a dramatic narrative.

In “Neighboring Sounds”, we audience assume the position of James Stewart in “Rear Window”, although there isn’t a thrilling mystery to unearth. Yeah, it is all about intimately observing different kinds of people, but it is more in the Michael Haneke territory rather than Alfred Hitchcock’s. Filho’s slyly funny introduction of characters evokes American master Robert Altman,while the jaundiced bourgeois’ viewpoint of the characters makes us think of the old surrealist master Luis Bunuel. It tells something unique about the haunting past behind Brazil’s contemporary, ever-renovating culture, and also imparts a universal truth about the human condition in an industrialized world. The movie opens with photo archives of Brazil’s oppressive sugar plantation days, and cuts to a tracking shot of a skating girl, who waltzes her way through parking lot to a little playground, which sort of resembles the prison yard. Eerie background music, a constant rattle of construction work, and chatting maids drowns the elated voice of the playing children.

White-bearded Senhor Francisco (W.J. Solha) with the looks of a genial pastor is the man who owns most of the neighborhood land on which these modern tower blocks are raised. His family has bought all this land with the money from sugar plantation, which has a violent and oppressive past. Francisco has become a millionaire by selling his single-block houses for building these compact condos. Most of his descendants live in the neighborhood. One of his grandsons, Joao (Gustav Jahn) has recently returned from Germany and now works as a property agent for his grandfather. When we first see him, he jubilantly wakes up in his own plush condo with a girl he hooked up with in a friend’s party. The girl, Sofia (Irma Brown) grew up in the neighborhood before the houses went vertical. Francisco’s other grandson, Dinho (Yuri Holanda) is a spoiled rich kid (Joao’s cousin), who likes to steal CD players from car, just for kicks. The neighborhood being a wealthy enclave heavily emphasize on security from impoverished invaders.

A small band of black-vested, private professional guards arrive to apartment blocks selling patrol services to the crime-conscious people. The security group is lead by a fawning, self-styled man, Clodoaldo (Irandhir Santos), who seems to have a sinister agenda. There’s also assemblage of dark-skinned men & women, who serve their well-off masters, but the relationship between them is mostly familial or collegial. These characters vary from the maternal long-time family maid Maria to a water deliveryman, who is also the neighborhood’s dope dealer. He often sells drugs to a bored housewife Bia (Maeve Jinkings) with two very observant children. She uses vacuum cleaner to conceal her pot habit and finds sexual gratification through the vibration washing machine. Bia also resorts to various methods to silence the consantly barking dog in an adjacent courtyard. We aren’t given any back-story for these narratively unrelated characters because the main agenda here is to make us experience this suffocating, noisy environment packed with little urban tensions.

It would have been easy to turn the premise of “Neighboring Sounds” into a heavy-handed social diatribe, but charged with an atmosphere of impending danger the movie & its characters keep on building, eventually leaving it to us to extract a pattern of meaning from this privileged enclave. And, for a thoughtful viewer, there really are a lot of subtle ideas & symbols waiting to be derived. In one scene, Joao shows an apartment to a women and her daughter. She comments that the place ‘looks like a factory’ and later bargains on hearing how its previous owner committed suicide by throwing herself from the balcony. Joao firmly replies, “The place isn’t haunted”. But, director/writer Filho constructs each scene to prove how their privileged world is haunted. The scene where Joao goes to his family’s old house near the sugar plantation with Sofia and Grandfather Francisco moves eerily as if some vengeful ghost of the past is lurking around the corner. The sequence even ends with a vignette that belongs to a ghost flick. We never exactly know what devastating event happened in those places, but we are hinted that the alienation of the present has its roots in the sinful past.

Filho’s shots often view the marginal people from a moderate distance (the viewpoint of well-off apartment dwellers) as if they themselves are ghost of their oppressed ancestors. The privileged class although remain more dependent on these impoverished people they still see their class of people as a security. In a surrealistic scene, Bia’s observant little girl has a nightmare about onslaught of poor invaders, jumping inside the gates of their enclosed neighborhood. This haunting dream that comes out of nowhere, shows us how this child who learns Mandarin and English to seek a bright future, is taught to fear her own fellow, less-privileged countrymen, living in the crowded favela.

Filho, through the relationship between Sofia and Joao, tries to show how the relationships are seen in the globalized society. They both see it as a transient way of getting pleasure, and so when Francisco, in his farm, keeps on asking about questions of marriage to the couple, they try to avoid it. Even the sex between them hangs like a memory of the past rather than a real thing. However, the reason for them breaking up seems to have a deeper meaning, which might be related to Sofia’s visit to the farm and her old house. Sophia visits her old house, which is about to be demolished. In her old room, she sees the stars in the ceiling. She might have felt a rush of nostalgia, but the alienated past also parts way to look at her own rootlessness and obsolescence. The stars in ceiling are shown to have remained all these years, despite being whitewashed. This image once again confirms to the movie’s central theme of how the tragic past hangs in the air despite being covered up.

Filho’s uses masterful and insinuating sound design at times to convey the characters’ point of view. The great instances for such perfect use of sound could be found in the opening sequence; or when Bia stands closely to her shaking dryer; or when a trio of characters stand beneath a raging waterfall. A projection of unease is constantly created through the sound of grinding machinery, even though the neighborhood looks like a sunny paradise. Although there isn’t a heavy, violent pay-off on-screen, Filho keeps on ratcheting tension through little suggestive details.

Director Filho’s acute observations and metaphorical depictions often reminisce of Haneke’s “Cache”, but the ending shows that the films are a bit opposite. “Cache” starts off like a conventional thriller and ends up as a political allegory and a treatise on urban dread, but “Neighboring Sounds”doesn’t boast semblance of a narrative right from the start, but comes up with a strange twist in the end, rounding up certain elements of the plot. Still, “Neighboring Sounds” remains grippingly open-ended and leaves a lot of disquieting questions on its wake.

The revelatory portrait of this Brazilian neighborhood could also be transported to the rich suburbs of Mumbai, Singapore, Beijing, or Tokyo, but Filho does add little flavors to relate the story to the history of Recife city. This Brazilian city is said to have higher homicidal killings than any other Latin American city. The city is known for its secret group of off-duty and former police officers who are dedicated to executing undesirable elements – street kids & other petty criminals. In this context, the film’s recurring insistence on security has a vital relevance. In a scene, old Francisco goes for the beach to swim, which has boards warning about ‘shark attacks’ (Francisco comes out unscathed). As per the official stats, 18 people’s lives were lost in the last two decades to shark attacks in Recife, but at least 3,000 people are being killed each year in various murders. Filho might be poking fun at his home city, which perceives shark as a threat than the violence perpetrated by humans.

The elegantly crafted “Neighboring Sounds” (130 minutes) explores the quotidian life of people in a privileged neighborhood, without trying to hammer in an elaborate message. The film may not offer solace to those who expect narrative or tidy resolution in movies, but there is abundance of metaphors, symbols & impeccable framing to make a movie-lover happy.

Trailer

Neighboring Sounds aka O Som ao Redor -- IMDb

American Independent film-maker, Gregory Nava’s epic work of social realism “El Norte” (1983) was one of the earliest films to track down the cold economic realities, faced by impoverished people of Latin American nations, situated close to the border of everyone’s dream nation – America. The film set in Guatemala showcased the country’s oppressive political machine, which forces the natives to make a dangerous journey across American borders. Using some dramatic contrivances, Gregory Nava then depicts how the illegal immigrants’ life faces more trials and tribulations in the land of dreams. Although, there had been many movies made on the plight of immigrants (“Frozen River”, “Journey of Hope”, “The Promise”, “Dirty Pretty Things” etc), “El Norte” remains my favorite film on this subject because of its poetic imagery that accompanies the distressing reality. The journey of Rosa and Enrique in “El Norte” is as mythical as it is geographical. Diego Quemada-Diez’s promising debut feature “The Golden Dream” (“La Jaula de oro”, 2013), although doesn’t possess the powerful visuals of “El Norte” or Majid Majidi’s “Baran” (about illegal Afghan refugees in Iran), covers a similar kind of journey, made by young Guatemalans.

Despite receiving a special award in Cannes 2013 (for its ensemble cast), “The Golden Dream” didn’t get much attention like the festival smash hits “Sin Nombre” and “Maria Full of Grace”. It may be so because “The Golden Dream” is imbued with overly familiar character sketches and unlike those festival hits, it lacked the thriller elements to reach a wider audience. But, the sense of verisimilitude Quemada-Diez brings to this film makes it a more compelling and eye-opening movie experience. The director has basically filmed in the exact locations of the harrowing journey made by Guatemalans, and in the end credits is said to have thanked at least 600 migrants for allowing the film crew to join their travels.

The movie starts with a young girl walking into run-down public bathroom. She looks at herself in the mirror and cuts her hair down, puts a tape over her breasts, and puts on a baseball cap. A young boy leaves his shack with a bag and visits his friend, working on a garbage site. The three – Juan (Brandon Lopez), Samuel (Carlos Chajon) and Sara (Karen Martinez) – then start their journey to ‘the North’. Along their journey they meet a young indigenous Guatemalan, Chauk (Rodolfo Dominiguez), who doesn’t speak a single word of Spanish, but seems to be more resourceful than the three. Juan remains hostile to the native as Sara gets fascinated and tries to converse with him.

Their travel seems to be filled with climbing aboard moving freight trains. Thousands of people travels like this, on top of the trains with sun on their faces. Missionaries, strangers give food & water to those who make the journey, and the local farmers make use of their labor since it would be very cheap. But, for the most part, our young heroes and others get lured by diabolical human creatures, either through words or by force. An entire legal and illegal economy seems to have built around the journey of these migrants. Gradually, the trials faced by the teenagers to cross the border reflect as an examination of one of our planet’s greatest delusion.

As per US Homeland Security stats, at least 20,000 Guatemalans illegally cross the American border every year. But, what the stats fail to show is the number of people whose journey gets terminated by manifolds of hazards, like scammers, gangster-slavers, corrupt officials, and government vigilante execution squads. Despite all these pitfalls, people of these Latin American nations make the trip because their own corporate-owned governments don’t care about income inequality or poverty. ‘The American Dream’ also hasn’t lost its shine, despite its past & present history in regards to immigrants’ exploitation. It is still widely believed (thanks to its corporate media & Hollywood propaganda machine) that you can achieve anything by working hard in US soil. The dream is entrenched firmly in the minds of these indigenous people even so it means leaving their friends & families.

Of course, America is a land of opportunities (you couldn’t say the same about Russia), but equally it is a land of illusions. In the film, Chauk repeatedly dreams about snow falling, which as per his beliefs seems to represent a better future. The director uses this dream at the juncture of every new chapter in the story or after a brutal event. Eventually, the director shows us the snow-falling reality, but this shot of realized dream (or illusion) only cast a heavy burden on our hearts. The final in the slaughterhouse is one of the most heart-breaking scenes in the film, which shows how these impoverished, uneducated, illegal immigrants could only serve as trivial cogs in the giant capitalist machine rather than being an irreplaceable unit. It portrays how these marginal humans are sold an illusion; not a dream.

Director Quemada-Diez is concerned in bringing credible images, although it lacks a lyrical nature. He also finely mixes the moments of pure happiness with those of that foreboding evil ones. The dialogues are little bland and the warm friendship between Sara and Chauk, characterized by vocabulary lesson seems a bit staged. However, the performances of non-professional actors make us empathize with their plight. Brandon Lopez as Juan subtly expresses the burden of responsibility and Karen Martinez (as Sara) plays with a natural warmth and caution, similar to Paulina Gaitan in “Sin Nombre”. Her warmheartedness rattles our mind as we think about her brutal fate.

“The Golden Dream” (113 minutes) is an engrossing dramatization about the plight of illegal immigrants (of Central America), who were punished for being poor and for showing temerity to escape their deprived conditions.

Trailer

The Golden Dream aka La jaula de oro -- IMDb

In his five decade career, Austrian-American film-maker Otto Preminger brought up fine works like “Laura” (1944),“Where the Sidewalk Ends”, “Anatomy of Murder”, “The Man with Golden Arm”, “Advise & Consent” (1962) etc. He was best known for his liberal thoughts and for constantly challenging censors by busting Old Hollywood taboos. Although, Preminger was hailed as a director ahead of his time, he found it difficult to stay on top as the cinematic landscape went through a rapid change in the 1960’s. In the mid 1960’s, he took a break from making star-studded dramas & sprawling epics (“Exodus”, “The Cardinal”) and went on to direct a little mystery/thriller,“Bunny Lake is Missing” (1965). Although, the movie suffered from a wacky end twist, it is one of rare Preminger work after 60’s to gain critics’ attention (but it was said to be a big commercial failure).

Preminger, after “Bunny Lake”, made eccentric comedies (“Skidoo”, “Such Good Friends”), light-hearted dramas (“Hurry Sundown”, “Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon”), and even a spy thriller (“The Human Factor”), but these works neither acquired wide critical acclaim nor commercial success (Preminger retired from film-making in 1979). “Bunny Lake’s” lack of robust psychological undertones didn’t elevate it to the status, enjoyed by other classics of the era (like “Psycho” or “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”). However, its storyline is echoed in modern conventional, gimmicky Hollywood thrillers like “Flight Plan”, “The Forgotten” etc.

Young American single mom Ann Lake (Carol Lynley) has just moved to London with her daughter Bunny Lake aka Felicia, where she plans to live with her journalist brother Steven (Keir Dullea). Before the movers bring her stuff, Ann takes her 4 year old daughter to the new school ‘The Little People’s Garden’. We haven’t caught a glimpse of Bunny, but we see Ann shutting the door of ‘First Day’ room with her child inside. She searches the school premise for teachers or the woman to whom she spoke on phone to inform about her daughter, but no seems to be around, except for some distant singing of children. Ann eventually comes across sulking cook and she asks her to take care of ‘Bunny’ in the ‘First Day’ room. She hurriedly leaves the school anticipating the movers.

After taking care of the business at home, Ann returns to the school to pick up Bunny, but she’s nowhere to be found. It takes some time for the school management to take the disappearance issue seriously. The worst thing is nobody remembers seeing a child named Bunny. Ann immediately calls her brother Steven. They search through the apartment-house like school, which has a labyrinthine of large cupboards. Eventually Ann and Steven summon the police, and a gentle superintendent Newhouse (Laurence Olivier) takes charge of the missing/kidnapping case. The experienced Newhouse investigates all the parties involved and picks up little frayed threads from people’s response. Gradually, Newhouse doubts at the existence of a girl named ‘Bunny’. Ann and Steve couldn’t find single person in London to about Bunny’s existence. And, the strangest of all is that Bunny’s things (including passport) in the new apartment house seem to have vanished into thin air.

The impressive real locations and the polished, nostalgic black & white cinematography (by Denys Coop) are one of the strongest points for the movie. The spooky dollhouse hallways and the creepy interior decorations in the apartment render a perfect disorienting atmosphere for the mystery. The eccentricities and the creepiness seem to extend to most of the character sketches. The bizarre face masks look right at home as we see the snarky, lecherous landlord (Noel Coward). Coward is the uncanniest highlight of the film, especially in that scene when he funnily attempts to seduce the perplexed Ann. Ada Ford is another bizarre character, who lives upstairs in the school and record audiotapes of children, reciting their nightmares. Although the malicious potential of these characters only serves as red herrings, the actors who perform them make it as engaging as they could.

It does look weird that Ann doesn’t say goodbye to Bunny as she leaves the school (or may be she did off-screen), but little details like this adds authenticity to the non-existent theory. Yet, Lynley, no-so-hysterical performance as Ann restore some belief in the viewer that may be Bunny is real. It is hard to believe that a mother doesn’t think of ways to prove the existence of her little daughter, but that credibility issue is kept on-cover to an extent by the top British star Laurence Olivier’s elegant performance. As Newhouse, Olivier takes the investigation to far ends of both the possibilities. His character only redoubles the efforts taken, whenever the investigation hits a wall. The movies’s flaws could be attributed to some of blatant red herrings (Steven planting the seeds of doubt against his sister Ann) and the mildly enjoyable ‘insanity’ twist in the end. The constantly moving camera and the wavering expressions of Lynley in the denouement are compelling, but not the denudation of mystery itself. The final resolution not only looked weak & unconvincing, it also used mental illness in a most gimmicky way possible.

The plot trajectory of “Bunny Lake Is Missing” (107 minutes) is used to death by many average, B-grade thrillers, but the superior performances and director Preminger’s graceful execution, makes it a good flick for all mystery-lovers.

Trailer

Bunny Lake Is Missing -- IMDb

It is often said that a country’s social history can be fully apprehended by observing its prisons than watching over its other well-established institutions. If you think that this statement contains an iota of truth then America is a nation with an enormous societal problem. If you type in a simple question of ‘How many people are in jail in US?’ in Google, the answer would be that ‘716 people per 10,000 of the US population’ (as per Oct.2013 stats). US, which contains 5 percent of world’s population has 25 percent of world’s prisoners. Numbers of people behind bars in some of US states are higher than the prison populations of oppressive nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Mexico. These astounding stats become disturbing when it is proven that increased prison rates don’t help much to bring down the crime rates.

Since the 1980’s, incarcerated citizens in America’s thriving prison-industrial complex have more than quadrupled. But, before this mass incarceration problem, American Penitentiaries confronted bloody prison riots, which sometimes turned into revolutionary upheavals. Although the Attica Correctional Facility uprising (situated in New York) demonstrated the inhumane conditions faced by inmates (it ended horrifically with the death of 10 hostages & 29 inmates), the widespread prison struggles began in the early 1950’s. Most of these struggles were apolitical and the demands were perennial ones like better food & better treatment. At least fifty major riots is said to have happened between 1950 and 1953. These riots were all mostly spontaneous uprising. The iron-handed approach by the prison & state administration only spawned more radical ideas inside the prison walls.

Director Don Siegel’s (known for explosive action sequences & tight narration) earliest directorial effort “Riot in Cell Block 11”(1954) fictionally recreates one of those riots, happened six decades earlier. Since the American prison system has gotten worse over the years, the film’s message still remains timely and relevant. This was also the film which brought up a thematic template for Don Siegel, who chiseled his way up to make widely acclaimed works like“Dirty Harry”, “The Shootist” etc.“Riot in Cell Block 11”was produced by ‘Allied Artists Pictures’ only as a ‘B-movie’, but over the years it has gained the status of a cult classic (even included into Criterion Collection). The movie was shot on California’s Folsom Prison (used many of actual inmate population as extras), and opens like a docu-drama with newsreel footage of actual prison riots.

The ‘cell block 11’ represents the solitary wing of the large state prison. The inmates of the wing are angered by violent security protocol, harsh living conditions. Most of all they hate the fact that there is no chance for rehabilitation, since no work is given to them and they aren’t allowed to learn new trade. The inmates sit in their cells idly, waiting for the time to pass. It is argued that this rudderless motion inside the prison walls only increases recidivism. Recidivism, known as habitual relapse into crime, is one of the biggest problems of US prison system (even now). The inmates of cell block 11 also doesn’t like the way the ‘nuts’ (used to describe sex offenders, dangerous delinquents etc) are not segregated from low risk offenders.

The situation reaches a boiling point, when square-jawed leader of block 11, James Dunn (Neville Brand) and his compatriots overpower the four guards. Dunn and his second-in-command ‘Crazy’ Mike Carnie (Leo Gordon) free all the inmates and secure the command of the block. Mike is itching to knife the guards, but Dunn doesn’t want to play that way, since he had started the riot for a reason. He seeks the help of gentle ex-military man called as ‘The Colonel’ (Robert Osterloh) to clearly draft their demands. Colonel rejects the offer initially since he is soon up for parole, but in order to curb Crazy Mike’s fierce tactics, Colonel accepts the offer. Meanwhile, Dunn demands for a press conference and to them he intones on the intolerable living conditions inside prison.

Warden Reynolds (Emile Meyer) refers to the media about Dunn and Mike’s mental health, but partly sympathizes with the motivations behind the riot. Later, we learn that many of the prisoners’ demands have been proposed earlier by warden to the state governor for years. Commissioner Haskell (Frank Faylen), who arrives as governor’s emissary is a much less decent guy than the warden. He hates the proposition of giving into inmates’ demand because he believes that it might set a precedent for future prison riots. Haskell’s words become true as inmates of the other blocks also start a riot at the breakfast hall. Five other guards are caught and sent into ‘cell block 11’ (making the hostage total to 9). Dunn asks for governor’s sign to immediately approve their demands and a promise that there will be no charges against them.

Despite being known as a ‘b-movie’ dealing with a vital social issue, Don Siegel doesn’t resort to preachy messages or heavy-handed melodrama, which was widely present in the movies of that era. Of course, Siegel’s primary goal is entertainment, but that didn’t stop him from taking a grittier & layered approach. Although the director was famous for his hands-on action sequences, here he directs it as an ensemble piece. He frames much of the action in long shots and despite the removed perspective, he was able lend empathy to both opposing factions. Some of the sequences in ‘Cell Block 11’ has also reflected in Siegel’s other works. In one scene, when a large prison population breaks from dining hall, they happily ransack the canteen, tool-shed etc. Siegel observe these activities of wayward men, suddenly set free from an oppressive environment, in an intimate fashion, and later this became one of his recurring thematic subjects.

The script was written by Richard Collins, who was previously black-listed for four years for his involvement with the communist party in the 1930’s. The contemplative script served as a mirror to reflect society’s pressing problems. 'Cell Block 11’ casts out excessive grandstanding similar to the other famous ‘social problem’ flicks of the era --“The Gentleman’s Agreement” (antisemitism), “Home of the Brave” (racism), “The Man with the Golden Arm” (drug addiction). Collins even at the breakneck speed of narrative never fails to acknowledge the inherent contradictions with in the ‘prison reform’ scenario. By not coloring many of the characters with shades of black & white, Collins effectively incorporates the valid themes associated with imprisonment.

An imprisoned guard in one scene claims that he is never mistreated any of the inmates or played favorites, to which ‘The Colonel’ replies, “Yeah, you treat us all the same like cons. We all fight for our identity and you help to destroy that”. The guard immediately replies, ‘that’s not me; that’s the prison system’. Such brimming conflicting viewpoints are populated throughout the film, and these balanced arguments make us to look at the economic & ethical issues involved in locking away these offenders. Emile Meyer’s warden was one of the brilliantly etched characters in the film. Unlike the sadistic prison wardens portrayed in cinema, Reynolds looks at the problem with an appreciable depth. He knows that mistreatment of inmates would only lead to more resentment. His idea of better treatment of prisoners is approached with a sociopolitical angle rather than as a bland humanitarian approach. There is a sort of resolution & imbued hope in the climax, but it is not in the vein of Hollywood ‘happy ending’.

“Riot in Cell Block 11” (80 minutes) is an effective indictment of the dehumanizing effects of American prison system. No answers seem to have been found for the lacerating questions raised by this six-decade old movie.

Trailer

Riot In Cell Block 11 -- IMDb

Hungarian director Kornel Mundruczo is said to have visited a dog shelter, after the rumors about a piece of legislation, which would tax owners of dogs with mixed races more than those of pure breeds. The legislation, of course, was scorned and dropped at early stages, but the discussion and the ensued visit to dog pound, inspired director Mundruczo to make “White God” (2014), a sociopolitical allegory on canine madness. The movie brought the Hungarian film-maker to spotlight as he won ‘Un Certain Regard’Prize at Cannes Festival , who for years have been working on small-scale dramas that ponders over the human experience.

Kornel Mundruczo dedicated his film to the late maverick Hungarian director Miklos Jancso. Jancso (“The Round-Up, The Red and the White”), who was known for conjuring, critically acclaimed parables of oppression & war, might have loved this mixed-genre allegory, although “White God”doesn’t possess the uniqueness his work had. The story of the film is something you might have already heard or read: the emotional connection between a young girl and her pet. Comedy dramas like “Lassie” and adventurous thrillers like“Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, and numerous Disney fables contemplated on such relationships. Unfurling a part of the narrative from dog’s point of view is also not something new, as we had seen it in plenty of schmaltzy, talking pets’ movies (both live-action & animation). Samuel Fuller’s“White Dog” and Hitchcock’s “The Birds” were also elusive allegories that used transformation of genial creatures to convey a sociopolitical message.

So, “White God” doesn’t score much on originality, but as a cinematic experience, the film offers a lot. The technical accomplishment of featuring 274 dogs, without the use of CGI is impressive and pair of canine protagonists consistently emotes as well as their human counterparts. The movie starts with a prologue of sorts, where a young girl on a bike journeys through deserted streets of Budapest, only to be chased by hundreds of feral dogs. The 13 year old girl’s name is Lili (Zsofia Psotta) and her best friend is a mutt named ‘Hagen’. Lili’s mother is about to attend a conference in Australia for three months, and so, Lili and Hagen are dropped off in the care of estranged, authoritarian father Daniel (Sandor Zsoter). Lili’s father is a sour-faced former academician, who is now working as a meat inspector.

Lili’s dad, Daniel hates Hagen and refuses to pay heavy tax that has been levied against mixed dogs. Fearing that her father might send Hagen to a dog pound, she takes it to her music school (where she plays the trumpet) and even tries to run away. Before long, Daniel finds Lili and she is forced to tearfully bid farewell to Hagen, who is abandoned on the motorway. Later, Lili is determined to track-down her pet friend, while Hagen roams around the city with his homeless friends to find food. Hagen comes across various types of human abusers, who all give him a scary aggressive persona. His natural & gentle instincts are dried out, when he is trained by a lowlife to become a fighting dog. But, too much discrimination pushes Hagen to start a canine revolution, seeking the blood of their abusers.

Considering the recent surging oppression of impoverished immigrants and homeless people in the European countries, the dogs in the film definitely seems like a stand-in for those discriminated human bunch. The economic inequality, however, could be seen beyond the European or Hungarian context. Even if the dog metaphor and its related social commentary don’t enamor you, the astounding orchestration of the dogs, without the glossy CGI fakery, will surely lend an engaging experience. More than 250 dogs from Hungarian shelters were coached by a team, overseen by America trainer Teresa Miller. Director Mundruzo has created an interesting camera framework as he (and DP Marcell Rev) has built specific rigs to view the world from dog’s eye perspective. The decision to not employ the use of CG made the film crew to shoot nearly 200 hours of footage with the dogs. So, the editor must have had a grueling time to craft the performances of the canines in order to bring it on screen.

Nevertheless, animal-lovers would definitely flinch at the simulated violent sequences of dog fights. Many of the violent & ferocious moments make you ask, ‘how they trained the dogs to do that?’ The sequences where the vicious gambler trains Hagen is almost unbearable to watch. He whips & drugs Hagen to push it into a state of perpetual paranoid aggression. The clever camera angles & editing in these scenes conveys the animal’s pain without elaborately depicting the beatings. Director Mundruczo also adds subtle satirical notes, especially in the scene, where the students’ orchestra performance, watched by bourgeois populace, is interrupted by dogs glaring down from the box seats of the concert hall. If there is a flaw in “White God” it is in the way it walks through different genres – from social realism to melodrama to horror – without getting the right tonal changes. However, the ambiguous ending appeared to be perfect: it could be a message of despair or hope (whichever way you want to take it).

“White God” (117 minutes) is a cautionary parable with an overly familiar plot and core message. But, its technical achievement and a culturally specific narrative engage us throughout.

Trailer

White God aka Feher isten -- IMDb

Australian film-maker George Miller’s name was often mentioned with his contemporaries like Peter Weir, Gillian Armstrong, and Bruce Beresford for taking Australian films to international audiences (the critics called“Australian New Wave” film-makers). Although, “Picnic at Hanging Rock”(1975), “My Brilliant Career” (1976) or “Breaker Morant” (1980) gained numerous awards & acclaim in the international film festival circuits, it was Miller’s “Mad Max” (1979), which got affiliated to global main-stream audiences. The relentless post-apocalyptic setting, the bizarre cars & maniacal gangs, lone gunslinger protagonist, and the sweeping action made “Mad Max” a pop cult craze in the early 1980’s. But, like George Romero, Miller too didn’t go beyond the ‘Max’ movies to carve an exciting career with great outputs. Although, he enjoyed directorial success with movies like “Babe: Pig in the City”, “Happy Feet”, his grand vision seems to have burnt out with those cult action flicks.

It didn’t seem like exciting news, when I heard Miller was re-booting “Mad Max” (despite the fact that the trailer was stirring enough) for the contemporary generation, since we know how must of the re-boots messes up the original setting. But, the septuagenarian Aussie has comeback strongly with an exalted vision and undiminished fervor. “Mad Max: Fury Road” (2015) is the kind of action epic that sets new benchmark for high-octane mayhem stunts. Of course, the vehicles here are more complex than the characters and the storyline, but this boiled-down-to-essentials approach wonderful works here. Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy), a former cop and post-apocalyptic road warrior, in a voice-over, states how the civilizations collapsed into a hellish landscape, ruled by raging crazies. He describes himself as ‘a man who runs from both living and the dead’ before eating a live two-headed lizard.

Max is often haunted by his dead child, whom he failed to save. His much cherished vehicle is pursued by a group of bald berserkers. He is taken as a prisoner into the citadel, which is ruled by a disfigured dictator ‘Immortan Joe’ (Hugh Keays-Bryne). Apart from gasoline and water, blood is also a precious commodity for the ruler of ‘citadel’. Blood is the primary source for Immortan’s albumen-colored, diseased young male soldiers called as ‘War Boys’. Max becomes a ‘blood bag’ as he is literally connected to the eccentric war boy, Nux (Nicholas Hoult). Furiosa (Charlize Theron), a one-armed warrior woman & one of Immortan Joe’s trusted operative, takes the treasured 18-wheeler War Rig for a routine gas run to neighboring, rival towns.

But, Furiosa takes a different path – a path to redemption – and accompanied with her are five of Immortan Joe’s very precious things – beautiful & healthy young slave wives of the tyrant. The girls called as ‘breeders’are kept alive for the sole pleasure of Joe to remake human race in his own image. Max, the blood bag, is unwittingly thrown into the pursuit for Furiosa. Max, who doesn’t care about anything other than his survival, takes sides with Furiosa and helps the women to reach their destination as the ‘War Rig’ was chased by weirdly & innovatively designed monster-trucks.

The film starts with Max facing away from the camera, looking at the apocalyptic wasteland, and like this opening image, Max most of the times stays in the background, providing center stage for Theron’s Furiosa. He literally and figuratively kept aside of the driver seat. He isn’t portrayed as the usual gunslinger, who guides these damsels in distress. In fact, Furiosa seems to be better marksmen (woman) than Max. Tom Hardy plays Max in a low-key manner, echoing his subliminal performance in the recent “Locke”– a different kind of vehicle-bound thriller. Hardy’s Max is far darker in tone than Gibson’s partly playful one. If you feel that Hardy lacks the kickassness that defines the gunslinger archetype, then there’s no worry because that aspect is filled in by Charlize Theron. Furiosa seems to have the looks & guts of Weaver’s Ripley (“Alien” franchise) & Renee Jeanne Falconetti (“Passion of Joan of Arc”). Although Furiosa is an elemental character in an explosive action film, Theron brings impressive gravity to the character to make the proceedings engaging enough.

The great part of “Fury Road” is the Gothic & begrimed imagery. The painstaking details conjured by the production designer – from intricately designed tattoos to spikes on the wheels to the skull motifs – everything is a joy to behold. Apart from the unbelievable vehicle designs & stunts, impregnable advantage of this movie is that we could clearly the action going on screen. It is something which we couldn’t say for“Transfomers” franchise or for even some movies in the“Marvel” or “X-Men” franchise. Miller has seamless integrated practical stunt works with the CGI, which makes the stunts visible and also gives enough space for audience to heave a sigh. Despite the grim setting, Miller does provide some comic relief with the character of Nux. Hoult plays Nux to perfection especially when he exuberantly says “Oh, what a day! What a lovely day”. The thee-way fight between chained Nux & Max and Furiosa reminds as of a perfectly orchestrated slap-stick comedy.

Miller’s feminist perspective message doesn’t seem to be thrown as an afterthought – as the new cool thing to have. The traces of healthy culture like books or music (piano) could only be seen in this wasteland inside the wives’ chamber (where there’s also protest slogan “We’re Not Things”). Even Max, who sort of comes across like a chauvinistic hunk, eventually surrenders to a female sentinel. The final pileup of metals & bodies in the canyon comes across like the eradication of self-centered male ego. Of course, nothing is subtle here, similar to that flamboyant war drummers & red-dressed electronic guitarist. But, isn’t it ridiculous to expect subtle messages (even messages) in a loud-action movie.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” (120 minutes) is a delirious, incredible, eye-boggling crowd-pleaser. It is more entertaining than the recent installments of“Fast & Furious” and “Avengers” franchise.

Trailer

Mad Max: Fury Road -- IMDb

In the early 1970’s, a wave of anarchist or terrorist acts in the democratic West Germany by leftist radical group Red Army Faction (RAF, also famously called as ‘Baader-Meinhof Gang’) baffled the nation’s authorities. The radical RAF characterized West Germany as a fascist holdover of Hitler’s Nazi era and condemned the action of US at the height of cold war. To spite the US installations & government of West Germany and in order to support themselves, the RAF was involved in string of bank robberies and kidnapping of industrialists. It later engaged in bombings of West German corporations. Under pressure, the government fiercely responded by passing strict laws and giving immense powers to police, who went onto abuse civil rights and the country’s democratic values.

The media joined hands with the police force and transmuted into yellow press by smearing any individual, who was just accused of association with the radical gang. The press radicalized anyone (calling them a Marxist to commie) who had guts to talk against the government policies. These smearing campaigns obviously bothered West German’s politically neutral intellectuals, writers, artists, and general public. In 1971, when a bank was robbed, the papers next day blamed the RAF gang without having any evidence. Nobel winning novelist Heinrich Boll condemned this manner of journalism; he immediately became the target of a besmirching campaign. He received profane anonymous phone calls, hate mails, and was accused of sympathizing with the terrorists. This experience made Boll to write a dramatic best-seller “The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum” (1975)

German director Volker Schlondorff and his actress-wife Margarethe Von Trotta simultaneously made the novel into a feature film. The libertarian Boll’s protagonist isn’t, however an old professor, but a young & beautiful waitress, who doesn’t have a clue about the political intricacies of the Cold War era. The self-explanatory title by Boll accuses that sometime police & press instigate violence or radicalize the naive person. Poor Katharina Blum (Angela Winkler) hasn’t done anything wrong except falling in love at first sight for Ludwig (Jurgen Prochnow). Katharina is a shy, proud and seems to be an honorable girl, since her friends have nicknamed her as ‘nun’. She doesn’t have much of a family life as her mother is very sick and a brother is in prison. Katharina is divorced and living alone for nearly six years, although she has had a ‘gentleman friend’.

Katharina meets Ludwig in some party. She reacts as if she has found a soul-mate and they end up in her apartment, make love, and in the morning he leaves. After a bath, Katharina is having her breakfast as the police force clamorously enters her apartment and searches for Ludwig. The affectionate Ludwig is whom the police suspect of bank robbery & terrorist acts. He was constantly under surveillance and so the police don’t believe that Ludwig has just escaped without the help of Katharina. She is immediately taken for interrogation and special agent Beizmenne (Mario Adorf) states that this isn’t a random encounter. He is convinced that she is involved with the terrorist gang and believes she has provided shelter for other anarchists.

In the mean time, an ambitious & sleazy reporter, Werner Toetges (Dieter Laser) with the blessings of Beizmenne starts a defaming campaign against Katharina. He visits Katharina’s home town and contrives that there are clues here about her terrorist’s past. The next day newspapers paint Katharina like a fiery girl working for the Communist cause. She receives pornographic images through mail, anonymous phone calls, and even her friends look with a doubtful eye. Every little mystery in Katharina’s life is dug up, while the papers throw more & more dirt on her.

The immediacy of relevance to a particular period in post-World War II Germany makes this film an interesting historical viewpoint. If you don’t care about the political machinations of West Germany, the film’s main theme on ‘freedom of press’ and ‘civil rights abuse’ has wider relevance today, than it might have had four decades back. Over fear of terrorism, many nations are ready to invade their citizen’s private lives, undermining the democratic values. On the other hand, in the name of ‘freedom of press’, media harasses innocent individuals. The way they misrepresent to get an eye candy headline and the manner they pass judgement on the accused is something that’s we can see daily on the 24*7 channels. When both these fearful forces join together a destructive paranoia engulfs the ordinary citizen, which eventually might give rise to more anarchists & terrorists. Director Volkor Schondorff’s camera never holds back in showcasing the shame & abuse, perpetrated on Katharina.

In a film’s most shocking moment, the journalist interviews Katharina’s sick, unconscious mother trying to get a word. He later writes his own words as the mother’s, which makes it to the headlines. In another scene, when Katharina is escorted from her apartment, the press gang photographs her. The police at the back jerk and pull her hair, to force her to make a contorted face. The pictures taken in that manner makes her look like a desperate criminal and is plastered all over the paper. However, what spoils the film is an overly critical tone that shows everything in black-and-white. Although the director due don’t make any preachy statements, they do omit issues that doesn’t conveniently suit their purpose. Despite the truthfulness in its question, the story seems to be stretched out to include more satirical notes.

The characters of media people and police authorities come off as caricatures. German veteran Mario Adorf and Dieter Laser performed their roles to perfection, extracting enough hate from the viewers. But, in the end all of the lawmen are painted as arrogant beings, believing that they are beyond reproach. I don’t know how the press really behaved in that era in Germany, but the single-minded intensity of Toetges looks heavy-handed. Nevertheless, Angela Winkler’s fine-tuned performance as Katharina nails the absurdity of the political status quo. The lingering closeup shots capture her emotional collapse with precision, but still Winkler imbues an air of mystery into the character, making it more complex than what it could be. She is the only three-dimensional character in the film, who expresses outrage, tenderness, concern, and courage, and Blum remains adequate in going through these emotions.

“The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum” (105 minutes) depicts the worst, despicable side of democracy’s two powerful institutions – Police and Media. It shows how brutal laws and impregnable power instigate more anarchism in the devastated society.

Trailer

The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum -- IMDb

Peter Weir is one of those film-makers, who helped to redefine the Australian cinema in the 70’s. His transcendent and evocative images of Australia gained him recognition among the international art-house circuit. He is known for making complex, dark dramas, which explores the inner self of men. Weir’s primary characters would always be caught up within some sort of social upheaval or alteration. Although Weir moved to Hollywood in the mid 1980’s, devising wonderful genre dramas (“Witness”, “Dead Poets Society”, “Fearless”, “Truman Show” etc), he never lost his sense of artistic exploration. I feel that couple of his early Australian movies, “Picnic at Hanging Rock” (1975) & “The Last Wave” (1977) was superior to his later works, especially because of that mystical, surrealistic environment and for not serving as a concise conclusion. “The Last Wave” deals with some of the same themes (like psychological unease of the descendants of first white settlers) Weir previously explored in his lyrical masterpiece ‘Hanging Rock’, but at the same time he also introduced some of his other favorite themes (obscure exploration of alternate realities or dreamworld). His cinematic techniques in ‘Last Wave’ were also more creative and lend an ineffable quality.

Peter Weir has stated that the origination point for the plot of ‘Last Wave’ has born when he was on a holiday in Tunisia. There he had found a beautiful marble piece of a buried Roman head, which he had previously seen in his dream. He just imagined how a rational man with a clear-cut profession, who doesn’t deal with imagination, would meditate on the premonitory experience. This idea transitioned into the movie’s protagonist, David Burton (Richard Chamberlain), a tax lawyer. He lives in relative wealth and happily married to a moderately talented painter (Olivia Hamnett) and blessed with two beautiful daughters. The film starts in some part of Australian desert, the children are playing cricket during the school interval.

The cloudless sky out of nowhere produces heavy downpour followed by a vehement hailstorm. In the city too, there is a heavy downpour, causing traffic jams. David, sitting inside his car hears (in radio) about the strange occurrence in the desert as a quirk of nature. In the night he is plagued by a nightmarish vision of a man. Although David’s stepfather (Frederick Parslow) reminds him that strange dreams have been part of his entire life, David remains unhinged by those irrational visions. Later, David is asked to take upon a strange case involving a death of aborigine. Although he is a legal aid lawyer his previous experiences in working with Aborigines brings him the case. The suspects he has to defend are five aborigines, who don’t talk much.

On the outset, the murder looks like a simple case of drunken brawl, but the presence of a mystical, old indigenous man suggests that the killing is a tribal punishment for some sort of offense. David is increasingly drawn to the case, especially when he sees the aborigine man Chris Lee (David Gulpilil) in his dreams, even before meeting him in person. David invites Chris to his home for discussing the case, but Chris along an old man named Charlie (Nanjiwarra Amagula). Then, David and his visions itself becomes subject of Chris’ inquiry and the conversation leads David to think that there are answers within his dreams, which has something to do with the strange goings-on in the weather.

“The Last Wave” possesses the kind of unique, dark atmosphere, which many of the contemporary psychological thrillers strive to achieve. Despite the minimal budget, director Weir and cinematographer Russell Boyd (he also worked with Weir in ‘Hanging Rock’, “Gallipoli", and ‘Master and Commander’) perfectly amalgamates casual happenings with the inexplicable phenomenon in a perfectly valid manner. The duo uses a lot of blue filters to lend a surrealistic quality as well as to insinuate about the impending disaster (water is a constantly recurring motif). Thematically, Weir tries to explore or meditate on the connection between nature’s quirks and prophetic spirit of the mankind. He is trying to contemplate experiences, which can’t be explained in mere words. David imparted with those prophetic visions tries to solve everything within the conventions of logic. But, the more he attempts to solve the puzzle through logic, the more confounding the situation becomes.

Spoilers ahead

Another central theme the director tries to convey is how we, living in the industrialized society remain estranged our mystical connection or mystical selves. Pursuing these themes would bring up charges of romanticism and liberal piety. The notion that the indigenous people living in modern cities are more tuned in to their mystical selves than their western counterparts is some kind of insipid approach taken by majority of cinematic works. But, Weir (may be anticipating an accusation) includes a line of conversation that questions the protagonist’s sudden interest on the plight of these oppressed men. When David asks his colleague, who doesn’t believe in the mystical nature of the case, to drop out, he replies: “Good, ‘cause I don’t want to make a fool of myself or of them" and he further states:“That middle class patronizing attitude of yours towards the blacks revolts me. For the best part of ten years, I have worked with these people, while you made fortune on tax dodges for corporations”.

In order to authentically portray the Aboriginal culture, Weir had sought the help of Nandjiwarra Amagula (plays Charlie), who is tribal elder and a magistrate. He has helped to create the lost symbols and tokens of old Sydney tribes. The Mulkurul myth is said to be solely invented for this movie, which isn’t found in any of Aboriginal legends. Towards the end, in the sacred place, David discovers what it means to be a Mulkurul (a harbinger of apocalypse) and he also discovers that a second wave could bring the total destruction, making mankind to start from scratch. May be Weir, through this formulated myth is trying to associate the ‘first wave’ with the arrival of whites, which brought apocalypse to the Aborigines’ way of life.

“The Last Wave” is definitely plagued with few narrative shortcomings. The use of stock footage for the titular tidal wave due to budget constraints isn’t a big letdown, since it provides us with a purposeful vagueness which is present throughout the movie. Yet there are circumstances when the weighty, spiritual themes aren’t dealt in an adequate manner. Those who are seeking a masterful, generic thriller might be disappointed by the unprecedented mystical ideas towards the denouement. Even director Weir has admitted in an interview that he didn’t know how to end the film. He tells that he has thought of neat, clever endings, but then Weir chose to go with the open, unresolved climax. The ending may definitely split the viewers, making them either to call it as a brilliant, reflective work or as an average thriller.

“The Last Wave” (106 minutes) is a compelling atmospheric thriller that doesn’t spell out everything for the viewers. It depicts the spiritual awakening as well as the psychological breakdown of a rational, modern man.

Trailer

The Last Wave -- IMDb

Nicolas Winding Refn is one of the divisive and maverick contemporary film-maker. You will either hate or love his work (there is no middle ground). At the age of 26, Refn was accepted into the prestigious National Film School in Denmark. But, he opted to “Pusher” (1996), a de-glamorized portrayal of a small-time Copenhagen gangster. The movie was huge hit in Denmark, but in 2003 his career almost came to an end because of the utter failure of “Fear X” (2003), a psychological thriller. He then came back strongly with extremely violent sequels to “Pusher” (the human carcass disposal scene is engraved in my mind). However, these films didn’t possess the stylistic wonder, which now defines Refn’s works. With “Bronson” (2008) portrayed the heightened kind of violence by taking a heavily stylized approach. The violence and destruction in Refn’s films, from then on, could be best described with words like ‘weirdly beautiful’ or ‘whimsical’. Refn with “Bronson” carved out a fresh cinematic ground, where energizing visuals and jaw-dropping central performance took precedence over the traditional story-telling devices.

“Bronson” is a visionary biopic of Micheal Gordon Peterson aka Charles Bronson, who is known as ‘the most violent prisoner in Britain’. However, Refn defies every convention and jumps every pitfall, into which a film-maker might fall under in order to make a prison drama. Michael Peterson, born on 1952, has always liked a bit of ultraviolence. He enjoyed fighting as a teenager and got involved in various petty crimes. He moved through several numbers of jobs and at the age of 22 (1974), he took his sawed-off shot gun to steal 26.18 euro from a local post-office. He was caught and sentenced for seven years. Inside the prison, Bronson loved to brawl against prison officers and fellow convicts. He was transferred through 120 prisons and spent most of that time in solitary confinement. Upon his release in 1988, Peterson pursued a career in bare knuckle boxing, where his promoter dubbed him ‘Charles Bronson’, after the macho American star. But, he spent only 69 days outside as a robbery once again landed him back inside. His constant hostage-taking incidents and belligerent behavior, inside the prison has confined him to a solitary cell (for four decades; in 2014 he has changed his name to Charles Salvador and wishes to distance himself from his past reputation).

Refn’s crimson-red opening sequence establishes what an unbridled beast Bronson (played by Tom Hardy) is as he is pacing side to side inside his cage, charging up for the upcoming onslaught with the prison officers. Refn isn’t looking to take an empathetic approach, by depicting his childhood and the causes for his violent behavior. He just abruptly immerses his viewers into the manic rage of his central character. The brutal set-pieces are inter-cut with to-the-camera narration, in which against a black backdrop, Bronson is on a stage explaining his ego-maniacal worldview to an audience. These slipping-through-the-mind sequences come between each spurts of Bronson’s mad acts, showcasing how Bronson orchestrated his own destructive behavior. In these sequences, Bronson fancies himself as a vaudevillian, which works very well since his erratic conduct itself is born from a desire to be famous (to occupy the center position of a stage).

Director Refn on a public discussion forum stated how he and Tom Hardy despised each other during their first meeting to talk about ‘Bronson’. Refn even considered Guy Pearce and Jason Statham for the role, but then Hardy bulked up, obviously not wanting to leave this prize role.“Bronson” wouldn’t have been the same feral, powerhouse feature, if not for Hardy’s performance. Although he ‘bares all’ in front of camera in various sequences, he has worn the suit of wrath & rage throughout the film. The way Hardy explains his exploits & philosophies deviates from the general idea of Peterson being a dumb, insane animal. Although Hardy never goes for empathy or tries to hide the malevolence, he perfectly exhibits how Bronson is totally powerless to his violent impulses.

Nicolas Refn, although lionizes Bronson’s exploits, never feature him as a martry or isn’t trying to make a treatise on British Penal Code. It definitely isn’t a contemplation on cause & effects of punishment. As critic Roger Ebert rightly declares: “It is 92 minutes of rage, acted by Tom Hardy”. Refn just lets Hardy go to showcase his genius acting, while at the same conjures up some brilliant imagery to lend wild charisma to the proceedings. The splendid symmetrical camerawork (by cinematographer Larry Smith), low-level compositions, and tantalizing tracking shots immediately make us to recite ‘Kubrickian’. The blending of classical music during the brutal beat-downs also reminds of us the influential auteur. The protagonist’s black humor, anti-social rants, and the prison imagery likens to Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”, although in ‘Bronson’ there is no rehabilitating techniques.

The use of color palettes (muted ones to show the decaying prison and the crimson red during the clashes) in the film definitely needs a detailed studying and could be comprehended with repeated viewings. But, what enamored me is the way director Refn, through brief moments, demonstrates how psychologically Peterson aka Bronson will forever remain in captivity. After getting released in 1988, Bronson is picked up by his parents in a car, and after reaching home, he struggles to open the locked door of the car; in other sequence he couldn’t open a closed gate, and furthermore Bronson comes across many closed doors even on the outside. A video essay I came across in Vimeo(titled ‘Bronson: Psychology and Symbolism’) pin-points, how Refn subtly fills his frames, throughout the film, with horizontal and vertical lines to convey the feeling that Bronson always remains in a cage (literally & figuratively).

My favorite part in the film is the final stretch when Bronson during a phase of passivity discovers art (painting) and displays great progress. He maintains a good relationship with the instructor and enjoys his time in the prison art room. However, when the prison warden itself acknowledges this slight rehabilitation, Bronson is bedazzed. He is a man whose actions from adulthood have brought him the much-desired tangible results. But, the reaction of everyone to his art remains impalpable to him and so he lapses back to his old-self, taking the instructor as a hostage and eventually is beaten senseless by the guards. It once again highlights or confirms Bronson’s distorted idea of being a hero.

“Bronson” (92 minutes) is a surrealistic and stylized theatrical treatment on the life of an imprisoned backslider. Like all of Nicolas Winding Refn’s work, this film too would bring out balanced reactions of repugnance and enchantment.

Trailer

Bronson -- IMDb

Rated R for violent and disturbing content, graphic nudity, sexuality and language

Video Essays:

Bronson: A Subversion of the Conventions of the Prison Film

Bronson - Psychology and Symbolism

Charles Bronson aka Charles Salvador -- Wikipedia

As one grows old in age, he/she might often hear the saying: ‘Old is Gold’, which refers that age and the experience that comes with it is really precious. But, old age also brings its share of discrimination, inadequacy and fear of death. In this modern world, a human being is deemed ‘active’ based upon his memory wellness and his ability to learn new things. However, as age stacks upon us, our achievements in life wouldn’t seem much in front of our failures and weakness. The emotional anxiety and mental imbalance kindles the old people’s resentment, which they hold for themselves. Old age is really a challenge and movies have mostly stayed away from showing the distressing issues of old age. Since, cinema itself is often viewed as a tool of entertainment for young people, it fails to elucidate how hard it is for elderly people to make peace with the past. Mark Rydell’s“On Golden Pond”(1981) -- based upon Ernest Thompson’s 1978 play -- is one of the cinematic exceptions that offer an engaging as well as ethereal portrait of an elderly couple.

“On Golden Pond” contains a streak of sentimental interludes and may not be as contemplative as Haneke’s “Amour”, but it does offer rare glimpse about the positive and negative attributes of old age. The movie starts with the 79 year old Norman Thayer (Henry Fonda) and his wife, Ethel Thayer (Katharine Hepburn) arriving at their picturesque lakeside cabin in New England. Financially they are well off and most importantly, they are thoroughly in love with each other. Norman is a cantankerous person, who often gives surly replies to divert others' attention from his dementia. He still studies the classified ads in newspapers and teases his wife about getting a new job. The failing memory bothers him more than the looming thoughts about death.

Ethel Thayer is the portrait of sweetness and grace. She wants to savor their time together and likes to call Norman ‘old poop’. She also likes to sit in the sun near the lake, and talk to the loons. Norman’s crankiness melts a little when he comes in contact with Ethel’s elating nature. However, Norman’s agonistical nature spurts when his daughter, Chelsea (Jane Fonda) shows up at the cabin for his 80^th birthday. She has brought her new dentist boyfriend Bill Ray (Dabney Coleman) and his 13 year old son Bill Ray Jr. (Doug McKeon). As soon as Norman welcomes Chelsea, we could feel that they have never gotten along together. Norman is jubilant enough to make fun of Bill Ray. When Bill asks to sleep in the same room with Chelsea, Norman asks:“Would you like the room where I first violated her mother”.

Next day, Chelsea informs that she is going to leave Bill Ray Jr. with them, as she and Bill Sr. is going for a month-long vacation in Europe. The boy feels that he has been rejected and been remanded with these inactive people. Initially, Norman cuts through the boy’s veneer and the couple takes him under their wings, teaching him how to fish. Despite, Norman’s martinet nature he develops a strong bond with Bill Jr., and Ethel remains calm and reassuring as always.

“On Golden Pond” surely packs in certain amount of saccharine qualities, but it doesn’t get drenched in mawkishness. It is subtle and genuinely moving at key moments, especially in the final ‘near-death’ scene. The primary characters in this scene have a heart-trending conversation about mortality (it’s no wonder that Ethel Thayer’s words, “Listen to me, mister. You're my knight in shining armor. Don't forget it. You're going to get back on that horse and I'm going to be right behind you, holding on tight and away we're going to go, go, go!” is named as one of 100 top quotations in American cinema). The film’s power to move its viewers to tears wouldn’t have been possible, if not for the rich performances from Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn.

Fonda, in his final screen role, is both heart-breaking and mirthful. He perfectly showcases aging people’s tendency to withdraw and their slightly domineering nature. Also, look out for that poignant moment, when Henry Fonda gets teary-eyed, when his daughter touches him after a reconciliation of sorts. That moment was so simple, but the emotions displayed were very genuine. Contrary to Fonda’s character, Hepburn finely displays that bright spark of life. Her energetic, ever caring, and optimistic nature shows us that aging could also be enjoyable if approached from the right perspective. Ethel’s nature would remind us of our own grandmothers, whose existence saved those grandfathers from being a recluse. If you had to point out a vital flaw, I would say that there could have been little depth in the relationship between Norman and Chelsea. We don’t definitely feel for Jane Fonda’s character, since her conflict with the father is tritely defined with words ‘inferiority’ and ‘neglect’.

“On Golden Pond” (109 minutes) is a simple, uplifting movie about an elderly couple. Despite a few melodramatic tones, the masterful performances stay perfectly in tune with the film’s emotional core.

Trailer

On Golden Pond -- IMDb

An average Indian film-goer in often sees an art film with some kind of apprehension. Even a viewer expecting something different wants the ideas to perfectly fit within the confines of a commercial cinema. On the other hand, some of Indian films do try to convey the much-needed social messages. But, then most of the times these films turn out to be a loud, well-intentioned nonsense, where the characters are just painted in black-and-white, and they also find it hard to escape from the sing-and-dance or the melodramatic routine of our cinema. Director Manikandan’s debut feature-film “Kaaka Muttai” (2014) breaks the notion that award-winning films is always for the critics. It also shows how a charming little film could be made within stark surroundings without ever being sentimental.“Kaaka Muttai”is a brilliant, rare crowd-pleasing art-house film that blends harsh realism with captivating fiction.

The film revolves around a pair of mischievous young brothers, living in Chennai’s shantytown with their hard-working mother and a caring grandmother (the boys’ father is serving time in prison). The boy’s addresses themselves with weird nicknames: Periya (big) Kaaka Muttai (Vignesh) and Chinna (small) Kaaka Muttai (Ramesh), which refers to their favorite pastime of eating crow’s egg (for nutrition), straight from the bird’s nest. The boys pretty much spend their time on salvaging coal (they earn 3 rupees for picking up 1 kilo) from the nearby railway tracks. In the leisure time, they imagine themselves attaining a better life. Like all children, the boys beg their mother for things they couldn’t afford to buy. Meanwhile, the boys’ favorite hang-out spot is overtaken (the tree with the crow’s nest is cut-down) by pizza franchise owner with the help of shady MLA & real-estate developers.

The fashionable‘Pizza Spot’ is opened by a star actor and the boys are obsessed with the pizza that is served to him. The TV advertisements make them crave for the oleaginous dish, which is priced at Rs. 299. The boys whose daily wages amount to Rs. 10, engage in various little chicaneries to reach their distant dream (one hilarious shenanigan involves ferrying neighborhood drunkards, who are way too drunkard to reach home). But, earning three-hundred rupees doesn’t seem to be enough as the pizzeria’s watchman doesn’t even allow the boys to enter the premise, citing their slum background. From this point onwards, the film not only becomes an allegorical representation of the vast class differences, but also reveals how a section of people prey off a system that literally and figuratively leaves little room for the slum dwellers.

Spoilers Ahead

For the most part, director Manikandan with his depiction of urban poverty doesn’t try to manipulate our emotions. He goes for hope rather than despair, but at the same time he does it without taking the easy cinematic route. Manikandan has also written the script, evoked sensible performances from the cast & fulfilled the role of cinematographer. Unlike many other Tamil directors, Manikandan doesn’t stamp his message with overcooked plot elements. He employs certain characters and uses few situations for comic relief, but then it doesn’t look extraneous. Manikandan’s camera & writing remains as a mere observer rather than trying to be an imposer. May be that’s why all the opportunists we come across in the movie’s second-half looks like well established characters, who reminisces someone we have encountered in the society, rather than caricature.

There are many small moments that try to capture the beauty inside sordid surroundings: Chinna Kakka Muttai holds up a torn 10 rupee note and the sun shines through it; the slow motion imagery of a pizza commercial and boys’ look, who view it like a dish prepared in heaven; the grandmother’s preparation of a make-believe pizza; and the final reaction of the boys when they got over their euphoria. Such vignettes along with subtle characterizations make it breath of fresh air. Indian films that usually deal with slum-dwellers would often comprise dialogues that speak volumes on the poor people’s dignity & self-respect. However, Manikandan showcases that the central characters are dignified ones without including it on lines spoken: the mother avoids the money she could get by participating in a false protest; she refuses the opportunistic MLA’s offer for tea; she’s peeved when her boys are humiliated; the elder boy chucks out the pizza dream only when his dignity was preyed upon, in front of other slum-kids (also note that the elder boy also backs out in his attempt to steal a cellphone).

Lack or loss of identity & desire seems to be the main theme of “Kaaka Muttai”. We never know the boys by their real name and their cramped houses don’t have any door no. or address. The quest for identity is kindled more when desire kicks in. They learn not only money is important to buy your object of desire, but also a new identity. When the boys come up with a new identity (through fresh clothes) they are still singled out, and ironically by a man, who belongs to their own class. However, this inclination to achieve things doesn’t just occupy the minds of the protagonists. A finely clothed upper-middle class boy desires for roadside panipuri. A small-time thug as well as a local politician desire for easy money; media desire to create ruckus over a cellphone video. Although, the latter desires by adults is what makes the society, dangerous opportunistic. A TV isn’t just a machine that brings entertainment; it tunes our minds to desire for things we don’t need. The ironies just keep on coming in ‘Kaaka Muttai’. Look how the media cameraman shoos away the kids, whose story the channel is covering on and remember chinna Kaaka Muttai’s final words after tasting his first pizza.

“Kaaka Muttai” (99 minutes) isn’t a glossy children flick that confirms to the standards of Bollywood or Kollywood. It is a lesson for Tamil/Indian film-makers on how social issue movies could be made without vociferously preaching messages.

Trailer

Kaaka Muttai -- IMDb

Kaaka Muttai -- Baradwaj Rangan

We always fear what we don’t know or understand. Horror thrillers catch up on that basic strand and build up a monstrous creature or an apparition, which taunts the protagonists and obliterates ignorant by-standers. But, at some point in the story, the film-maker chooses to provide weird mythologies or back-stories for the creature or ghost to reassure the audience that everything will be resolved in the end. Nevertheless, the moment we get to know about something terrifying, its insidious purpose too comes within a perceivable framework. David Robert Mitchell’s“It Allows” (2014) possesses a relentless, malign entity at its center, although the director never explains what it is. The film blends art-house sensibilities into classic horror genre, which may disappoint viewers expecting a disturbing, but a conventional horror flick.

The movie starts off with a great, creepy prologue sequence, where a young girl runs out of her house with a dreadful look and keeps an eye on the center of road. We couldn’t what she is afraid of, but the girl quickly gets into a car and runs off to the beach, where she meets grisly fate. Then we see our main protagonist Jay (Maika Monroe), a 19 year old blonde college coed, who lives in her suburban home with a younger teenage sister Kelly (Lili Seppe) and a widowed mother. We rarely see the mother, who seems to have no real engagement with her daughters’ lives. Jay’s two friends Yara (Olivia Lucardi) and lovelorn Paul (Keir Gilchrist) always spend time at her house. Jay is dating an attractive & mysterious guy Hugh (Jake Weary), who points to a girl in a yellow dress, whom Jay couldn’t see. Later, Jay’s first sexual experience with Hugh ends up in the worst way possible as he chloroforms her and ties her to a wheelchair in an abandoned building. But, Hugh intention isn’t to hurt Jay, but to explain & warn about what’s waiting her.

He says that he had sex with Jay to pass onto her a supernatural spirit – simply called as ‘IT’ – which has been haunting him. Hugh explains that from now on, Jay would see strange people walking towards her at a slow pace, with an intention to kill her. The ‘IT’ can appear at anytime, at any form (sometimes it could even take the form of someone she know). Hugh’s advises her to pass it along (by having sex with someone else); to never enter into a place that has one exit; and to never let ‘it’ touch you. If Jay doesn’t pass the curse, then it would kill her and return to haunt Hugh. Jay is dropped in front of her house in underwear and her friends think that she has been raped. She tells the police that sex was consensual, but for some reasons Hugh have skipped town, and Hugh is not even the guy’s name. From then on, only Jay sees the ‘IT’ in terrifying forms, although can outrun it as long as she’s outdoors or in a room with more than two doors. However, she is traumatized by IT’s shapes and thinks about passing it on to a friend. Jay’s sister and friends stand by her, although they don’t fully believe in her visions.

Spoilers Ahead

Director David Robert Mitchell debut film “The Myth of American Sleepover” (2010), a realistic & sensitive coming-of-age tale, which managed to be screened under ‘Cannes Critics Week’. “It Follows” also played over in Critics Week Committee and some critics even called it a find of the festival. The movie has to be hailed for providing a visceral ride that scores full marks on atmosphere. The constant fear of IT is explored psychologically and so for the most part jump scares are avoided. Instead, what we have are suspenseful long shots & slow tracking shots (by cinematographer Mike Gioulakis), where we closely look at every human walking towards the camera. Take the scene, where Jay and her male neighbor Greg enter the school to collect information on ‘Hugh’. From the hallway, the camera circles the premise (with an unnerving music on the background) and from a distance observes all those present. The shot is set in such a manner where we are on look out for strange characters that are traveling towards the building. Although, nothing terrifying happens in that scene, Mitchell keeps us on the edge in some mundane information-gathering sequence.

My favorite one was when Jay wakes up in a hospital after having an accident. She looks at her mother and friends (all of them sleeping) and sees the open door of the room. Since the room has only one door, she dreadfully looks at the hallway. With tears rolling from the eyes, Jay heaves a sigh, when some person passes across the room. This constant sense of paranoia and dread felt by the primary character is what makes the film stand out from the usual uncanny horror premise. Unlike a studio horror film, Mitchell opts for grotesqueness as a scare tactic rather than gore or blood. It Follows’ atmosphere could be compared to Micheal Haneke’s works (especially “Cache”), although it isn’t as emotionally deep as the auteur’s works. But, if Mitchell keeps his uncanny style, he could very well turn attain a revered auteur status one day.

The scenes also some times blacks out, leaving it to us to guess what happened. The boat guys sequence is one such example. We see jay getting into the water and later she her driving the car, crying with a wet hair. But, we are forced to make our own decision on what happened. Mitchell takes the simple plot element in most of 70’s slasher thrillers from Wes Craven or John Carpenter, where teens (especially the girl) are punished for their promiscuous behavior (they easily become the first victims of the killer). He adds layers to the plot element, allowing us to make different metaphorical readings. It’s hard to pin-point on what ‘IT’ is. Is the film a metaphorical treatment of STD or teenage sex? (Mitchell, however, remains non-judgmental about teenage sex) Or is it about a congealed force of evil in an isolated urban society (parents who are responsible for these teenagers are kept away). Repeated viewings may offer some answers, especially on the constantly repeated water symbolism.

The other big question on viewers’ mind would be ‘on what period is the movie is set?’ The TV’s, the electrical appliances and the characters reminds us of the era when John Carpenter made his best horror films, but that clam-shell e-book reader (Yara’s), the dilapidated urban districts and the dresses the teens wear looks contemporary (Mitchell intentionally messes up the time period just like he keeps us in the dark about the monster). Despite all the fascinating visual approaches, “It Follows” didn’t satisfy me because of its over-the-top literal-minded setting and those sequences totally lacked a truly frightening moment.

“It Follows” (100 minutes) is a spooky, atmospheric horror thriller with a purposeful subtext. The film-maker’s choice to keep the horror element inexplicable and ambiguous may definitely irk the fans of conventional horror films.

Trailer

It Follows -- IMDb

Paul Haggis is a fine American film-maker. He has written screenplays for critically acclaimed “Million Dollar Baby”, “Letters from Iwo Jima”. His sophomore directorial venture “Crash” (2004) reaped three Oscars (including Best Picture) and drawn mixed feelings among critics and American audiences. On one hand, Haggis’ “Crash” was hailed for interweaving a powerful message about racism, whereas the others accused Haggis for giving a short-sighted, blatant message on tolerance. Yeah, I too felt that Haggis often waves that message flag in front of our face, and his one-note characters also didn’t provide much nuance. In the recent years, Haggis has involved himself with pretty forgettable projects like “The Next Three Days”, “Third Person”. But, Haggis looked like a more mature film-maker with his psychological drama “In the Valley of Elah” (2007). Despite an Oscar-laden cast, it’s neither the regular award-baiting, ‘patriotic’ American movie nor a tawdry anti-war manifesto.

“In the Valley of Elah” was based on American journalist and writer, Mark Boal’s factual article “Death and Dishonor”. Although the story outline resembles a murder mystery, it is a composite study on the psychological effects of war on the American soldiers. The movie’s subject also gains enough prominence because of the central, taciturn style of performance from Tommy Lee Jones. The film starts with Hank Deerfield (Lee Jones), a former military police, receiving a phone call from a military base in Mew Mexico. The caller informs him that his son, Mike (Jonathan Tucker) has gone AWOL after a tour of duty in Iraq. It’s distressing news for Hank because he didn’t even know that Mike is back from Iraq. Although Hank doesn’t seem like a very communicative dad, Mike seems to have regularly sent his dad e-mails or photographs.

Hank leaves behind his distraught wife (Susan Sarandon) at home and drives to military base. On his journey, he sees the American flag hoisted upside down. He calls the janitor and says, “Do you know what it means when a flag flies upside down? It’s an international distress signal. It means we’re in a whole lot of trouble so come save our asses ‘cause we ain’t got a prayer in hell of saving it ourselves”. At that point, we could guess, at least Hank’s life is on the path of distress. Few days later, Hank receives news about his son, whose body was found in a field near the military base (stabbed 42 times), burned and dismembered. Although the local police finds the body, they are happy to give it to Army investigators when they come waving the words ‘jurisdictional authority’.

The truth neither side gives a damn, except for detective and single mother Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron), who is persecuted by her peers for being a female. As a mother she feels empathy towards Hank’s situation and finds enough clues to prove that the murder of Mike has happened in their jurisdiction. The military hands back the case, even though they seem to be concealing something. Emily and Hank trudges through red-herrings and misdirections to find the truth behind Mike’s death. In the tumultuous investigation, Hank also gets to know what war did to his son.

There are investigative scenes that echo CSI episodes and there is an alleyway chase of a criminal that doesn’t belong to this movie, but to a large extent, Haggis has weaved the script with subtlety and hasn’t been manipulative in contriving the emotional scenes. When Hank speaking to his wife through phone about his son’s death, you don’t see her wailing and thrashing except when she says, “Both of my boys Hank! You could’ve left me one”. But, then you see a top-angle shot where the phone is on the ground, the table toppled, and there are items scattered around the place. So, here Haggis instead of walking us through the regular emotions of bereaved mother, he provides glimpses into the character’s past and their nature (“Living in this house, he never could’ve felt like a man if he hadn’t gone” (to army)). Haggis and Tommy Jones wonderfully stages the way in which Hank would handle his son’s death. As Hank knows the practices of military, he easily judges what news waits for him when he is a greeted by a soldier in his motel room. Such nuanced reactions are what make this a quiet engrossing film.

Spoilers Ahead

The title and central theme runs around the story of David taking down (with slingshot) Goliath in the valley of Elah. But, here the tactics of the king by sending a little boy David into battle is questioned. The Davids represent the inexperienced, young American soldiers fighting American’s government devised ‘war on terror’. The Goliath here is not the Iraqis, but the government itself which creates such hostile situation and pushes the soldiers to bring a false sense of peace. Half-way through the movie, Hank tells the David/Goliath story to Emily’s son and we could easily draw comparisons to the present situation. But, once again Haggis doesn’t harshly wave the allegory into our faces. If there is one overly dramatic gesture, then it must be Hank’s final action, which is sort of a political sermon, but apart from that the film remains thoroughly effective.

The performances mostly stay true to the characterizations. Eventually, Hank doesn’t preach that ‘war is hell’ because as a military man he wouldn’t denounce what he had done in his past years. He is only bereaved by the way soldiers’ psyches are scarred. The movie could be perfectly called as a subtle exploration of war-induced trauma (although the word is never mentioned) rather than an ‘anti-Iraqi War story’. Trauma hovers around the soldiers’ eyes in each of their interactions, and that itself provides a clue to Mike’s death. For those, who view the film as a murder/mystery, the final twist may seem very simple, but I felt it was formulated impeccably. You are confused why Mike would be pissed off and fight with his fellow soldier (and meet his death), when the guy says ‘what a good driver Mike is’. Later, you get to know what the ‘driver’ comment really means, and why Mike is enraged. These subtle enlightening moments plus the whole mystery is built to ask ‘why’; not ‘who’. It’s an onerous question because no one, including the killers, is depicted as a monster. So, unlike the ‘so-called’ patriotic progaganda films like “Black Hawk Down”, “The Kingdom”, “Lone Survivor”, or the recent “American Sniper”, Haggis remains apolitical.

The movie’s powerhouse themes would have withered away quickly if not for Tommy Jones’ unforgettable performance (he was aced in the Oscars by Daniel Day Lewis’ towering performance in “There will be Blood”). The quiet, reserved, and emotionally scarred character is quite with in the range of Tommy’s roles, but he infuses a lot of nuances into ex-M.P. Hank, especially in the way he shines his shoes in the morning or the way he follows his instincts. Charlize Theron as the pestered detective plays her role with enough depth. She remains empathetic to Hank’s plight rather than being pitiful.

“In the Valley of Elah” (121 minutes) is a compassionate and thoughtful look at the ravages of war on the soldiers’ psyche. It doesn’t come off with the regular American patriotic or anti-war sermons.

Trailer

In the Valley of Elah -- IMDb

Afghanistan is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. A statistic provided by UN’s Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance state that nearly 100,000 mines are still awaiting removal. Although different combatants in Afghanistan have employed the use of land mines, a majority of landmines were planted by Soviet occupying forces between 1979 and 1989. Civilians –most importantly children -- are the chief victim of these landmines. The full extent of Afghan landmine problem still shrouded in mystery as most of the civilian deaths & deformities goes unreported.

Movies have often used landmines as a narrative device that step-ups the tension quotient. Bahman Ghobadi’s “Turtles Can Fly” (2005) is one of the authentic, moving portrayals of how a mined war-zone would be. But, most of mainstream war films shun the authenticity about landmines to give us a sustained drama. British film-maker Paul Katis in his debut film “Kajaki”(2014) has re-constructed the grueling minefield incident of 2006, near Kajaki dam (situated in Afghan’s Hemland province). It is hailed as one of unflinchingly realistic portrayal of how mines work. The big relief is that unlike his American counterparts, director Katis doesn’t often throw in words like ‘bravery’, ‘epic heroism’, and ‘patriotism,’ and also doesn’t employ the use of slow-motion shots to imbue tension. It provides a painfully realistic cinematic experience without engaging in grand political statements.

The movie is set on September 6, 2006, where a group of British soldiers stationed near the hydro-electric dam named ‘Kajaki’ carry on with their base-camp routine. Viewers expecting a battlefield thriller may get tired by the initial sequences, because of the authentic portrait of soldiers’ routine and due to the heavy use of military jargon. The soldiers are part of British Army’s 3^rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment (3 Para). The unit’s sniper, Lance Corporal Stuart Hale (Benjamin O’ Mahony) on that fateful day, spots hostile Taliban forces, setting an illegal road block. An airstrike would cause lot of civilian causalities and so Hale takes along two other paratroopers to get a closer look at the hostile forces. As the trio walk through a dried-river bed, Hale sets off a landmine, blowing his left leg. Fellow soldiers scamper to come to aid Hale, but then find out that entire river-bed is a deadly minefield, where a single unchecked step could result in explosions. All the factors are beyond the soldiers’ control, since even a rescuing helicopter could trigger a lot of mines.

In aesthetic terms, especially after considering its limited budget, “Kajaki” was a well-made piece of work, which sometimes even exceeds the craftsmanship of American propaganda films on‘war on terror’. This film would be compared with Katheryn Bigelow’s Academy-Award“The Hurt Locker”(2008) mainly because both these works declines to take any ethical stance on the conflict, people are involved. The script by Tom Williams exclusively focuses on the ground-level experience of soldiers, whom despite their painstaking training, come across new horrors. The screenwriter tries to genuinely show how a real soldier would talk. So, the first 30 minutes is mostly incomprehensible and the soldiers’ regional British accents exhaust us more.

Williams and director Katis also take pains to depict how the chain of command between soldiers worked clearly amidst such unbearable chaos. Although the dialogues in the later part would have been subjected to heavy dramatization, they come off touching (especially the ‘Happy Birthday’ song) and keep us on the edge to learn about their fate. The belivable use of humor does bring down the insurmountable tension of the proceedings. Viewers who recoil from gory & clear images of detached limbs must keep themselves away from this film. The physical effects of each painful explosion, however, aren’t used in an exploitative manner or to generate a shock-effect. David Elliott (who played mark) and Stanley (played Tug) are the two most impressing performers of the ensemble as their tangible commitment somehow reincarnates the bravery of the real soldiers.

“Kajaki” (108 minutes) is an unflinching and incredibly moving account of modern warfare that is devoid of jingoism and pro-military agenda. It avoids the glib romanticism of the recent American warfare films like “Lone Survivor”, “Fury”, “American Sniper” etc.

Trailer

Kajaki -- IMDb

Coen Brothers’ much heralded, stylish neo-noir,“Fargo”(1996) made a devious claim that incidents portrayed in the film are based on a true story (“The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987” says the opening title card). By falsely inserting the phrase ‘based on a true story’, the Coens’ tried to comment on how even narratives based on such phrases has little truth in it and to poke fun at a viewers’ gullibility on accepting every story as some form of fact. In November 2001, a Japanese woman named Takako Konishi was found dead in the snow fields near Detroit lakes, Minnesota. The media initiated rumors that the Tokyo office worker has embarked on a journey to find the money buried by actor Steve Buscemi’s character in the film “Fargo”, believing that the events are real.

A 2003 documentary, titled “This is a True Story”, by American writer/director Paul Berczeller debunked the myth surrounding Konishi’s death. It was discovered that the depressed & jobless Japanese woman has committed suicide (after sending a suicide note to her parents) near Detroit lakes, and she had come to Minneapolis because it was a place she has once visited with her married American lover. American film-makers David and Nathan Zellner zeroes in on the urban legend behind Konishi’s death, and makes it a basis for a strangely beguiling adventure “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter” (2015). Zellner brothers treat the silly, impulsive premise with great seriousness, and it mostly works, thanks to an enigmatic performance by Rinko Kikuchi (“Babel”, “Pacific Rim”) in the titular role. Despite the instantly sensational plot premise, “Kumiko” could be best described as a glacially-paced character study of a socially disoriented soul.

The film-makers’ empathetic approach to the central character is visible in the ambiguous opening scene itself, where Kumiko dressed like ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ finds a battered VHS copy of “Fargo”inside a surrealistic seaside cave. After playing &re-playing the damaged copy several times, we could guess that she is intrigued by couple of sequences: the opening title card, which says that ‘events portrayed in the film are true’; and the denouement, where a million bucks is buried in the snow and the place marked with a window scraper. Kumiko, who loves to find treasures, believes that the buried money is a ticket out of her depressing & dissatisfying life. Kumiko is a deeply withdrawn, 29 year old office worker. She hates the patriarchal corporate setting. Her boss’ increasingly degrading requests tempts her to spit in his tea. Kumiko’s over-bearing mother taunts her with questions on phone, relating to promotion, marriage, and boyfriend.

The woman’s only companion is a pet rabbit, named ‘Bunzo’. When both the familial and professional frustration reach a threshold point, Kumiko decides to embark on the treasure hunt. After stealing the company credit card, the naive woman flies over to Minnesota. The Mid-Western state’s featureless & extremely cold landscape hampers the trip, although the people she encounters help her in a general sense. A well-meaning local sheriff (David Zellner) after hearing Kumiko’s quest, points out the obvious: ‘It’s just a normal movie. Fake, like a story’. Nonetheless, Kumiko couldn’t be dissuaded as she feels that discovering the buried suitcase is her destiny.

On the outset, Kumiko’s quest is obviously absurd, but the film-makers never treat it in that manner. Instead, the character (in her tiny red-hooded form) comes off as a fairy-tale figure making a perilous journey, pursued by malignant forces. Zellner brothers tap into the allure of films, which builds scenarios to escape from our mundane lives. Entertainment in a kindles our desire and makes us to act like the person on-screen. But, then Kumiko’s obsession didn’t just born out of desire; its roots are entrenched in her alienation and depression. Zellners don’t give us any strong evidence on why Kumiko firmly embraces a particular fiction, ignoring the obvious truth. However, the woman’s conviction could be seen from a Herzogian perspective (Herzog’s “Stroszek” (1977) is also about a insane quest), where we can never understand why certain people do certain things. Those who impatiently wait for answers would hate this film deeply and a very predictable ending doesn’t work to the movie’s advantage.

There are few elements in “Kumiko” that works in sync with “Fargo”: parallels could be drawn between ill-fated natures of Kumiko & Macy’s Jerry Lundgaard; the sheriff’s clumsy, but genuine gestures puts in mind the Frances McDormand’s deputy character. Although depression is one of the plot’s central themes, the Zellners doesn’t miss out the chances to imbue dark & ironic comedy. The sheriff, in one scene, takes Kumiko to a Chinese restaurant and asks the owner to act as a translator; in another scene, the same Sheriff, who points out ‘Fargo is just a normal movie’, persuasively notes how the statue of Paul Bunyan’s (an American folklore on a giant lumberjack) Ox named ‘Babe’ isn’t anatomically correct, ever since a drunk shot off the statue’s privates.

Rinko Kikuchi’s impressively dour performance redeems the film from just being a mishmash of cognitive themes. Regardless of the character’s nature, Kikuchi downcast journey earns sympathy from the viewers. The little character traits like thinking herself as a ’Spanish Conquistador’ or making notes & embroidering map locations adds a texture to the role rather than making us to simply view Kumiko as a woman in dire need of mental treatment. However, despite Kikuchi’s presence, the proceedings do become stale at some points. Immensely talented cinematographer Sean Porter’s delightful aesthetics helps us to overcome some of the digressing phases. In Tokyo, Porter captures Kumiko through crowded doorways, narrow aisle or library stacks to showcase her inclination towards a better destiny. The bright clothes of Kumiko are also not just used to impart catchy aesthetics. It sort of fits her character too, on how she remains as a contrasting figure amidst all the socially sane beings.

“Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter” (104 minutes) is an ingeniously shot, little unsatisfying character study about a quixotic soul, disappeared between the line dividing fact and fiction.

Trailer

Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter -- IMDb

‘A middle-class or a suburban family facing an unbearable tragic event’ is an often repeated story line in movies. Such modern tragic films try to latch onto the characters, bringing out their raw emotions. However, more often such works turn into melodramatic showpieces, where the film-maker and the actors work in tandem to manipulate the viewers’ emotions. Themes like grief and death would only get a skin-deep exploration as the script works its way to put our favorite actor in a most tear-jerking moment. Todd Field’s intimate and elegiac family drama “In the Bedroom” (2001) stands apart from such aforementioned works. The tragedy in the film was approached with psychological nuances and the powerfully understated performance (without any over-wrought close-ups) makes us genuinely feel the characters’ emotional trauma.

Of course, the film’s title seems a bit dubious. It might make some viewers to expect a film on the adulterous affair of an estranged couple. Although the movie itself subtly hints at the meaning behind the title, revered movie critic Roger Ebert sums it up best in his review:“the title (In the Bedroom) refers not to sex but to the secrets, spoken, unspoken, and dreamed, that are shared at night when two people close the door after themselves”. Based on the short story (“Killings”) by Andre Dubus,“In the Bedroom” starts off like a feel-good romantic story, where a beautiful girl and boy run through tall grass & warm breeze, and passionately kiss on the ground. But the girl, Natalie (Marisa Tomei) is at least a decade older than the boy, Frank (Nick Stahl), who has just finished his high school and spending his summertime as a part-time lobster-man.

Natalie has two young sons and a not-yet-divorced, unstable husband, Richard (William Mapother). Frank lives with his doctor dad, Matt Fowler (Tom Wilkinson) and mom Ruth (Sissy Spacek), a high school music teacher. They all live in an idyllic & quiet Maine fishing town. Matt, in one of his fishing trips with Frank and Natalie’s son, Jason, states what happens when two male lobsters are caught in a trap with a female. However, Matt doesn’t inquire on Natalie’s husband lurking behind the lovers’ vicinity. Matt, the overly loving & lenient father doesn’t judge his son’s affair, even when he comes home with a bruise (after a fight with Richard). Ruth, however, disapproves the affair totally, and repeatedly doubts Frank’s answer that it is only a summertime fling. Frank truly loves Natalie and her sons, and secretly thinks about not going to college. Nevertheless, a tragedy suddenly strikes and leaves the characters to walk in daze with pent-up, incendiary emotions.

Spoilers Ahead

Todd Field, who has played small roles in movies like “Twister”, “Eyes Wide Shut”, makes an outstanding directorial debut with “In the Bedroom”. Careful spectators couldn’t mask their surprise on how Field’s first attempt on direction remains subtle as well as intense. Field has co-written the script with Robert Festinger (he also makes his debut). The duo gradually constructs a revenge scenario, but never provides the viewers the much-expected emotional catharsis. It is unbelievable that such a confident film-maker and meditative script-writer had only worked in one film after this 2001 film (Field made “Little Children” in 2006; and Festinger wrote the script for “Trust”).

Frank’s character is written as a budding & talented architect. In one earlier scene, he explains to Natalie about a architectural design that has intrigued him: a home design where a common room is constructed between adult and child bedrooms. Frank believes that with such a design, families would spill into the center (and forced to communicate). We don’t the reason behind Frank’s fascination with this type of architecture, but as we gradually grasp the design of Fowler’s house in the later part, we could understand Frank. After the tragic death of Frank, the awkwardly designed Fowler’s home helps in an indirect way to keep Matt and Ruth at a distance. Director Field silently and separately observes the estranged couple as they are trapped behind the house’ windows & doors. Matt and Ruth run around the house rarely exchanging words and glances, fearing that it would only lead to a fiery battle of emotions.

At one point, the pent-up emotions bursts out, making the couples to lash out on each other. But Field & Festinger confines the verbal warfare more in the territory of Bergman (deep & contemplative) rather than use it to give the viewers an emotional comfort. The conflict and the distance between Matt & Ruth haven’t entirely vanished, but somehow they have learned to empathize with one another. Many viewers might be irked at the middle-section of the film, where no meaningful conversation happens. But, that is exactly Field’s point: words could never easily relieve our loss. The director repeatedly showcases the futile atmosphere surrounding the character (like buying groceries, watching non-stop chatter in TV) to make us feel the characters’ emotional emptiness. Apart from being subdued study of grief & loss, the film is also a fine examination of vengeance.

Revenge scenario usually makes us to demand for the perpetrator’s blood. And, as Matt Fowler travels down that path (following Richard’s activities); we are with him (we want him to succeed). But, Field has perfectly devised these sequences in order to make us feel the ultimate hollowness behind vengeance. The director’s decision to keep Frank’s death off-screen helps to lend a layer to Richard’s generally smarmy & egotistical character, especially in those final scenes. The happy portrait of Richard & Natalie plus the children’s drawing pasted on the wall of Richard’s house adds some subjectivity to Richard’s character. So, in the end when Richard is shot in cold blood, we only feel that nothing is resolved or accomplished.

Despite the visually brilliant direction and subtle writing, the film could have easily ended up being dull, if not for the potently effective performances from Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkinson. Spacek embodies all of Ruth’s imperfections and anguish. She perfectly displays the emotions of a women, who has lost control over her life and in turn holds on to rage. Wilkinson taps onto the tortured-self of Matt, who thinks that committing murder is the only way to stifle his grief. He is particularly great in those little moments, when Matt constantly comes across things that either reminds him of Frank or Richard.

“In the Bedroom” (131 minutes) is an emotionally complex and troubling study of human grief, without a hint of weepy melodrama. Its lack of closure would definitely make you brood on it for days.

Trailer

In the Bedroom -- IMDb

For the past two decades, Pixar Animation studios (starting from “Toy Story” (1995)) have put together astounding visual feats with strong narratives that were funny, soul-stirring & profoundly beautiful. In their works, the core film-making members of the studio – John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Brad Bird – paid fitting tributes to every cinematic achievement, from the lovely little silent movies to the deeply artistic works of Anime master Hayao Miyazaki. However, the studio’s course of sustained excellence nearly came to a halt as it imparted us with average flicks with little originality. Pixar had gone into a slumber, after that genuine tear-jerker -- “Toy Story 3”. “Cars 2”, “Brave”, and “Monsters University” were all entertaining, but it certainly weren’t emotionally involving experience. And, after the announcement of sequels to “Finding Nemo”, “The Incredibles” & “Toy Story”, it felt that Pixar was also infected by the famous ‘franchise’ virus of Hollywood.

Later, when I saw the 1^st trailer of “Inside Out”, which was touted to be directed by the maker of “Monsters Inc.” & Up”, it didn’t seem that much impressive. It appeared that “Inside Out” will turn a unique concept to include the beaten-down, conventional ideas of animated flicks. But, director Pete Docter has absolutely uprooted all our per-ordained thoughts by giving us a madly-inventive film that turns a ‘hard-to-grasp’ abstract concept into a grandly entertaining movie. “Inside Out” (2015) is not just the best of Pixar or of animated films; it’s an astonishingly great psychological thriller that puts a smile on all our faces. We have seen actors conveying their characters’ emotions through body language and voices, but here the emotions themselves are the central characters.

Fear, Disgust, Joy, Sadness, and Anger – the five basic emotions that drive our behavior are the stars of the film and they are residing in control headquarters (brain) of a pre-teen girl named Riley. Joy is characterized as illuminating pixie of exuberance. She solely fights against other headquarter colleagues, to keep things up-beat for Riley. Sadness is a plump, blue-colored girl, who is unsure of her role in HQ and ruins every memory she touches. Fear is a purple, slender figure with nervous ticks. The green-colored Disgust forces Riley to be sarcastic & judgmental. And, the block-shaped, red-colored Anger is always on the lookout to charge up its fire. Outside the Central HQ is the vast mind-scape, which is sparsely populated with ‘personality islands’.

The 11 year old Riley has had a joyful life with her two loving parents. Her childhood in Minnesota is occupied with best friends and ice hockey. So far, Riley has developed five personality islands: Hockey Island, Friendship Island, Family Island, Honesty Island, and Goofball Island (indicating her playfulness and sense of humor). These five islands are those that provide her emotional-stability. But, calamity strikes soon as Riley’s parents decide to move to San Francisco. Joy does her best to keep Riley engaged, but when every time Sadness touch Riley’s vital memory – depicted as a crystal marble – it becomes an unhappy one. Later, an accident plunges down Joy and Sadness (along with Riley’s core memories) into the furthest dark corners of the brain, leaving Fear, Disgust, and Anger to take control of HQ. Now, Joy & Sadness must find their way to HQ before Riley make mistakes that can’t be fixed.

Like the montage sequence in “Up”, director Pete Docter fills“Inside Out” with delicate moments that makes grown men & women weep. On the outset, it is a very simple tale about a girl dealing with family relocation and losing her childhood friends. But, the director turns such a run-down premise into an epic fantasy that is full of inventive, high-concept thoughts. Only talented Pixar film-makers could create such a complex world and explain it with some brief & dazzling expositions. The level of inventiveness here is so high and the density of details is so dense that it is hard to marvel at every visual within a single viewing. Pete Docter takes us through abstarct psychological concepts of Sigmund Freud and into the surrealist interior mind-scapes of Dali, without ever losing the vision on dramatic clarity.

If a genius creator has pitched the idea of “Inside Out” to some Hollywood Studio executive before the mid 90’s, he/she would be deemed insane. They might have asked ‘are you stupid to make a film solely based on a kid’s emotions?’ But, now the existence of “Inside Out” proves that there is still abundant hope & energy within the franchise-frenzy Hollywood. The stylized and innocent inner world of this animated feature has few parallels with toy world of Lasseter’s animation flick. Both films were about the creatures of micro-worlds trying to solve a bigger emotional crisis, by making an odd, epic journey.

On paper, all of Pixar’s plot structures look cloying and pretentious (you could say that ‘Up’ is just about an old widower making an unbelievable trip to a South American Island). But, onscreen the studio’s film-makers imbue enough magic to bring out a huge emotional impact. The vivid, state-of-art images, Docter cooks up are remarkably poignant because every one of us knows what growing up means. We know why our childhood images are the best and purest and Riley’s age is the perfect & first time, when we humans experience the thing called ‘bittersweet’.

The subtle facial expressions we witness in Riley’s face are some of the best in computer-generated imagery. The bright primary colors imbue an astonishing look to the film. The terrains such as Imagination Land, Abstract Thought, Subconscious (“trouble-makers”), and Dream Productions (the setting reminds us of Docter’s “Monsters Inc.”) were all ingeniously designed. These settings itself holds some clever visual gags (like the sequence that explains how TV advertisements get stuck in our heads). Apart from the pivotal characters, the most interesting one was ‘Bing Bong’– Riley’s imaginary friend, who seems to be wandering around the recesses of memories. It is a character cloaked in ludicrous outfit but exerts enough emotional pull within its short space.

“Inside Out” (94 minutes) is a witty film, filled with bedazzling images, that showcases how nostalgia and sense of loss is as much important as exuberance. With this soul-stirring meta-story, Pixar once again proves that it is at the top of its game.

Trailer

Inside Out -- IMDb

Phoenix – The Existential Quandaries of a Woman and a Nation

The Water Diviner – A Well-made War Drama Bogged Down by Sentimentality

Faults – The Predicament of a Faulty Man

Neighboring Sounds – An Unfeigned Socio-Economic Class Study

The Golden Dream – A Stinging Drama about Vulnerable Migrants

Bunny Lake Is Missing – An Eerie Mystery with a Half-Baked Denouement

Riot in Cell Block 11 – A Hard-Hitting and Pertinent Prison Drama

White God – An Allegorical Revenge Fantasy

Mad Max: Fury Road – A Vividly Captured Energizing Mayhem

The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum – A Relentless Portrayal on the Hypocrisy of Tabloid Press

The Last Wave – A Mystical Thriller about Aboriginal Legends

Bronson – A Vicious and Stylistic Wonder

On Golden Pond – An Elegiac and Elegant Portrait On Aging

Kaaka Muttai aka The Crow’s Egg – A Non-Preachy, Enlivening Film on Economic Divide

It Follows – A Spooky Thriller on Teen Sexuality and Paranoia

In the Valley of Elah – An Empathetic Look at the Residual Effects of War

Kajaki – A Lacerating Depiction of Contemporary Warfare

Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter – A Lonely Woman’s Onerous Dream

In the Bedroom – An Excruciating Emotional Journey

Inside Out – Yet another Profound Pixar Masterpiece