The Heiress

The Heiress (1949) dir. William Wyler
Starring: Olivia De Havilland, Montgomery Clift, Ralph Richardson

***½

By Alan Bacchus

The story of a frumpy spinster and wealthy Heiress, unlucky in love, finds her soul mate in penniless gentleman and fights to keep him against the wishes of her controlling and oppressive father, would seem like ripe material for a triumph of love over money. William Wyler’s adaptation of Augustus Goetz’ play, itself a refashioning of Henry James’ Washington Square is one of the most unexpectedly cynical takes romance in studio Hollywood.

It's the story of love from the angle of the courtship ritual - in this case the Victorian way - a brutal class system transported to America fits like a square peg in a round hole. Olivia De Havilland, one of the most radiant movie stars to ever grace our screens plays the dowdy, shy, and believe it or not, unattractive spinster Catherine Sloper. She's the heiress to a family fortune, but only if she can find a husband to marry. Her knight in shining armour appears to her at a party, a polite gentleman, Mr. Townsend (Clift) who courts her adhering to all the rules of the Victorian aristocracy. It’s a very specific procedure, articulately with precision by Wyler, of dance, calling upon, formal greetings, and most importantly paternal approval.

Ralph Richardson plays the father, a successful and wealthy doctor with a very doubting eye. He’s characterized early as an oppressive figure with expectations too high but in general disappointed in his daughter’s inability to fit into the social culture of his 'class'. While he can be a complete shit and disrespectful at times we do feel he has his daughter’s best interests. And so for much of the film he walks a fine line between fatherly and overprotective.

Montgomery Clift plays Townsend with his usual sympathy. He pours out his love for Catherine so quickly. It’s romantic and honourable until Catherine’s father starts poking holes in his character. And the judge of character were never more important in this society, as tender as currency back in these days.

Old man Sloper approaches his suspicions of Mr. Townsend like he’s diagnosing an illness. Through his conversations at tea and dinner and meetings with his family he slowly sands off the lustre of his charm and find a potentially nefarious motives.

But what it ultimately comes down to is his contempt for his own daughter, feeling that they only thing she has to offer is her money. By the midpoint, we’re kept in the dark as to whether Townsend is genuine and whether the love between the two can surmount Sloper’s obstructions. Is Townsend a golddigger? Or does truly love her?

Admittedly I expected, up until the very end studio Hollywood optimism would prevail, and so when the carpet is pulled out from under Catherine, it’s a sharp jolt to us, the audience, as well. Wyler completes a dark and pessimistic character arc for Catherine, the stuff of great tragedy. Of course, if I had read Henry James, I wouldn’t have had this expectation. And so the ability of Wyler and Fox to tread such dark territory and fool me to easily is admirable.

Riding Giants

Riding Giants (2004) dir. Stacy Peralta
Documentary

***1/2

By Alan Bacchus

I’ve never been surfing, never tried, never wanted to try, yet I find surfing fascinating. The visual sight of a man or woman being carried by the awesome power of the ocean’s waves with elegance and grace is an act worthy of any dance or a work of art really.

And so 'Riding Giants' is elevated above and beyond his previous and more acclaimed documentary ‘Dogtown and Z-Boys”. 'Riding Giants' is more poetic, truer and attempts to understand a deeper examination of the mind and body.

Surfing is a big story, it’s been around for years and many films have been made about the subject. Peralta admirably finds his niche in the subcategory called ‘Big Wave’ riding, referring to the need and desire for surfers to ride the biggest waves possible, not for sport, competition, or sponsorship but the need to tame the ferocity of nature – and if not tame, then be at one with the awesome power of nature.

After a fun 2minutes animated sequence which gets out of the way the 1000 year history of surfing, Peralta starts off with the first group of big wave surfers led by the charismatic Greg Noll, who in the mid 50’s ventured onto the vacant North Shore section of Oahu for the first time and surfed its legendary waves for years with the carefree attitude we’ve come to know as the surfing culture, or as some might say, ‘beach bum’, a rather derogatory term for their uninhibited connection to the land and the water.

Peralta finds a compelling narrative throughline to follow which makes each character and each surfing milestone more engaging, fascinating and astounding than the next. And by the end of the doc the actions of Laird Hamilton compared to the early big wave riders is like Lebron James playing one on one with Elgin Baylor – two great players but at remarkably different skill levels.

Peralta charts the next benchmark in Big Wave surfing as the discovery of ‘Mavericks’, a secluded spot in North California, too cold and remote for the casual surfer, but with waves bigger, badder and more dangerous than the North Shore. Peralta tells the incredible story of Jeff Clark a Big Waver who discovered Maverick’s by himself and surfed it alone for 15 years before anyone else. By this time we're into the 90’s when the rest of the Big Wavers catch up to Clark, which puts Peralta into another gear aesthetically, transporting us from Dick Dale to Alice in Chains and Soundgarden in the soundtrack and even more astonishing surfing footage as the visuals.

And if we thought the waves couldn’t get bigger than Mavericks, Peralta introduces Peahi, Maui, better known as ‘Jaws’ – an even more dangerous spot with ungodly gargantuan waves. It also makes for a good entry point for Laird Hamilton, the most legendary of Big Wave surfers – a white kid from Hawaii, cocky, good looking and completely dedicated to the ocean.

Not satisfied with Jaws Hamilton elevates the sport to international acclaim with a series of advances in the sport which allow him to go higher and faster than anyone before him, like the toe and surf method of skidooing out miles from the shore to find breaks previously inaccessible to the Greg Nolls and Jeff Clarks. Again, Peralta manages to top the Maverick’s footage, ending with some of the most astonishing feats ever performed by man, in an extreme sports endeavour – Laird Hamilton, riding a board half the size of everyone else, in the middle of the ocean gracefully being pushed by a 75 foot wave at speeds of 45mph is simply unbelievable.

Unlike the characters in ‘Dogtown Z-Boys’, the surfers of ‘Riding Giants’ exhibit modesty and restraint. While bravado and boisterous ego was advantageous to the culture of skateboarding, we get the feeling such behaviour is disrespectful to the waves. Because no matter how good Laird Hamilton or Greg Noll is at surfing they’re always at whim of Mother Nature and tempt death every time they go out. ‘Riding Giants’ thus finds its most compelling voice in this existential and spiritual nature of surfing.

‘Riding Giants’ is available on Blu-Ray from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Best of TV 2009

By Matt Reid

Hey everyone, it’s time for 2009’s Top 10 list…and only two weeks late (better than last year’s end-of-January list). To recap, I started this a couple years ago and people seem to enjoy getting it every year (based on the comments I get, such as ‘you are an idiot – you have terrible taste’), so I guess I’ll keep offering up my unsolicited opinions …

A big question I often get is ‘how do you find time for so much TV?’ I guess a more accurate name for this list would be Matt’s TV 2009 (dropping the Top 10) since the only shows I watch are the ones listed below (if a show is not keeping me interested, I stop watching). Plus a New Year’s resolution that Beth & I have to read more and watch less TV may make next year’s a Top 3 list…

Also, the usual disclaimer: these shows are ones that I (personally) watched in 2009 (and since I don’t have pay TV, some shows (e.g. Dexter) won’t be watched until this year on DVD)

First, the sub-categories:

As an avid-Anti Reality Show person, the three ones I actually do watch: The Amazing Race (still enjoyable), Survivor (Russell made it exciting again), Top Chef (mmmmm)

Shows that I used to enjoy but find truly unbearable now: Scrubs, Weeds, Heroes, SNL, Flash Forward (bonus points: this last one only took half a season!)

Honourable mention: Castle (fun guilty pleasure) Big Bang Theory (consistently funny), Office (still good but not what it once was), Rick Mercer Report & Dragon’s Den (these two are proof that my tax dollars can still churn out something worth watching)
Shows that are waiting for me on DVD so they can make next years’ list: Dexter (yes, I’m a little behind), The Wire (I know, I know, it’s the best show ever), Rome

And the Top 10 for this year:

10. How I Met Your Mother

I often hear ‘but it has a laugh track’…..when you generate this many laughs, even I can overlook that. This is more than just a means to an end (who even cares who the mother is); it’s an entertaining look at a group of friends growing up in New York City. A solid cast led Neil Patrick Harris plus writing that rewards loyal viewing puts this on the list for the second year in a row

9. Better Off Ted

I’ll be pretty surprised if anyone reading this watches this show – the ratings are horrific (so it is probably two weeks away from cancellation). From the gifted comedy mind behind Andy Richter Controls the Universe (the cult show that I enjoyed watching again on DVD this summer), it’s a great send-up of corporate culture at a large U.S. conglomerate. Solid performances led my Portia DeRossi (who proved she could do killer comedy in Arrested Development) and sharp writing make this one a winner.

8. Glee

A show unlike any other: completely over-the-top but never playing it safe. One of the most buzzed about shows of the fall, it’s got music (showcasing the power of great pop songs), comedy (Jane Lynch is top-notch), and drama (the reality of wanting to belong in high school). The show misses sometimes (pregnancy storylines, another ‘Glee club is doomed’ story) but it’s so nice to see a show try something different that it can be forgiven for those sins. I’m looking forward to the shows return….unfortunately, not until April

7. Friday Night Lights

Thanks to the investment by DirecTV, this low rated but critically loved show received a third season (and the fourth is on its way to NBC this spring/summer). One of the best depictions of small-town USA life, it is anchored by the top notch performances of Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton. There’s been some turnover in the show’s young cast, but that only further adds to the realism of the show (people do go away to college, you know). A show with heart, humour and drama.

6. Fringe

A show from last year’s ‘Futures Pick’ list, it has become the next great sci-fi show. Whether the episode is part of the overall show arc/mythology or simply a creepy, self-contained episode, I find myself consistently enjoying it every week (and making in one of my first PVR playbacks from Thursday night). John Noble is brilliant as the eccentric Walter but the entire cast gives solid performances. Complex but not too myth-heavy, a show that has really hit its stride in its second season.

5. 30 Rock

Still one of the top laugh providers on my weekly TV schedule, Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey really deliver. With a tone that veers from biting satire to absurd over-the-top humour, this show has introduced phrases such as ‘Shark Farts’ and ’I Want to go to There’ to my vocabulary (which no doubt makes me seem weird to people who don’t watch the show). As someone who works for NBC-Universal, I’m interested to see if the show incorporates the sale by GE into the plot this year….

4. Modern Family

What a gem: the last comedy I remember arriving of the scene this fully formed was a little show called Arrested Development. Modern Family combines a snarky/sarcastic sense of humour with a good dose of heart (but not too sweet) for the fall’s best new show. The cast is solid overall, but early standouts include Ty Burrell as clueless dad Phil and Eric Stonestreet as son-in-law Cameron.

3. Breaking Bad

Bryan Cranston (who won his second Emmy in a row for this show) anchors this complex, darkly humorous and tragic look into the life of a man dying of cancer and the lengths he goes to to provide for his family. Finally getting a full season (Season 1 was cut short due to the writers strike) we became immersed in this world and, at season’s end, were left wondering where the web of deceit will take us next year.

2. Lost

Down from #1 last year but fully expected to regain that title for next year as we head into the final season. Definitely a more sci-fi heavy season last year but still unbelievably executed with amazing acting, writing and directing. The cliff hanger ending has only left us fans salivating in anticipation of the Final Season Premiere in just 3 weeks! Will the final episode satisfy everyone? Most likely not, but I’m just glad we’ve all been taken along on this exhilarating ride.

1. Mad Men

The jockeying between this and Lost for the #1 show seems to alternate in the last few years, but this year Mad Men was the show I found myself most looking forward to once the current week’s episode had ended. As Don Draper is finally forced to confront some issues he had so easily avoided before, the acting by Jon Hamm was second to none. January Jones and the rest of the cast also chipped in top notch performances and Matthew Weiner and his writing team delivered great drama against a historical backdrop. The season finale reset all the pieces and I already can’t wait for Season 4….

Antichrist

Antichrist (2009) dir. Lars von Trier
Starring: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg

*1/2

By Alan Bacchus

The term 'love it or hate it' is not just hyperbole in the case. Lars Von Trier’s cause-célèbre truly is a provocative discussion piece, dividing audiences and critics along both aesthetic and emotional lines. Well I have finally seen the film, months after the debates, so is there any point in debating any more? Well, since two of my other colleagues wrote raving about it (click HERE for Blair's, and HERE for Greg's) let this review be the antidotes to theirs.

"Antichrist" is a steaming, stinking, art house coiler if there ever was one. All of the publicly debated notoriousness - the nudity, the sexual violence, the so-called misogynistic undertones – couldn’t distract from its vacant, flimsy metaphors which needed leaps of Superman-like powers to link toward a profound understanding of what this picture means.

You may know the story by now, a psychological two-hander between the film’s two protagonists, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg going through a particularly intense grieving process after the death of their son. A process which starts out as psychoanalysis of the husband to his wife and degenerates into psychological and physical torture.

Like his slightly less annoying 'Dogville', the film is divided arbitrarily into four chapters plus an prologue and an epilogue (two less chapters than Dogville - thank you Lars), which is false advertising, as it sets up expectations of a tonal shift, or a story shift, but it’s just window dressing, smoke and mirrors for something that is inert.

Admittedly I appreciated the opening sequence. It was fun to see von Trier exercise those muscles of cinematic stylization. The B&W, in slow-mo, and impeccably choreographed had the same melodramatic excessiveness of one of those great Brian DePalma set pieces. But the guts of the film, hurray!, is the lengthy grieving process, Dafoe as the rational therapist who applies his textbook methods to his wife who grieves with complete emotional nakedness.

Oh yeah there’s lots of nakedness. One of themes is his wife’s sexual addictions which she sees as the cause of the boy’s death. As the film becomes more intense and the woman loses her grip on reality, we see her sexual predilections become more extreme resulting in some horrific anatomical close-ups of sexual mutilation.

There is nothing profound in this – two people fighting with each other and blaming each other for the death of their child. Von Trier tries to arthouse-ize his film with a series of random visual metaphors, which never connect in any meaningful way – admirable only as stand alone images

- The poster shot of the two having sex by the tree with the arms and legs protruding from the roots, is a great image, but meaningless
- The raining acorns, meaningless
- The talking dog that yells ‘chaos reigns’, meaningless
- The camera pushing into a close-up of a plant, meaningless
- The deer giving birth to a lamb, meaningless

I assume those Antichrist zealots somehow linked all this randomness together, so maybe I’m the nave?

Perhaps most surprising, is Von Trier technical sloppiness in choreographing his grand finale. When man and woman resort to physical restraint and bodily mutilation, there’s action and fighting ensures, which is so poorly blocked and shot we’re instantly removed from the drama of this climax.

Those money shots – that is, the bloody cumshot, the clitoral home surgery etc – fails to have any impact other than shocks because don’t add feeling to the tone or overall feeling of the film. To compare these moments to say, another even more grotesque film about torture, “Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom”. While a jerking someone off till they ejaculate blood was anomalous to Antichrist, in “Salo” having its characters eat shit off the floor actually seemed ‘right’ for that film.

And lastly the title is a complete misnomer. To not pay off using ‘Antichrist’ as your title is perhaps the worst cheat to the audience.

Mixed Blood

Mixed Blood (1985) dir. Paul Morrissey
Starring: Marilia Pera, Richard Ulacia

***

By Alan Bacchus

The story of two gangs – one Portuguese, the other Spanish - living in the Alphabet district of NYC and the violent drug war which causes much conflict, vengeance and death. "Mixed Blood" is certainly obscure, written and directed by Paul Morrissey, most famous for his association with Andy Worhol and the Factory.

As such "Mixed Blood" is a difficult film to penetrate to say the least, a truly bizarre experience if you compare it to traditional New York-based crime pictures. I shouldn't even try to look into Morrissey's head, but there's an awareness of the New York gangster genre and a concerted effort to subservsively lampoon the genre

Morrissey employs a group of non-actors, presumably plucked from the very streets the film takes place, and throws them in a fantastic hypereal world of violent gangland campness.

"Mixed Blood" is anchored by the only discernable real actor of the bunch Marília Pêra, a Brazilian star, who plays La Punta, matriarch of the the Portuguese gang. La Punta acts like the female Brazilian Godfather (or Godmother). Or maybe a female Fagin is more like it. La Punta is both maternal and sadistic, commanding her army of children gangmember to commit heinous acts of vengeful murder which she nags them about cleaning their dishes, making their beds and taking out the laundry.

She even implies a weird, almost incestuous relationship with her Tiago, her son. Her son played by Richard Ulacia, barely acts, giving us a stone face, unemotive male-model-like vacant stare. In fact the whole film is populated by these types of interesting faces, their acting wonky bordering on atrocious, but strangely natural to Morrissey's overall cinematic wackiness.

Early on, one of young underlings – a kid barely 13 years old gets thrown off the roof of a building. La Punta barely even reacts – a soft sigh is all we get. The reaction is a headscratcher, and so at a glance for these reasons, glance, "Mixed Blood" would seem silly and grossly out of touch with reality. The violence committed by the characters is senselessly violent and graphic, but within the context of the film's compelling contradictions the violence elevates itself to Bunuelesque surrealist comedy. And so, by the end, if you make it to the end "Mixed Blood" finds its unique and rightful place amongst its New York gangster genre brethren.

A Hilariously bad trailer:

Fiddler on the Roof

Fiddler on the Roof (1971) dir. Norman Jewison
Starring: Chaim Topol, Norma Crane, Leonard Frey, Molly Picon, Paul Mann, Rosalind Harris
Michèle Marsh, Neva Small

***1/2

By Alan Bacchus

With his adaptation of 'Fiddler on the Roof' from the successful stage production to the screen director Norman Jewison executes at once, a thrilling and extravagant musical in the grand old ways of studio Hollywood, as well as, using the context of the impending Russian Revolution, a sombre reflection of how the march of time can quickly erase centuries-old traditions and history.

As proclaimed in the opening musical number, the film is about 'tradition'. The family traditions of Tevye’s people, Ukrainian Jews, who for centuries have done things a certain way, the duties of the family set out and adhered without question. Like the grass is green so are the traditions of the Tevye’s life. And so when his three daughters, all of whom have entered marrying age, one by one choose the modern version of courtship over the traditional arrangement, Tevye's life comes crashing down.

The narrative structure coincides with the romances of each of the three daughters. There’s the eldest daughter, Tzeitel (Rosalind Harris), who is set up with an older widower because he has money. But the young gal is clearly in love with the lowly tailor –a fact which everyone in the town knows except Tevye. Adding fuel to Tevye's fire is the second daughter Hodel who shacks up with the local Marxist Perchik. And much as Tevye is a man of principle and tradition, he can't help but give in to their demands. But the last straw is Chava (Neva Small) who elopes with his Russian Orthodox beau, which causes Tevye' to put his foot down on faith and disown his youngest daughter.

At three hours its long and indeed the two hours before the intermission fly by with lightning speed. Arguably the final third is a different film. As the parallel story of the Russian Revolution catches up to Tevye, the film turn serious with a very dark dose of new century reality. Not only are Tevye's traditions crashing down but his entire way of life will be instantly thrown upside down. As Jews, they will be thrown off their land, and presumably later in life, suffer even worse fates.

As the anchor, Topol is magnetic. The Irsaeli star appeared in the London production and in the film version was nominated for an Oscar. Topol exudes great strength as a father, as well as a vulnerable emotional side when his traditions are challenged by his daughters.

Jerome Robbins choreography, like his other great cinematic ventures, West Side Story, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and the King and I, is rooted in the reality of the story. Unlike the fantasies say Gene Kelly, Robbins' sequences don't so much provide audiences with imaginative escapism but distinct expression of the emotion and action of its particular scene. For instance the great wedding scene at the end of the second act, features a number of precise dance numbers, all of which are organically tied to the traditions of the event.

One of the more ironic stories to emerge from the making of this film is contained in the introduction to Norman Jewison's book 'This Terrible Business Has Been Good to Me". In it he describes the inadvertant error made by the studio in their decision to hire Jewison, based on his name. Well, despite his name Norman Jewison is not Jewish, yet he still delivered a great Jewish movie and a timeless classic.

Daybreakers

Daybreakers (2009) dir. The Spiereg Brothers
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill, Emma Randall, Michael Dorman

**1/2

By Alan Bacchus

With vampire mania nowadays, I’m surprised it took this long for the Spiereg Brother’s near future concept to emerge. It’s a remarkably logical concept within the lore of vampire stories. Its Earth 2019, and the world’s vampires have turned almost everyone into immortal bloodsuckers, thus creating a virtually 100% vampire world, where humans are the minority. In fact, like the Matrix humans are farmed out for blood to sustain the vampires. How come no one else thought of this?

The success and appeal of ‘Daybreakers’ coasts a long way on this pretty cool concept. And for the most part it’s executed with enough near future reality to elevate it above most other vampire genre crap out there. But ‘Daybreakers’ is not a great film either, succumbing to its sword and some of the usual vampire/genre familiarities.

All the ‘coolness’ of Daybreakers in no doubt heavily weighted to the opening act. The Spiereg brothers establish this high concept world like a revisionist history treatment. Ed Dalton (Ethan Hawke), who works for the human farming corporation, is in charge of developing an artificial blood substitute to save the world from the rapidly depleting human blood supply. But he’s just like a civilized regular person, a 9 to 5 joe with a house, a car, a fridge, but made to serve vampires. The Spieregs have fun showing us all the details of this upside world. Everyone works at night of course, cars are equipped with UV light blocking windows, automated warning signs read out publicly over a PA warn of the oncoming sunrise.

Early on, we get a really cool sequence demonstrating what would happen to a vampire if he doesn’t get any blood – a grotesque bodily transmutation into a rabid and beastly bat/human hybrid . And an intense fight sequence is staged in Dalton’s home between a neighbour vampire beast invader, Ed and his brother thus showing us the anarchaic future for this new species.

The second act introduces a rebellious group of humans led by gruff wanderer Willem Dafoe who might have a potential cure for vampirism. Again the Spieregs engineer some rather logical vampire science to explain how vamps could be turned back into humans, including a neat 'Frankenstein-esque' transformation sequence which turns Ed back into a human.

‘Daybreakers’ shows signs of narrative wear and tear in the second half. Well, Sam Neill is so unbearably awful from the start actually, portraying his role as baddie with absolutely no personality whatsoever. The Spieregs are clear from the outset that he’s the 'bad guy'. Neill talks in a monotone robotic cadence that make the Matrix’s ‘Mr. Smith’ sound engaging. Of course, his eyes are even more freaky, thus telling the audience, he’s more dangerous and bad than any of the ‘good’ vampires. Later he’s given a hapless subplot about trying to reconnect with his long lost daughter who left home without being turned.

Visually, the film gets more boring as it clips along, employing a played-out, overprocessed 'too-slick-for-its-own-good' look. DOP Ben Nott's fluorescent, over-exposed look from the Fight Club era of music video cinematography, with today’s eyes, it feels so dated and annoying. And the constant desaturatation of every frame again is thematically on the nose – we get it, it’s a heartless society with little hope or optimism, therefore there can’t be any colour. Save for a few sequences, most of the action scenes fail to ignite any sparks. There’s much bodily explosions and gory bodily destruction, some of which admittedly got me a little excited, but the reliance of CG effects in virtually every piece of action felt that an obvious crutch and an example of the filmmakers reaching too far for something they can’t grasp.

And the constant barrage of exposition thrown at us via news footage, newspaper close-up, and a voiceovers in the background threaten to topple the Spiereg’s jenga block mountain of high concept logic.

Despite the marketing push, don’t expect 'The Matrix', or '28 Days Later', but humourless imitation of a John Carpenter movie. A b-movie that desires to be an a-movie.

Passion of the Christ

PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004) dir. Mel Gibson
Starring: Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Maia Morgenstern, Christo Jivkov

****

By Alan Bacchus

PoC is a courageous film for Mel Gibson – a personal passion project which demonstrated his uninhibited and highly devout devotion to orthodox Catholicism. It was also a near career suicidal move, much like Tom Cruise’s outward representation of scientology, the public exhaltation of religion is tantamount to audience alientation. The film could have failed miserably and been seen as a evangelical schlock of those 'Left Behind'/Kirk Cameron films, but its impossible to ignore because its actually really good. Gibson's cinematic command of the medium is so strong he practically strangles the audience into submission.

There’s no more famous story of torture than the crucifixion. The excruciating pain Jesus went through in the name of everyone else’s sin is the basis for Christianity and thus most of the fundamental values of the world today. Whether you believe Jesus was the son of God, blah blah blah, doesn't discount the fact that someone voluntarily went through such terrible agony. Ouch. Nor the fact that this act snowballed into the most significant global phenomenon the world has ever known - Christianity.

It’s a tough film to take and Gibson revels in showing us every grisly bit of flesh-tearing over the 2 hours. The procedural and systematic nature of the violence contributes to this. There is no escape for the Jesus, nor the audience, but its so well shot and acted with amazing ferocity, it becomes a great work of expressive art above exploitation.

So what if the film has a biased Catholic agenda. So what if Mel Gibson is an anti-semite, womanizing, boozing zealot. Through history some of the great works of art have been made by insane irresponsible people. The last thing we want from our artists is appeasement. People might be scared of Passion of the Christ mere because it’s overtly religious. Any more religious than Ben Hur or ‘The Ten Commandments”. No. In fact, throughout history great works of art have been made about the crucifixion itself. Gibson has even said his lighting scheme with Caleb Deschannel was influenced by the paintings of Caravaggio which were particularly brutal.

The best companion piece to Gibson's film is perhaps his main influence Carl Dreyer's 'The Passion of Joan of Ark'. Like PoC, Joan of Ark tells the systematic trial, torture and execution of another zealot, claiming to hear the word of God speak to them. While Dreyer's saves us the gory details of the torture, the procedural nature of that film, is echoed in Gibson's treatment. 'Passion of Joan of Ark' is a landmark film, years later Gibson's film might just emerge to have the same reverence.

Daydreaming the Perfect Adaptation Or Adventures in Masturbatory Cinematic Fantasy

By Blair Stewart

Hello everybody, today Alan was kind enough to indulge me with a favourite past-time of mine that doesn't involve staying on the good side of a German hausfrau.

I often fantasize about a filmmaker matching up with a worthy subject and the wondrous results of their meeting as "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" recently showed when great source material (the Kingpin of my early childhood reading, Roald Dahl) met a skilled director (Wes Anderson) in a stop-motion animated world. Predictably, the crowds all went elsewhere for crap like "Old Dogs"($41 million at the U.S. box office *shakes fist at sky*).

Below is a compilation of novels, TV shows and other narrative possibilities matched up with top directors and the reasons behind the union. And feel free to drum up your own dream cinematic concoctions and 'what ifs' in the comments section.

Anyone who puts down 'Coen Brothers' + "True Grit" will receive a punch in the nuts.

NOVELS

Christopher Nolan directs Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian: Or an Evening Redness in the West"
Starring: Viggo Mortenson, Tom Noonan, Johnny Depp, Willem Dafoe and Aaron Johnson as 'The Kid'

What: An evisceration of the myths of the Wild West in the 1800's, McCarthy's epic follows the indoctrination of a rawhide boy when he joins a pack of blood-caked scalp-hunters laying waste along the border sands of Mexico.

Why: The finest book I've read, rich with symbolism and a truly great villian in Judge Holden, a brilliant 7ft tall hairless albino child-murderer. After molding the perfect Joker for a darker Batman and creating a modern Hollywood diamond in the relentless "The Prestige", Christopher Nolan has the chops for a Biblical Western in a vast 70mm frame. And the sight of Johnny Depp as the ear-less bandit Toadvine would be a career-high.

Likelihood: Presently being adapted by Todd Field of "Little Children" and "In the Bedroom" acclaim, the rights to the book have exchanged hands between Ridley Scott and a smitten Tommy Lee Jones (who starred in McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men" for the Coen Bros). After the lackluster response to John Hillcoat's take on "The Road", Cormac McCarthy's savage prose might be too much for filmgoers. Clint Eastwood would also make a damn fine film of this but he's already covered some of the same pathos in "Unforgiven".

Martin Scorsese directs Michael Lewis's "Liar's Poker"
Starring: Paul Dano, Frank Langella and Paul Giamatti as Lewis Ranieri

What: An again-relevant expose of the 1980's Wall Street machine from the perspective of a 'Geek' (rookie trader) in the world of the 'Big Swinging Dicks' (think Gordon Gekko Jr.'s). A humorous morality play of the young, dumb and full of greed having a billion-dollar pissing match with real currency. Cue the autumn of 2008.

Why: The old master Scorsese works best in testosterone-drenched environments like law enforcement and the Mafia, and Wall Street was most certainly macho in 1987. A script by the likes of David Mamet would be a swell foundation built on the cornerstone of the word "fuck".

Likelihood: Oliver Stone is fast-tracking "Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps" to cover the sub-prime meltdown as we speak, damn him.

Michael Winterbottom directs Aravind Adiga's "The White Tiger"
Starring: Dev Patel, Naseeruddin Shah, Anil Kapoor and Aishwarya Rai as Pinky Madam

What: A lower-caste entreprenuer works his way up the tax bracket using his skills in eavesdropping, sly improvisation and other questionable tactics in the New Indian economy.

Why: Relevant but overpraised, "The White Tiger" won the prestigious Man Booker Prize for its critical stance on the juggernaut Indian continent that will soon rule us all. Winterbottom's cinema-verite approach, global outlook and chameleon nature to dive into new cultures could pay dividends similar to Danny Boyle's success with "Slumdog Millionaire".

Likelihood: As you read this Winterbottom made two features, a documentary on North Korea and a mini-series for the BBC concerning football hooligans. It could happen.

Hayao Miyazaki directs Roald Dahl's "The B.F.G."
Starring: Patrick Stewart and Carey Mulligan as the voices of the Big Friendly Giant and Sophie

What: Alongside "The Witches" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", Roald Dahl's tale of a dreamland populated by a young girl and her trustworthy Big Friendly Giant versus his man-eating brethren delights with bone-crunching glee.

Why: A children's tale with dream-catchers and erudite English behemoths? Miyazaki and the cell-animation titans at Studio Ghibli of "Spirited Away" fame would nail this.

Likelihood: Possessing one of cinema's true Midas touches, Miyazaki's once-retired pencil is set to create a further two features in the near future. There's still hope.

Harry Selick directs Yann Martel's "The Life of Pi"
Starring: Alan Rickman as the voice of Richard Parker, the Bengal Tiger

What: The stirring yarn of an Indian boy surviving the sinking of a rustheap in the Pacific only to find himself on a lifeboat with a toothsome Royal Bengal Tiger for company.

Why: A religious allegory with the power of a Grimm's tale on the adult imagination, "Pi" has a great story caught in a tricky narrative that would challenge the best of screenwriters. A vast fanbase would hopefully turn up at the box-office for the underappreciated format of stop-motion where Harry "Coraline" Selick plies his trade.

Likelihood: Since passing through the hands of Shyamalan and Cuaron "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" creator Ang Lee is now leading a live-action version. But a mature stop-motion world would best invoke the desperate landscape Martel creates.

Woody Allen directs Jonathan Letham's "Motherless Brooklyn"
Starring: Casey Affleck, Zooey Deschanel and Sean Penn as Gerald Minna

What: A love letter to an elder Brooklyn of 'family' Italian hangouts and hoodlum orphanages, Tourettic gumshoe Lionel Essrog seeks the killer of his mentor while making taffy out of the English language.

Why: Featuring an Allen protagonist as memorable as Emmet Ray in "Sweet and Lowdown", and with a keen melancholy for a lost New York that "Stardust Memories"/"Manhattan" fans could identify with, the salty language in "Motherless Brooklyn" would give the ol' Woodster a kick in the ass. This would make for Allen's triumphant return to American filmmaking after his recent European exile with "Match Point" and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona".

Likelihood: The humourless Ed Norton is likely wearing all the crowns of writer-director-star for his version of Letham's defective detective.

Neill Blomkamp directs Katsuhiro Otomo's "Akira"
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Michelle Williams and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Tetsuo

What: In a Megalopolis on the cusp of anarchy a troubled cyberpunk discovers he has immense psychic powers as his gang leader hunts for him high-and-low. Based on the manga series and the seminal 1988 anime that birthed the likes of "The Matrix", with much of the dialogue only involving screaming the names of "Kaneda!" and "Tetsuo!".

Why: Following the high-return box-office success of Blomkamp's "District 9" and Cameron's "Avatar", the bidding for the rights to Otomo's property reached seven figures with good reason. Every fanboy who showed up for the last few sci-fi blockbusters in costume would mark off opening night on their calendars and break out Sunday's best for "Akira". Blomkamp has been mentored by Peter Jackson already so he can handle the action.

Likelihood: Leonardo DiCaprio bought the rights to "Akira" last year, and the story has been moved from Neo-Tokyo to Neo-Manhattan with Gordon-Levitt a fine choice to play the rampaging Tetsuo. At one time talented Irish shorts director Ruairi Robinson was attached to direct but the adaptation is stuck in development limbo.

TV SERIES

Michel Gondry directs "Dr. Who"
Starring: Jim Carrey as the Doctor

What: The longest-running science-fiction show in history, "Dr. Who" concerns the time-leaping adventures of a humanoid alien known as "the Doctor" who rights wrongs with the help of his wormhole contraption T.A.R.D.I.S. disguised as a 1950's English police telephone box. It's so British it makes my teeth hurt.

Why: While old bits of pop-culture flotsam have been brought to the big-screen
("Thunderbirds" or "A-Team" anyone?), "Dr. Who's" fanbase is as passionate as the Star Trek crowds, and with two films in the 1960's they should get a third. Carrey is an outrage to play a British institution and yet no one said a peep when Robert Downey Jr. was cast as Sherlock Holmes. A time-jumping reunion of Carrey with the DIY craft of Michel "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" Gondry would bare eccentric and watchable fruit.

Likelihood: BBC Films is working on a script as we speak but no further announcements have been made.

Matteo Garrone directs "The Wire: The Movie"
Starring: Dominic West, Wendell Pierce, Sondra Sohn and Jamie Hector as Marlo

What: American television's finest series, David Simon's "The Wire" burrows along the rot of modern corruption from the grimy streets of Baltimore through the corridors of the Law and up into the halls of power. The fifth and final series tolled the bell on the dying medium of newspaper journalism as life went on for our Dickensian cops and criminals.

Why: Garrone's "Gomorrah" has grown on me since first viewing, gutting the underbelly of criminal life in Naples, Italy. Think "City of God" without the music-video flash. His probing documentary sense and sharp framing in the ghetto would suit the likes of Marlo, Bubbles and Jimmy McNaulty well and I'd like to see Maryland through European eyes.

Likelihood: (spoiler alert) Omar and Snoop are dead and McNaulty's left the force, this is a sleeping dog that should likely be left alone. But Brother Mouzone lives on...

BIOGRAPHICAL

Michael Haneke directs "The Josef Fritzl Story"
Starring: Ulrich Tukur as Fritzl

What: A monster of incalculable evil, Josef Fritzl of Austria imprisoned his own daughter for 24 years in his basement as she bore him seven children. Meanwhile the family and community went about their business.

Why: If anyone can make great drama out of an outrage it's the auteur Haneke coming off his career-high with "The White Ribbon". He has a knack for picking at the scabs of Europe and our modern society.

Likelihood: I'm a big fan of Haneke's work, but even I would be leery of entering the theater if he made this. It would make Korea's "Oldboy" look like a zippy romantic-comedy.

Spike Lee directs "The Sam Cooke Story"
Starring: Terrence Howard as Cooke and Don Cheadle as an older Bobby Womack

What: A staple in my household growing up, Sam Cooke possessed the finest pipes of the 1960's soul era. Over 8 years Cooke stormed the charts with such classics as "A Change is Gonna Come" and "Bring it on Home to Me", scoring 29 hits during his reign. His impact would also be felt in the civil rights movement at its height. Sadly, Cooke would be found dead under baffling circumstances in a motel office in 1964. (imagine the furor if it was Justin Timberlake)

Why: A brilliant, complex life that burned out far too quickly, Lee finds himself in similar waters to that of his awesome bio-pic of "Malcolm X", both crossing lines of fame, race and politics. Terrence Howard is in need of a big role and a great director quickly.

Likelihood: Why the hell hasn't Lee made this already?

Clint Eastwood directs "The Eddie Shore Story"
Starring: Mickey Rourke as Shore and Michael Fassbender as a young Toe Blake

What: The toughest, meanest, orneriest son-of-a-bitch in sports history, period.
Eddie Shore dominated professional hockey with the skill of dancer, the strength of a heavyweight and the will of a cornered animal. In his rookie season he had an ear nearly hacked off by a teammate's stick in a scrum and shrugged it off. That's one of the reasons why the Hanson Brothers in George Roy Hill's "Slapshot" regarded 'Old Blood and Guts' with awe.

Why: The red-blooded Canadian male in me would love to see the same restraint, dignity and storytelling ability brought to the last days of Shore's professional career in the Golden Age of Hockey as Eastwood did with boxing in "Million Dollar Baby". Mickey Rourke is a glutton for punishment and as an ex-pugilist would likely have better insight into the mind of a terrifying athlete than most soft-touch thespians.

Likelihood: Here's hoping Eastwood has a few movies left in him about faded glory yet, the magnificent old bastard that he is.

Thanks for reading, feel free to share your own hopeful adaptations.

It's Complicated

It's Complicated (2009) dir. Nancy Meyers
Starring: Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin, John Krasinski, Mary Kay Place, Rita Wilson, Alexandra Wentworth and Lake Bell

***

By Greg Klymkiw

After a thirty year career of delivering watchable, innocuous "chick-flick" yuck-fests as a screenwriter ("Private Benjamin", "Baby Boom"), producer ("Father of the Bride I and II") and director ("What Women Want", "Something's Gotta Give"), Nancy Meyers has finally broken through the wall of acceptable mediocrity and delivered a sparkling comedy that will appeal to an extremely wide audience. With a deftly written, sophisticated screenplay, a cast at the very peak of their considerable gifts and confident, sure-handed direction, Meyers delivers a movie that manages to be both mature AND silly (in all the right ways).

One of the joys inherent in this picture is that, at its centre, are a trio of characters well into middle age and endowed with all the familiar blessings and curses that come with the territory of life experience. Add to this frothy confection some excellent twenty and thirty-something character support and you've got a movie that aims for the middlebrow, but does so with panache and intelligence.

It's an extremely simple tale of romance about a divorced couple (the paunchy, but still devilishly handsome Alec Baldwin and the utterly radiant, downright transcendent and still gorgeous Meryl Streep) that are brought together during a gathering that includes their grown children and Baldwin's cradle-robbed second wife (Lake Bell playing the very definition of a yummy mummy). Streep's character has finally come to a place where she's almost able to completely let go of the hurt Baldwin caused her and the feelings of inadequacy she's harboured for too long - she's comfortable with her career and her life and is even on the verge of entering into a romance with a sweet, successful, mildly hang-dog, but charming divorced architect (Steve Martin in a performance that's easily his best in many a long year). The last thing she needs is what happens, but happen it does.

One evening, with a few drinks too many under their belts and a rekindling of the spark that would have brought and kept them together at a previous juncture in their lives, the unthinkable happens - they wind up in the sack together and it's glorious. Baldwin now finds himself more attracted to his ex-wife than he ever thought possible and the divorced couple become embroiled in a hot, heavy and definitely secret love affair.

Where IT becomes especially COMPLICATED is that:

(a) Baldwin and Streep's son-in-law (an oh-so funny and fresh-faced John Krasinski) cottons on to their dalliance and reacts with a combination of bemusement and horror;

(b.) Baldwin and Streep's children long for their divorced parents to be together again like the old days and;

(c.) Steve Martin is falling big-time for Streep and as he suffered an especially traumatic divorce, she's promised not to break his heart.

Oy Vey! Where can this possibly go?

Well, the picture does move in a few predictable directions, but it also provides a few surprises along the way. Most of all, though, it provides a constantly ebullient tone, lots of pleasant laughs and happily, a handful of huge knee-slappers. In fact, one of the hoariest gags imaginable - one that involves the ingestion of some especially potent pot during a party where such behaviour is completely out of place - still managed to have me (and most of the audience I saw it with) soiling our respective knickers from laughing so hard.

And damn, in its exploration of love and family, the picture manages to even hit a few welcome notes of poignance.

"It's Complicated" is pure fluff, but of the highest order. And while this probably makes the movie sound a bit better than it is, I was happily carried away by it and felt like I was watching a contemporary Hollywood hybrid of an Alan Ayckbourn bedroom farce with "The Awful Truth", Leo McCarey's legendary romantic comedy about - yes, a divorced couple rekindling that old spark.

Of course, what makes the movie even more entertaining is watching pros like Streep, Baldwin and Martin strut their stuff. As well, it helps that we're seeing the story play out with actors the camera totally loves. If any of us had to imagine our own parents engaging in some of the bedroom activities that Streep and Baldwin indulge themselves in, we'd probably want to puke. A story like this DEMANDS attractive leads! (I'd do any of them, myself!)

As a matter of fact, I can, for example, imagine what sort of wretch-inducing picture it would be if it had been made in the UK - it would be directed by Mike Leigh and star the rather unappetizing menage a trois of Brenda Blethyn, Pete Postlethwaite and Brendan Gleeson.

Wait a minute!

Wait, just a goldurn' minute!

I'd pay to see that!

Perhaps a remake is in order.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945) dir. Elia Kazan
Starring: Dorothy McGuire, Peggy Ann Garner, James Dunn, Lloyd Nolan, Ted Donaldson

****

By Alan Bacchus

A heartbreaking emotional story of a 2nd generation Irish immigrant family struggling in near squalor in turn-of-the-century Brooklyn. Though it's a still a revered novel, it's perhaps most significant for being Elia Kazan's first feature film, which brings to bear his distinct working class and socialist sensabilities.

Dorothy McGuire play Katie Nolan a mother of 2, who , with his artist/husband Johnny (James Dunn) continually on the road, bringing back little money, she is forced to bring up the kids all by herself. Her kids recognize the struggle and have even taken to petty theft and scheming to bring home more money. Kazan empathizes with the kids, and their ability to cheat and style are portrayed as admirable traits of social and economic self-preservation.

Financial challenges on the family provide the external conflict. And within the family dynamic between Katie, Johnny and her kids, simmers a cauldron of internized anger. When Johnny comes home he’s welcomed with such warmth, Katie comes to resent it. Which fuels a sad and strong self-loathing. Her husband's genuine joie de vivre and carefree outlook fuels Katie's strong and sad self-loathing.

Like Frank Capra's “You Can’t Take it With You”, another fine film about family, Kazan’s fundamental conundrum for his characters is the difference between financial stability and true emotional happiness. Johnny, at his core, is an optimistic and loving person, but a drunk, who in reality was unable to take care of his kids. So is Katie’s hardline way of life the right way to raise her family? Kazan is pretty clear the latter outlook of life is the way to go.

In fact, Kazan, as an immigrant, who would also go on to make the epic immigration film ‘America America’, and with 'A Tree Grows in Brooklyn' he portrays an even greater his sympathy and understanding of the immigrant experience. The title makes for a wonderful metaphor for the American dream. Where in Europe well rooted class system acts as an incrossable barrier, in America, through shear hardwork, anyone can rise over obstacles and grow through concrete to become a tree.

Dogtown and Z-Boys

Dogtown and Z-Boys (2002) dir. Stacey Peralta
Documentary

***1/2

By Alan Bacchus

Dogtown and Z-Boys not only chronicles the formative years of the SoCal surfers who turned their surf board into skateboards and monumentally elevated the sport to national and international success, the film itself helped to elevate the documentary form in the formative years of the 2000’s documentary revolution.

Peralta starts in the 50’s and 60’s charts the first incarnation of the skateboard, back when it was a fad used by suburban chumps who rode the board like fanciful girlymen. It wasn’t until the Z-Boys – named for the famous surf shop on Venice Beach which constructed the skateboards for the young kids – started using skateboards to mimic the revered surfing styles of their idols. Other than the slalom it would appear they only had one move, the cutback, whereby the skater bent low to the ground and spun the board around with their hand like a surfer against a wave. It’s not as elegant or extreme as the boarders of today, but it was enough to spark a whole new trend.

The half dozen or so Z-boys, many from broken homes, and disconnected families entered competitions and found notoriety on TV, sports specials and magazines. All the while the young punks continued to skate the hell out of Los Angeles, disrupt the public and all other skateboarders that weren’t from Dogtown.

If you take this film as the comprehensive account of the history of skateboarding you’d think the world revolved around the Dogtown area and the Z-boys invented every major move in the sport. The in-your-face attitude of the skateboarders fuel a distinct urgent tone - an ego-driven punk attitude where the participants are not shy to exalt and aggrandize themselves like gods of the ultrahip.

And like the skaters in the film, Stacey Peralta injects the same rock and roll attitude into his cinematic style, lifting the tired documentary elements of old talking heads, stock footage and still photos out of humdrumness with a kinetic stylistically assured slapdash audio and visual delight. As such, for 2002, like films such as ‘Bowling for Columbine’ and ‘The Kid Stays in the Picture’ 'Dogtown and Z-Boys' also served as one of the seminal films in resurgence of the theatrical documentary medium in this decade.

If anything the film suffers from the constant regurgitation of self-aggrandizement. Just look on the credits and you’ll see its Stacey Peralta as director, and he and partner Craig Stecyk as co-writers. And so everything recounted and documented is puffed up with godlike deification. But really do we need a bunch of older skateboarders waxing intellectually? If attitude is part of the culture of the sport, then the Z-Boys and their documentary has it all, in spades.

“Dogtown and Z-Boys” is available on Blu-Ray from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity (2009) dir. Oren Peli
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Mark Fredrichs

****

By Alan Bacchus

'Paranormal Activity' was kind of lottery ticket film every filmmaker dreams of. As much as it is inspiring, it’s also frustrating to think, ‘why didn’t I think of that?’The story behind the success of the $15,000 film, which took 2 years to get its theatrical release after first premiering at the Slamdance film festival is summarized as an inspiring story of filmmaking luck, serendipity, persistence and a lot of marketing savvy on the film’s wikipedia entry HERE.

By now most people know the story, a couple haunted by a ghost in their house and shown to us via the videocamera documentation of its characters, on paper would seem like blatant rip off of 1999’s ‘The Blair Witch Project’. Back then I had thought that film was a one-off outlier of success, something we’d never see again. We’re all eating our words now.

The genius of “Paranormal Activity” is more than just concept. The idea of fake footage, found by police and seemingly shown to audiences in this theatrically edited form is not new. While some people thought Blair Witch Project was real back in 1999, by 2009, the technique is now old hat and doesn’t really fool anybody. It doesn’t matter though, people want to believe its true, and thus when a film as immersive, believeable, and real as this comes along, we all revert to immature, innocent and emotionally vulnerable little children and go along for the ride. This is the effect of 'Paranormal Activity.'

Katie and Micah (actors using their real names to help blur the line between fact and fiction) are a couple attempting to document a spirit which has appeared to have taken over their house. Micah as the alpha-male forces a camera upon Katie in order to get it on record, but we suspect most likely to get rich. Katie is a girl-next-door cute innocent nave, who seems to have been haunted by this supernatural spirit on a number of occasions throughout her life.

Though Micah films everything meticulously, his affable disrespect of Katie’s trauma, and his refusal to take the situation seriously angers the spectre. A series of incidents caught on tape during the nights escalate eventually turning Micah’s doubting mind. The events are innocuous at first, a creaking door, thumping sounds, a gust of wind, slowly escalate into freakish physical confrontations with an invisible spectre.

Unless, like my colleague Greg, who managed to watch and review the film with NO information about the film at all (click HERE for his review), it’s impossible to evaluate this movie without the context of its now legendary discovery and journey to our screens and overall subversiveness in comparison to all mainstream Hollywood genre filmmaking.

If I saw this film at Slamdance without any hype, would I have the same reaction?? Maybe not. Hype aside, Paranormal is effective, plain and simple. There’s a major filmmaking talent on display here, which on quick glance would be easy to dismiss.

Essentially the guts of the film are a number of scary surveillance ghost moments seen from the same stationary camera angle. There’s only about 6 or 7 of these moments, and so Peli admirably anchors the film with the solid direction of two newbie inexperienced actors and a character-based screenplay. Peli knows his craft and admirably misdirects our attention with humour while planting seeds for some twists and turns in a cleverly woven in backstory.

Despite the success and praise of other conceptually-similar genre pictures ‘Cloverfield’, and ‘Rec/Quarantine’ the mockumentary concept, for me, always seemed to be an artificial and transparent storytelling crutch, something which distracted as opposed to enhanced the experience. ‘Paranormal Activity’ is the real deal, legit, a fully realized and credible concept entwined perfectly into Peli’s genius little film.

"Paranormal Activity" is available on Blu-Ray and DVD from Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment

Nine

Nine (2009) dir. Rob Marshall
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Kate Hudson, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman

**

By Alan Bacchus

Poor Rob Marshall, it was a major mountain to climb, remaking Fellini’s 8 ½ as a musical, in English. Apparently it was a successful broadway musical in the 80's but its translation back to the big screen puts it directly against the original film as the ultimate test of its success. Daniel Day-Lewis tries his best stepping into Marcello Mastrioanni’s shoes as the creatively tortured director Guido Contini, and his coterie of sultry movie star gals who play the influential women in his life all look perfect, but its Marshall's surprisingly dull musical numbers which cause the picture to fail.

Nine is both a love letter to Fellini, the 60’s, filmmaking, Italy and the sexual freedom of the 1960’s. Guido Contini is a star auteur Italian director revered for his early pictures but suffering from a number of recent failures. As he preps his next picture and with producers, press agents, art directors, actresses, all chasing him around for creative direction, Cotini resorts to his sexual flings to provide him peace.

Unfortunately, Contini is married and naturally his wife objects to in transgressional behaviour. As his mind wanders back into his subconscious to confront all the important women in his life he is forced to reconcile his egotistical life of career self-absorbtion with the potential loss of his wife and family.

The spectre of Fellini’s great masterpiece acts like a suffocating blanket over the first half of the film. The film follows the same narrative path and even recreates word for word and sometimes shot for shot the same scenes as 8 ½. The Cruz/Day-Lewis sexual fetish sequence for instance is a carbon copy of the great scene which has the Mastrioanni’ version of Guido directing his #1 mistress to play a slutty stranger who walks into the wrong room. It’s a tall order not to compare the two, and for Marshall to even close to matching the creative visual gymnastics of Fellini’s cameraworks and sense of swinging 60’s vitality is damned near impossible.

The film finds its own voice in the second half when the film gradually departs from the source material. It’s a different era than the swinging 60’s and Marshall has to make Guido accountable for his indiscretions. And so the film becomes a story of Guido’s emotional crisis, not a creative or career crisis - a fight to save his marriage and win back the only woman he truly loves.

Marshall uses the same visual palette as ‘Chicago’, the musical sequences are distinctly separate from the dramatic sequences. Throughout the narrative Guido’s mind wanders into a memory or moment of imagination visualized with a musical dance sequence. While each of ‘Chicago’s’ sequences had their own unique flavour, there’s an indistinct sameness of most of the ‘Nine’s’ sequences. Marshall inhibits himself by choreographing most of these numbers around Guido’s partially built Romanesque studio set, so for each of Fergie, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, and Day-Lewis himself, walk, talk, sing and dance around the same uninspired scaffolding set. Even the dance choreography is indistinct, most of which are variations of burlesque-influenced sexual teasing.

The only number which jumps out at the screen to get one’s foot tapping is Kate Hudson’s swinging 60’s number, ‘Italiano’, a vibrant and bouncy, like Chanel commercial performed by Lady Gaga. I suspect, even Marshall knows the power of this piece as he repeats it during the end credits.