RIDE LONESOME

Ride Lonesome (1959) dir. Budd Boetticher
Starring: Randolph Scott, Karen Steele, James Best, Jams Coburn, Lee Van Cleef

***1/2

“Ride Lonesome” is the fifth film in the great Budd Boetticher/Randolph Scott saga. Boetticher crafts this story on a grander scale than his previous four films, a classic tale of revenge with specific plot points and imagery which would directly influence Sergio Leone.

Randolph plays a tough bounty hunter Ben Brigade who picks up wanted criminal Billy John (James Best) to take back to Santa Cruz. Along the way while stopped at a staging post he encounters Carrie Lane (Karen Steele) a woman left by her husband to fend off an Indian attack. When she realizes he must be dead Ben brings Carrie along to save her from certain death at the hands of her enemies.

The trio then meet up with a nefarious duo Sam and Whit (Pernell Roberts and James Coburn) who form an oddball group of shifty outlaws. In between persistent Indian attacks, like an episode of ‘Survivor’, the individuals tempt and tease each for alliances. Billy tries to convince the not-so-smart Whit to set him free. Sam conspires to get rid of Ben and take the bounty for himself. As for Ben, his true intentions are kept secret - a desperate but focused mission of revenge.

Karen Steele’s character Carrie would seem to be lost in the plotting. An extraneous element designed to get a pretty face on the screen perhaps? Carrie purpose is deeper than mere plot. As a woman, her presence causes much restlessness among the hombres. While the men speak in chauvinistic bravado there’s a fear and misunderstanding of her which puts them all on edge. Carrie exudes such power over the undersexed men, it’s both dominant and dangerous.

Randolph Scott’s character is the classic Western loner – hence the title. A broken man whose wife died and whose sole purpose is a focused desire for revenge. Scott’s journey mirrors Charles Bronson’s ‘Harmonic Man’ character in Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in the West’. The final climatic moments which reveal his elaborate plan is a direct influence on that film. In fact, as Leone and his co-writers (including Dario Argento and Bernardo Bertolucci!) were crafting their story, they specifically watched quintessential Westerns to inspire them. Clearly the Boetticher films and specifically “Ride Lonesome” were on their list.

“Ride Lonesome” is perhaps Boetticher’s most beautiful film visually. For the first time he used a Cinemascope process, the effect of which is a crisp wide angle frame which further isolates his archetypical lonesome characters against the environment. But it’s the final shot which is the resonating imagery of the film. After the climax Boetticher cuts away from Brigade to wrap up the other characters. We don’t know what happened to Brigade until we cut back to the scene of the final shootout showing Brigade standing in front of the burning ‘hanging tree’ – an awe inspiring image and arguably one of the great ‘closing shots’ in film history. Enjoy.

“The Budd Boetticher Box Set” is available from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

NATURAL BORN KILLERS

Natural Born Killers (1994) dir. Oliver Stone
Starring: Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey Jr., Tommy Lee Jones

***1/2

One of the most controversial films of the 1990’s is Oliver Stone’s psychedelic parable of violence and the media, “Natural Born Killers.” With 14 years of hindsight the film stands up as a powerful, in-your-face statement about the public’s obsession with violence and true crime.

Watching the film, it’s hard to believe the script started off as a Quentin Tarantino film. Though the visual style and statement-making satirical tone is wholly Oliver Stone, some of the Tarantino hallmarks remain. The murderous duo, Mickey and Mallory, on the road and on the run, contain many of the humorous dialogue interaction and genre-reverence as Tarantino’s scripts for “True Romance”, “From Dusk till Dawn”. But in the hands of Stone, and his co-writers it became a beast through he could make his type of grand statements. Since it's a satire the extreme flourishes are necessary and make the statement stronger. 

None of the freneticness would work if the film wasn't entertaining. Harrelson and Lewis make a wonderful fun loving couple of psychotics. If anything Juliette Lewis’ character treads too much on the performances from her other films (ie. “Kalifornia”), but Harrelson who is cast against type has the screen presence and confidence to pull off his conflicted character.

Around every corner is a number of wonderful scene stealer supporting performances. Tom Sizemore’s extreme ‘bad cop’ Jack Scagnetti and Tommy Lee Jones’ prison warden Jack McClusky are even more repulsive than Mickey and Mallory. But it’s Robert Downey Jr.’s Aussie TV talk show host Wayne Gale who shines. It's one of Downey's best characters. Although Gale is manic, absurd and goes over the edge his TV interview with Mickey brings out a sharp intelligence to his character.

Key to Stone's statement is his bold cinematic style. Stone exaggerates his innovative multi-format, multi-media techniques he used in 1991's "JFK". It's a monumental achievement to (arguably) create coherence from the almost random cornucopia of imagery and sound mashed together. In the DVD audio commentary Stone ends his discussion by giving extra special thanks to his negative cutter who had the hardest job on the production, assembling the final film from over 3000 edits from multiple format sources.

"Natural Born Killers" was one of the last films in a remarkably creative, productive and innovative 10 year run of filmmaking for Stone. Between 1986 and 1995 he made 10 films ("Nixon" is last). The effect of such concentration probably burned him out creatively and we may never see Stone reach the cultural relevance he achieved in this period.

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

A Man For All Seasons (1966) dir. Fred Zinneman
Starring: Paul Schofield, Robert Shaw, Wendy Hiller, Leo McKern, Orson Welles, John Hurt

****

As I said in my review of “Frost/Nixon” the political life of Richard Nixon continues to make for great drama. The same goes for the court of Henry VIII. That period in history with it’s religious, political, military and romantic conflict, provides more than enough intrigue for these stories to be retold again and again.

Numerous movies have been made from the points of view of the period’s colourful cast of characters: Anne Boleyn, Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon, young Elizabeth I, Cardinal Wolsey, Jane Seymour etc. “A Man for All Seasons” tells the story from the point of view of Sir Thomas More, the legendary British statesman who defied the King’s decision to secede and was ultimately beheaded. The film was the big winner at the Oscars in 1966 winning the major awards, including, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Screenplay. The film still stands out above most other dramatizations of the period thanks to Robert Bolt’s smart screenplay and Paul Scofield’s mesmerizing Oscar-winning performance as More.

As everyone’s knows, it’s the 16th century and King Henry the VIII (Robert Shaw) has fallen in love with Anne Boleyn and desires to get a divorce from his current wife, a Spanish Royal, Catherine of Aragon. This would require an annulment by the Pope – a request which would likely not get granted. The King desires the support of his good friend and new Chancellor of the kingdom, Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield). Despite their friendship and the political ramifications of defying the King More’s personal scruples and stubbornness with the law prevents him from going along – an act which would see him tried for treason.

There is such a large story to be told but Bolt (whose screenplay was based on his own play) and Zinneman make a smart and concerted decision to stay with More’s point of view. We never see Anne Boleyn or Catherine and the locations include only More’s home and the court in which he is tried. As a result the filmmakers assume the audience has some background knowledge of this political situation.

Anchored by More’s performance, the heart of the film is his steadfast belief in the law. The internal struggle for More is not whether the King has the right to divorce his wife, but the effect his decisions would have on his family. More has the noble belief that in death his surviving family will retain the honour of his sacrifice. Of course, in the reality of the situation his wife cannot see the value in this. It all makes for a complicated web of conflict.

“A Man for All Seasons” is not a biopic of More, and so there’s lots about this influential man left out of the movie. His ardent discreditation of Protestantism is briefly explored, but we're teased us enough to think that More’s stubbornness is idealistic but ignoble. And Scofield plays these contradictions with great subtlety.

The finale of the film is More’s trial, which is dramatized with the same battle of intellect, words, and wills as the finale of “Frost/Nixon”. For More, a fight to retain his freedom without sacrifice of his moral beliefs.

“A Man For All Seasons” is available on DVD in Sony's 'Columbia Best Pictures Collection'

TARANTULA

Tarantula (1955) dir. Jack Arnold
Starring: John Agar, Mara Corday, Leo G. Carroll, Raymond Bailey and Clint Eastwood

***1/2

Guest Review By Greg Klymkiw

It’s often noted that the best science fiction features “good science” – wherein the “facts” can hold up (or almost hold up) to the scrutiny of actual scientists. While I suspect this view is not without considerable merit, I prefer to think that the science should at least SEEM credible or, at the very least, play out within a context that reveals some sort of truth about the world and/or humanity, as we know it.

Such, I think, is the case with Jack Arnold’s Tarantula, the classic big-bug picture he made for Universal – a movie wherein the science is, in a manner of speaking, dubious, but where some of the truths it explores are not only valid with respect to the period they reflect, but given that the picture is over fifty-years-old, they are indeed issues and themes which touch (or plague, if you will) all of us – even today. It is in this respect that Tarantula was very much ahead of its time, in spite of clearly being a product of its time – not unlike Arnold’s other great sci-fi thrillers such as The Incredible Shrinking Man, The Creature From The Black Lagoon and, among others, It Came From Outer Space.

The theme of world hunger and the need to find ways to successfully address it is something that hangs over the picture with significant weight. The fact that this issue is something that plagued the world in the 50s – especially during the post-war/cold-war prosperity in American during the world of McCarthy’s witch hunts – somehow seems so unbelievable, yet it is clearly something the filmmakers emphasize and in a contemporary context, the issue of world hunger that serves as one of the picture’s thematic backdrops, is something that seems to place Tarantula firmly in the pantheon of pictures that truly deserve their classic status.

Set in a sleepy Arizona desert town, the resident doctor (played with characteristic stalwartness by the ex-Mr. Shirley Temple, John Agar) investigates the mysterious death of someone who was working as a researcher on the outskirts of this sleepy, hot and definitely dusty Southwestern hamlet. The Doc suspects there’s more to this death than meets the eye, but his suspicions are ignored by the town’s sheriff who prefers to believe the diagnosis proposed by the head of the research lab, a respected local scientist (played deliciously by the venerable old ham Leo G. Carroll).

The old doc, as it turns out, is trying to find a solution to world hunger. His experiments involve finding a way to make animals bigger – much bigger, actually – in order to provide more flesh to render from slaughtered beasts so that more food will exist in the world for all those who are poor.

The old doc takes on a new assistant, a fetching, young female scientist (played by the mouth-wateringly sexy Mara Corday) who not only provides him with ample (in more ways than one) support, but also delivers an amorous target for young Doc Agar. When old Doc Leo is injected with the serum he’s been using on tarantulas, bunnies and other assorted small animals, hell begins to break loose. The old Doc starts turning into an erratic, crazed monstrosity and, eventually the increasingly mysterious deaths and disappearances are attributed to one of the old doc’s experimental subject, a tarantula who’s been fed just a bit too much growth formula.

Another characteristic of note in the picture is how it examines a scientist’s obsession with his experiments. In that sense, one might argue that Leo G. Carroll’s character is yet another in a long line of mad scientists, but the actual fact of the matter is that his character is genuinely obsessed with finding a cure to world hunger. He has no self-interest in any of this – he is not looking for wealth, nor power – all he wants is to help the world. The old doctor’s suffering is all the more poignant because his blind obsession to give something good to the world is a life’s work that ends his life and the lives of others. His failure – given that his experiments result in something destructive – is especially frustrating and finally, very moving – tragic, even. Carroll, in all of this, delivers a splendid performance and one that rises well above the clichés otherwise inherent in roles such as these.

The performances are all superb and the writing is more than serviceable. Though the screenplay doesn’t quite reach the transcendent heights of Richard Matheson’s work on The Incredible Shrinking Man, it does feature more than a few lines that are genuinely campy – genuine because they are INTENTIONALLY cheesy and goofy and NOT a result of being dated.

Most impressive are the optical effects involving the blowing up of actual tarantula footage. I’d argue Clifford Stine’s work on the special effects is as effective as some of today’s best digital work. Yes, the effects (very) occasionally fall short, but then, so do many digital effects these days. One ignores this, as we are wont to do ultimately when something is genuinely good. At the end of the day, we let the picture work its considerable magic.

One fun note of trivia is that Clint Eastwood appears in a tiny, but important role during the climax of the picture. It seems thoroughly appropriate that it is Eastwood who commands all his bombers to let rip and decimate the brick-shithouse that is the Tarantula. And, even more interesting, is that Tarantula’s fetching leading lady Mara Corday was cast years later by Eastwood as the wise-acre waitress who signals Harry Callahan that danger is afoot in her café in the now-almost-classic Sudden Impact.

All in all, Tarantula is an absolute must-see. It holds up admirably and will also provide great entertainment for the kiddies (of ALL ages). Most importantly, like all great sci-fi thrillers, it provides big emotions, food for thought AND one hell of a rollercoaster ride.

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

Revolutionary Road (2008) dir. Sam Mendes
Starring: Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Shannon, Kathy Bates

***

Sam Mendes’ reteaming of the Titanic bunch – Kate and Leo – has resulted in a sometimes inspired sometimes overworked tragedy about the disillusionment of a marriage.

The idea of filming a 48 year old novel which skewers the soullessness of suburban conformity seemed way out of date. Old news really. Why go to a place where so many filmmakers have gone to before? But Richard Yates 1962 prize-winning novel seemed to be the literary high mark on the subject, and so maybe the team commanded by the master of literary adaptations Scott ‘Superproducer’ Rudin could turn this into the definitive film on the subject.

It’s the 1950’s in an unnamed suburban town. Frank and April Wheeler are married with two kids – a bickering couple who can break into a screaming match of hateful words in an instant. Both April and Frank seem to hate their saccharine existence – Frank commuting to his soul-sucking desk job every day and April tending to her two kids like what is expected of her. Its April who takes the initiative to find a solution and mend their marriage. She proposes to relocate to Paris and start a new life. The plans reinvigorate the couple and everything seems on the right track.

Despite the shocked reactions of their friends the Wheelers are resolute in their plans. But slowly events transpire which challenge the ability to keep their plans afloat and thus their marriage.

Though Kate and Leo share equal billing, it’s Kate’s film. April is the driving engine of the action. We empathize with her predicament and understand how the emotional tightrope she’s walking can suddenly cause the outbursts of anger and tears. Their situations are accessible to any married couple. How do you keep both people happy in a relationship with so many expectations attached to it? Occasional melodramatic contrivances in the first half are easily overlooked because we desperately want the Wheelers to be happy and achieve their goals. But with so much working against them the tension becomes palpable and intense.

The film goes from good to great when Michael Shannon enters the film. For those who don’t know Michael Shannon, you should. He’s one of the finest character actors working today. His work on indies “Bug” and “Shotgun Stories” is near legendary. Shannon plays John, the insane son of April’s neighbours. In a couple of powerful scenes John manages to read the dynamic of the couple with pinpoint accuracy and expose the subterfuge which clouds their relationship. Shannon’s performance is simply phenomenal.

Unfortunately the film drowns itself under a number of show-off scenes of shouting and angry destructive behaviour from Di Caprio. Leo’s showcase scene of fury in the third act lacks any truth or believability. It reeks of a ‘movie scene’ – written and performed not out of truth of character but of the needs for heightened drama. The film never recovers and settles into a predictable and over-stylized finale.

Which brings us back to Yates’ original novel (which I haven’t read). Call me crazy, but wouldn’t this film be much more powerful if told in the present? The politics and culture of the 50’s do not affect the dynamic of April and Frank’s relationship. The conundrums and conflicts faced by April and Frank are the same ones many couples face today. And so setting the film over 50 years ago distances us from the pain.

As the film unraveled I kept thinking about Darren Aronofsky’s “The Wrestler” which stayed truthful to its characters and never went outside of it’s own reality. “Revolutionary Road” comes to close to honesty but in the end comes off as entertaining fakery. Enjoy.

Revolutionary Road

BRICK LANE

Brick Lane (2008) dir. Sarah Gavron
Starring: Tannishtha Chatterjee, Satish Kaushik, Christopher Simpson

***

The tradition of the arranged marriage in the Indian cultural has been potent material for filmmakers. Whether it’s in India, Canada, the U.S., this tradition continues to have significant emotion effects on its emigrants or second generation emigrants. In “Brick Lane” Sarah Gavron tells another one of these stories, this time from the point of view of a Bangladeshi woman living in London. A few unpredictable twists and turns in the plot push the film past the familiarity of the subject matter.

Nazneen Ahmed (Chatterjee) lives in London with her arranged husband and their two daughters. There’s no hiding her sullenness. Her husband is an unattractive pathetic sonofabitch with a dead end job. In addition to the dreams of her idyllic childhood in Bangladesh, Nazneen’s only respite are weekly letters from her adventurous sister back home.

A bright light shines on Nazneen when she meets a neighbourhood seamstress who offers her a job mending denim jeans at home. Then she meets and develops a sexual affair with her local delivery boy Karim – the handsome virile boytoy depressed middle-aged women dream of. Their relationship advances to the point of a real midlife crisis where Nazneen must decide whether Karim is the person to right everything that is wrong in her life.

The ethical questions posed by Nazneen extramarital affair are nothing new to cinema, but Gavron paints such a drab picture of Nazneen’s life, the answers to her internal conundrum are not difficult to decipher. Her husband is not given any redeeming qualities whatsoever. He’s unattractive, unromantic, controlling, demanding, idle and irresponsible. So when Karim appears in Nazneen’s life their affair is acceptable from her point of view. And when the flirtation is consummated it makes for a pleasing emotional release.

Up until this point we are unaware of the time period but Gavron effectively turns the tables and reveals the pitfalls of the relationship when Sept 11 happens. Like everyone else in the world after this benchmark event nothing will ever be the same. This dramatic plot turn takes us out of Nazneen’s clouded point of view and anchors the story in the big picture reality. Suddenly what seemed like obvious answers are now much more complicated.

Visually Gavron seems to channel the impressionistic work of Terrence Malick. Her frames are soft and textured, beautifully backlit, moving in and out of focus, and surrounded by lush colours. Especially in her dream sequences, the camera floats around as free as her imagination. Even Jocelyn Pook’s melancholy score sounds a lot like Hans Zimmer’s work in “The Thin Red Line”. It’s all impressive and beautiful stuff, at times over romanticizing the environment, but overall an effective way to put us into Nazneen’s point of view.

Though Sarah Gavron is not Indian, her film feels as culturally authentic as anything by Deepa Mehta or Mira Nair. “Brick Lane” announces Gavron as one of Britain’s promising new female directors and career to watch.

“Brick Lane” is available on DVD from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Brick Lane

VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008) dir. Woody Allen
Starring Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall, Javier Bardem Penelope Cruz

Guest review by Blair Stewart

***

Amongst his salty New York bagels and a recent over praised English stew now sits this light and breezy Spanish tapas from Woody Allen, his 40th recipe.

Two emotionally naive American beauties played by Scarlett Johansson and Rebecca Hall are spending their summer holidays in one of the Mediterranean's wonderments, Barcelona. Vicky (Hall) is bright, cautious, analytical about all things barring her styrofoam yuppie fiance and a questionable major in Catalan studies. Cristina (Johansson) is an impulsive 'artist' without a canvas who swoons for love without a definite grasp on the concept or the effort required. We follow them past postcards of Barcelona – the Park Guell by Gaudi, Las Ramblas, the church of Santa Maria del Mar - that reinforce why there isn't a "Vicky Cristina Calgary" in cinemas right now.

One night out on the town they are propositioned by the avant-guard Spanish painter Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) to join him on his plane to Oviedo for experienced sightseeing and experienced group sex. Vicky is predictably mortified by the idea and Cristina is receptive to the opportunity.

What follows is a deft love triangle with floating partners that ensnares Vicky's future husband and Juan's sexy, unhinged ex played with murderous zeal by Penelope Cruz. The action is narrated throughout by a Woody stand-in as the desires of the two friends become muddled under heat, a storytelling choice that distracted me from a wafer-thin plot with its wry, cynical amusement.

As one of the leads, Rebecca Hall stands out as excellent casting. She has the intelligence and beauty of a young Julia Roberts, and as the film's bittersweet anchor, features in a great moment with Bardem as he picks away at her defences. I've spent some time now trying to remember her last notable role, and it was her yeoman's work in Nolan's "The Prestige" as Christian Bale's cursed spouse. I now wish I could invest stock in her.

Oddly, Scarlett Johansson is perfect in the other lead despite my disappointment in how her career has developed since "Lost in Translation". Cristina is externally smart and internally vacant, a lifetime of "Um, yeah, that sounds cool..." ahead of her, which I fear is the same fate for Scarlett. The role then is tailored to her strength's and Scarlett performs it well.

Avoiding potential clichés, Javier Bardem is great as a wounded cupid, the crass opportunist or the Lothario painter. From scene-to-scene, our sympathy for him remains on unsteady ground.

Like a crash landing from 1980's Almodovar, the arrival of Penelope Cruz as the wildcard midway through energizes the film. She has genuine chemistry with Bardem, and is both scary and funny enough to reinforce my belief that she should never handcuff herself with another dull English language gig.

It’s a stretch that several characters would be smitten with Cristina beyond her attractiveness, the Spaniards are all predictably firery and the Americans clueless, but the breezy pacing of Woody Allen makes me feel like a jerk to dwell upon negatives. As with a well-made tapas, it might not be filling, but it can be very tasty and raise your anticipation for the main course. Vicky Cristina Palermo, perhaps?

“Vicky Cristina Barcelona” is available on DVD from Alliance Films in Canada on January 27

DAYS OF THUNDER

Days of Thunder (1990) dir. Tony Scott
Starring: Tom Cruise, Robert Duvall, Michael Rooker, Randy Quaid, Nicole Kidman

**1/2

“Days of Thunder” has to be one of the silliest yet strangely lovable examples of blockbuster entertainment. It’s “Top Gun” reworked for Nascar and told with complete seriousness. Handsome production values, melodramatic plotting and some unintentional humour make it a fun guilty pleasure.

Tom Cruise’s introduction sets the tone for the film and it’s a lengthy one. Nascar race team owner Tim Daland (Randy Quaid) recruits a reluctant retired mechanic Harry Hogge (Robert Duvall) to build him a new car to race on the circuit. Harry is like the Michaelangelo of mechanics and his work is a beautiful masterpiece. Nascar champion Rowdy Burns (Michael Rooker) tests it out on the race track, and it runs fine. But Harry won’t be convinced until he sees Tim’s new driver test it out. Cue Cruise’s introduction. Tommy enters the stadium riding a Harley Chopper with Hans Zimmer’s stinging guitar lick screaming in the background. He proceeds to approach and talk to the esteemed racers with supreme macho aloofness and confidence.

This is the tone of ridiculousness everyone contributes to the film. If you remember, it was a Simpson/Bruckheimer summer release, so naturally all the drama is exaggerated to near mythological heights.

And how about those driver names? Everyone gets their own razor sharp name - like porn stars Nascar names have their own branded identity: Tom Cruise is Cole Trickle, Cary Elwes is Russ Wheeler, Michael Rooker is Rowdy Burns and John C. Reilly is Buck Bretherton.

Towne injects the film with same amount of uber-macho male bravado as “Top Gun”. But it’s shoved down our throats with even more childish conflict. No conversation in “Days of Thunder” isn’t complete without two men wrestling with each other, shouting at each other, swinging bats at each other, or good old fashioned trash talking.

Few directors compliment this material better than Tony Scott. Like most of his pictures at the time, his frames are bathed in a blanket of golden magic hour sunlight. Scott has a knack for shooting big toys really well – whether it’s the fighter jets of “Top Gun”, the submarines of “Crimson Tide” or the beastly cars of Nascar, his machinery are given as much attention in his frames as the human characters. Arguably no other filmmaker has shot professional racing better than his work in this film. With seemingly innumerable camera angles at his disposable Scott is able to create a rich textured authenticity to the sport. Scott’s cockpit camera angles in particular heighten the intensity of his key racing sequences. Scott gets an intense but manageable shake to his camera in his close-ups, distracting us from the fact that the actors are either being towed by a camera car, or cruising around a track at the speed limit.

This is why “Days of Thunder” can be strangely enjoyable – the ultimate in muscular and macho escapism – so utterly preposterous yet beautifully excessive at the same time. Enjoy.

"Days of Thunder" is available on Blu-Ray from Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment

THE DUCHESS

The Duchess (2008) dir. Saul Dibb
Starring: Keira Knightly, Ralph Fiennes, Hayley Atwell, Charlotte Rampling, Dominc Cooper

***1/2

The obscene arrogance of British royalty is scathingly brought to the screen via this true story of Georgiana, The Duchess of Devonshire. I normally loathe these costume dramas but the talented scribe Anders Thomas Jensen (“After the Wedding”, “Brothers”) elevates this wig and corset tale to the tragic levels he’s used to.

The opening shot of “The Duchess” features a woman seen from behind trotting about the English countryside wearing a grossly exaggerated garish wig. This is Georgiana Spencer (Keira Knightly) who wears this symbol of high fashion with confidence and pride. Early on when Georgiana is informed by her dotting mother (Charlotte Rampling) that she has arranged her marriage to a Duke (Ralph Fiennes) in the royal family, Georgiana’s dreams of being a woman of privilege, power and entitlement are within her grasp.

Little does she know the price of privilege will become a life of subjugation to her controlling and obsessively unemotional husband. Ralph Fiennes is cast correctly as the arrogant pompous Duke. The marriage is to serve only one purpose, produce a male heir – a task which the Duke treats like the ability to serve tea. So when Georgiana cannot produce a son the Duke turns to his mistresses for comfort. When the Duke flaunts his new mistress and Georgiana’s former best friend conspicuously about the castle, Georgiana takes up with her own affair, the effects of which will be her unjust downfall in the family.

Knightly plays the Duchess with a strong sense of pride and confidence. Despite the Duke's neurotic behaviour and sexual dalliances Georgiana always seems to hold a superiority over the beleaguered man. Unfortunately it’s a man’s world and the Duke’s shamefully controlling and indecent behaviour cannot be matched or battled on equal grounds by Georgiana.

And so we wait for the Duke to get his comeuppance for a lifetime of obscene manipulation, but we never get it. This becomes the sad tragic irony, Georgiana who believes so strongly in freedom is trapped in her own prison – the archaic feudal oppressiveness of aristocratic life.

Though it’s not explicitly told to us in the film, Princess Diana is reportedly a direct descendant of Georgiana’s, so it’s no coincidence that Georgiana’s fashion savvy and this early celebrity culture surrounding royalty at the time is the film’s contemporary metaphor. Non-royalty elected politics played a strong role in Georgiana’s life and her support to Grey in the public helped get Grey elected to Prime Minister. The press are seen following her around at parties, making comic strips of her bold fashion statements. The subtle allegories to Princess Di’s unhappiness with the Royal Family, Charles’s dalliances and the ultimately tragic ending to her life add a profound modern context to the film. Enjoy.

“The Duchess” is available on Blu-Ray and DVD from Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment

HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS

Hitler: The Last Ten Days (1973) dir. Ennio De Concini
Starring: Alec Guinness, Simon Ward, Doris Kunstmann, Adolfo Celi, Diane Cilento, John Bennett and Joss Ackland

***

Guest Review By Greg Klymkiw

The recent 2008 Christmas release of Bryan Singer’s let’s-kill-Hitler thriller “Valkyrie”, featuring a bunch of (mostly) non-Germans playing Germans in Nazi Germany, is perhaps reason enough for a fresh look at an odd 70s outing that also features (mostly) non-Germans playing Germans in Nazi Germany. Hitler: The Last Ten Days”, a 1973 British-Italian (!) co-production is definitely flawed in dealing with this subject, but I am less convinced how some might consider it the worst. It is ultimately, at the very least, the strangest. In fact, a little part of me wishes it went even further than it does. Its kitsch value is not without merit, but a tad subdued, its laughs (yes, you read me correctly - laughs) careen wildly from genuine to some which feel (though, in fact, might not be) unintentional knee-slappers and last, but not least, its tremendously bizarre, but brilliant performance from Alec Guinness in the title role.

Yes, Alec Guinness! Obi-Wan-Kenobi dolled-up with that distinctive hair-do and ‘stache popularized by Der Fuhrer himself. (Does it bug anyone else that such a fabulous moustache CANNOT be sported by gentlemen because of what it unpalatably conjures up?) And what a performance! At times, Guinness plays him as bone-chillingly terrifying, at others, a frightful, self-obsessed dullard, and yet at others, positively buffoonish – Guinness leaves no stone unturned in his attempt to bring to life the epitome of 20th century evil. His interpretation, which occasionally borders on cartoon-ish has been subject to considerable derision. Many critics have labeled Guinness’ portrayal to be an unintentional homage to Chaplin in “The Great Dictator”. This is unfair. I would argue that Guinness is, in fact, digging so deep to present Der Fuhrer’s obviously unbalanced state of mind during the final days of Germany’s demise during World War II that, as an actor, he (like the great Chaplin) was using his instrument to its fullest capacity and perhaps tapping similar, and frankly, unavoidable territory.

As the title clearly states, the movie recounts the time in Hitler’s Berlin bunker before he took his own life. The world it creates is one of claustrophobia, paranoia and futility. Since we already know where things are headed, there are few surprises in store for us in terms of the narrative and where it inevitably must go, but the ride we’re taken on is full of many surprises – mostly in terms of observation and attention to odd details. In fact, there really is very little by way of a narrative arc – Hitler is evil and cold at the beginning and by the end he’s, well… evil and cold. There is certainly little in the way of tension also. First, there’s the aforementioned historical inevitability and secondly, the fact that Hitler’s primary obstacle is himself and as such, there is little doubt while the picture unspools that he’ll never surmount the conflicts that rage in his magma-head and spew from his mouth.

In addition to the abovementioned “flaws” (to some, they’re “flaws”, but I suspect they’re just an inevitability given the subject matter), the picture seems almost marred by two relatively clunky devices.

First of all, the editing style makes little sense. It is almost wall-to-wall with soft cuts, rapid fades and dissolves and a disjointedness that both jangles and annoys. It is obvious, however, that this style is intentional and not the work of an incompetent celluloid butcher. We’re supposed to be yanked about in this fashion and thankfully, in spite of the obtrusive, almost obvious nature of the individual edits, most of the scenes between cuts have a steady (at times plodding) pace. Clearly this is an attempt to provide a sense of the futility and delusion experienced by Hitler and his officers. It often works, but it’s so overused that it sometimes becomes numbing. But again, the numbing quality might well be intentional.

The second major clunky device is the constant use of archival footage from the period (some of it obviously culled from Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”). It is used in an often annoyingly obvious fashion. An example of this is when Hitler is working on an architectural design and his squeeze, Eva Braun (Doris Kunstmann in a great performance to rival Guinness) offers the following lament: “What a pity for the world you couldn’t have devoted your life to art.” (If this isn’t a great line of dialogue, especially in context, then I don’t know what is.) Hitler replies with some nonsense about trying to build a great Germany and we are then treated to a montage of bombed-out German cities (including Dresden).

This is clearly the stuff of sledgehammers, but in fairness, this same criticism can be leveled against many films people admire – especially Italian cinema of a political nature (Lina Wertmuller, anyone?). The problem here is that the sledgehammer is used a bit too often.

It is natural at this point, I suppose, for someone to ask why then, is “Hitler: The Last Ten Days” a good picture and worthy of any attention at all? My answer to such a question might not be all that compelling or convincing, but it is, I believe, the most honest answer I can muster – the picture’s very strangeness solidifies it as a work that deserves some attention, if not further serious study. It’s also, at least to date, the best film to tackle the subject matter (including the plodding, humourless, overrated “Downfall”). Yes, it’s odd, but how could it not be? This is, after all, an attempt to give us a sense of those last few days in the life of a madman and his devoted followers.

The craft employed is often impeccable – from magnificent production design to the exquisite cinematography of Ennio (“Garden of the Finzi-Continis”) Guarnieri. Deep blacks, occasionally punctured by the fuzzy glow of subterranean exposed bulbs contribute greatly to the atmosphere of decay and desolation. While adherence to “reality” is not always necessary in a motion picture – especially one as strange as this – Guarnieri in particular, creates a dank, oppressive world that makes the seemingly implausible starkly plausible.

At the beginning of the film there are two inter-titles utilized to prepare us for the “accuracy” of what we’re about to see. One is from the noted historian Hugh Trevor-Roper and the other is Gerhardt Boldt who wrote the book upon which the film is based, “The Last Days of the Chancellery”. The former claims with authority and irrefutability that the film is historically accurate. The latter claims it is based solidly upon Boldt’s eyewitness account. In both cases, these statements seem unnecessary since director Ennio De Concini’s hand is felt so very strongly throughout.

Whether the picture is working like clockwork or even when it’s stumbling, the mise-en-scene is always distinctive and definitely interested in creating an atmosphere, a tone and even, if you will, a poetic quality that the notion of historical accuracy feels completely out of place. That said, the directorial hand is so evident, that even these inter-titles might well be a gesture (albeit ham-fisted) of irony, or perhaps, even satire. Besides, the “expert” testimony, in light of what happened ten years after the film was produced, seems far from irrefutable. Hugh Trevor-Roper’s reputation as a scholar would eventually be tarnished by his mistaken authentication of the (clearly forged) “Hitler diaries” discovered in the 80s. Now if this was something director De Concini could have foretold, then the use of the Trevor-Roper endorsement of the film’s accuracy might have taken on some added perverse punch.

That said, the picture is perverse-a-plenty – especially when it revs up in the final half hour when all appears lost and Hitler bestows gifts of cyanide capsules to his loyal followers and Eva Braun delivers a blackface Jolson tribute to uplift everyone’s spirits. A particular delight is when all of Hitler’s loyal followers light cigarettes and down schnapps after Dolph bites the bullet – especially hilarious since we’re told on more than one occasion of Hitler’s hatred for both tobacco and alcohol. Even earlier scenes showing some officers and even Eva Braun herself sneaking an occasional smoke or belt of booze behind Der Fuhrer’s befuddled back rate high on the wacko-meter. And of course, my personal favourite is when the bunker’s chef proclaims that she’ll gas herself in an oven instead of resorting to cyanide and she is reminded that her appliances are electric.

This is the stuff cinema was meant for.

Again, many have condemned the film as misguided and incompetent. I strongly disagree. De Concini did not, sadly, have a prolific career as a director – in fact, this picture might well have been the nail in that particular coffin. However, De Concini had an extremely prolific and heralded calling as one of Italy’s finest screenwriters. His credits included Sergio Leone’s “Colossus of Rhodes”, Mario Bava’s “Black Sunday” and, among many others, the Oscar-winning screenplay of the immortal comedy “Divorce – Italian Style” which launched the international romantic screen duo of Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren. The bottom line is this – De Concini was no slouch and every strange perverse touch in “Hitler: The Last Ten Days” feels like it came from his fevered and often good-humoured talent. It is this dark humour that keeps the inevitable proceedings buoyant and downright compelling.

That said, it is also a film infused with tremendous sadness.

After watching “Hitler: The Last Ten Days”, I was reminded of an incident from a few years ago when all the tabloids were aflutter with the news that NHL-WHA hockey great Robert Marvin (Bobby) Hull was quoted as saying that Hitler “had quite a few good ideas”. This was later revealed to be the result of misquotation and contextual chicanery (on the part of the much-raking journalists), but I still couldn’t help but think about the sheer, mouth-agape stupidity/audacity of the notion that Hitler “had quite a few good ideas”. Clearly, his ideas were far from “good”, but for a time, sadly and horrifyingly, they worked.

How then, while watching a film like “Hitler: The Last Ten Days” are we to have any pity, sympathy or empathy for the title character? Well, we can’t, of course. De Concini, and certainly his star, Alec Guinness, must have been well aware of this. Taking on the subject matter at all – especially in the manner in which it is presented – takes both artistry and commitment to artistic expression, even when the truth is mediated to create a reality as perverse as what is on display in this picture.

Thankfully, we get to see the disintegration of Hitler’s “good ideas”. We see how small, how puny, how petty his goals, dreams and aspirations were. We see how utterly banal and bourgeois he and his followers were, and in this banality we see evil unravel and ultimately dissipate – as it should, as it must.

We hear again and again (and rightly so) that we must never forget Hitler’s evil, but this is a picture that goes a step further and forces us not to forget the utter stark banality from which this evil sprouts and how weak and ultimately unsound it always has been and always will be.

“Hitler: The Last Ten Days” rubs our noses in Hitler’s tawdry banality. It does so with great audacity and conviction. And that, finally, for all the picture’s flaws, is what makes it worthwhile.

“Hitler: The Last Ten Days” is available on DVD from Legend Films.

“

THE READER

The Reader (2008) dir. Stephen Daldry
Starring: Kate Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes

*1/2

SPOILERS AHEAD

“The Reader” reeks of Oscar-bait – a shamefully contrived series of manufactured dramatic scenes. Every ragged emotion is stimulated using explicit sex, the holocaust, suicide to fool us into thinking there’s some profound lessons about life.

It’s 1950’s West Germany, teenaged Michael Berg (David Kross) is sick with Scarlett fever and he’s taken in with kindness by a transit clerk named Hannah Schmitz (Kate Winslet). The boy comes back to thank the woman, and after a couple of longing glances and some arbitrary scenes of clothes removal the two start a torrid affair. Despite their age Hannah educates David into the joys of sex. As they get to know each other they start a ritual of David reading to Hannah before coitus. Whether it’s Homer, or Archie comics Hannah loves books as much as sex with young men.

As suddenly as their romance began it ends when Hannah disappears from David’s life. David finds her again years later when he’s in law school. It’s an inauspicious occasion though as Hannah is on trial for Nazi crimes (who knew). Naturally David is distraught, but he never makes contact with her, instead watches the proceedings from afar. When David grows up to be Ralph Fiennes, he starts up an even more peculiar relationship with Hannah when she’s in prison – sending audio tapes of him reading books to her (like the good old days), an act which eventually allows Hannah to atone for her sins.

This movie keeps going and going and going. The first act is a tender coming of age romance in the tradition of sexual exploration films like “The Graduate” or “Last Tango in Paris”. The bombshell of the Holocaust, which is dropped on us, is an unnecessary and contrived manipulation of character. There are no hints of Hannah’s nefarious past, only hints that she can’t read. Introducing the Holocaust requires some responsibility to do it right. Instead it feels like a shameless form of exploitation. Hannah could have been a reformed murderer and the dynamic of character would have been the same.

So when the film changes gears Daldry discards the themes of youth coming of age and abandonment for the moral history lesson of the Holocaust. For the entire second act David is inactive, only reactive to the revelations. When Ralph Fiennes takes over the character the film continues on and on over the decades to encompass the rest of Hannah’s life into old age. More ridiculous contrivances are dropped on us including a revelation about Hannah’s deep secret (other than the Nazi secret), a suicide attempt and the significance of an old yellow tea box.

Lena Olin appears in a scene at the end, the length of which muddies the theme and point of the film even more. By the end it’s a hodgepodge of Oscar scenes, hot steamy sex, unnecessary warts and all nude scenes, dramatic courtroom twists, aging make-up, painful repression of memories, and long lost reunifications. At the very least everyone speaks with a good German accent which can’t be said of a couple other non-German made German films this year (“The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” and “Valkyrie”).

The Reader

BEST OF 2008 and MORE...

Great films have the ability to take the mere experience of watching a movie as entertainment and provide a profound emotional transformation. A great movie strikes a chord with your emotions – whether it’s fear, laughter, sadness, adrenaline etc. For lack of a better word a great film hits you in the gonads. Few films hit me in the gonads this year. There were lots of really good films but few which hit me where it counts. Click on the film titles to link to my reviews of each film.

1. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

Two films hit the gonads harder than any other this. Danny Boyle’s thrilling journey into the mean streets of Mumbai hit me with extreme force. Via the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” we get to see the Dickensian life of a young Indian street kid and his lifelong journey to reconnect with the love of his life. Music and imagery bombard us with such exhuberance, you’ll leave the theatre with a renewed sense of energy.

2. THE WRESTLER

The second film which stands high above all others this year. A triumph on all levels of filmmaking. By far the most emotionally truthful film of the year. Mickey Rourke embodies the sad, tragic life of a has been wrestler. "The Wrestler" is as funny as it is tragic and triumphant. A phenomenal film.

3. FROST/NIXON

Ron Howard has never been this high on any of my Best of Lists. Usually his workmanlike direction and middle-of-the-road inoffensiveness makes for tepid viewing. Sure “Frost/Nixon” is not controversial cinema but it is sharply drawn and challenging political film about two complex men going head to head on national television with personal reputation and political history at stake.

4. BOY-A

I seemed to be the only one who even saw this film let alone put this on my top ten list. Andrew Garfield’s BAFTA Award winning lead performance anchors this gem about a young reformed murderer who gets released into society and how he adapts to a new life and a new identity.

5. FUNNY GAMES

Michael Haneke’s remake of his own 1997 film is as frightening as horror movies come. Other than his own original there is no other film to compare to this disturbing experiment in terror. Haneke’s home invasion flick is an assault on its audience, a concerted attempt to mimic the terror, discomfort and agonizing pain of a home invasion. Haneke hits the gonads with shockingly visceral fear and dread. Be warned about this one, it’s for highly disciminating tastes - of bad taste for some.

6. THE EDGE OF HEAVEN

This German/Turkish co-production went through the festival circuit in 2007 and received its theatrical release early this year. Told in the multinational character hopping style of “Babel” and the complex religious themes of Krzysztof Kieslowski, director Fatih Akin’s film tells the story of a young man who travels from Germany to Turkey to find the family of his father’s deceased wife. As the story changes its point of view we get a unique viewpoint into how the lives of Akin’s characters have unknowingly affected each other.

7. DOUBT

John Patrick Shanley’s morality tale of a nun who accuses a priest of sexual molestation with no evidence other than her suspicion is a great showcase film for a quartet of great actors - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Viola Davis and especially Meryl Streep.

8. IRON MAN

Sure Batman was a great film, but we all expected that. “Iron Man’s” greatness and success was so unexpected it deserves higher recognition that “The Dark Knight”. Great casting elevates the standard comic book genre origin story into accessible and highly entertaining cinema on all levels. Downey Jr. is interminably magnetic as Tony Stark and, Gwyneth Paltrow'snd Jeff Bridges' infectious personalities breath life in their template genre characters.

9. THE DARK KNIGHT

No need to shower this film with more praise, but the IMAX projection was the event of the year, and should revitalize the theatrical experience.

10. MILK

Gus Van Sant’s fine biopic of Harvey Milk is mainstream enough to be accessible for general audiences, but with enough of his personal stylistic exclamation marks to lift it above most other films of the genre.

Here's the other 10 which didn't make the big list:

11. WALTZ WITH BASHIR
I welcome this profound new addition to the art of animation more than any of the films made by Pixar. Since the advent of computer animation we’re continually bombarded by decent but mostly disposable films made for kids (though enjoyable for adults). Ari Folman’s war memoirs of the 1982 Israeli/Lebanese War is as creative, original and inspiring as anything in “Wall-E”.

12. THE STRANGERS
Bryan Bertino’s debut feature has the same innate skills of visceral fear as a young John Carpenter. His task on the familiar home invasion subgenre of horror is one of the scariest films I’ve ever seen.

13. TROPIC THUNDER
By far the best comedy of the year. Ben Stiller’s absurd high concept go-for-broke comedy gets even better the second time around

14. HAPPY GO-LUCKY
Sally Hawkins’ portrayal of a permanently effervescent school teacher is effectively annoying. Her relationships with her family, friends and even her driving instructor stem from a disarming happy-go-lucky personality.

15. REDBELT
Who knew David Mamet watched Mixed Martial Arts, let alone was a black belt in Jiu Jitsu. His passion for this sport is palpable as he crafts a unique sports film - part con game, part philosophical essay on the art form. Mamet slyly subverts our expectations, crafting a clever and thought-provoking mix of "Rocky" and "House of Games".

16. THE RUINS
A great low radar horror film about a group of kids under siege by an unknown plague atop an ancient Mayan ruin.

17. SHOTGUN STORIES
This authetic self-produced indie film makes a profound statement on violence, reminiscent of Sam Peckinpah’s “Straw Dogs” or Terrence Malick's "Badlands".

18. INSIDE (AKA L’INTERIEUR)
A benchmark in the new genre of French horror. This astonishingly violent thriller combines bloodcurdling gore with great low level John Carpenter-esque tension.

19. YOUNG PEOPLE F*CKING
The best Canadian film this year. The finished product is better than its salacious title. A surprisingly touching and insightful film about relationships and the act known as ‘the nasty.’

20. WALL-E
Though the second half walloes too much in the animated cuteness of the robot, the first half makes it the most cinematically inspired of all the Pixar films.

THE BEST DOCUMENTARIES OF THE YEAR

This top five list is even more highly recommended than much of the top twenty listed above:

1. MAN ON WIRE
Simply stunning telling of Frenchman Philippe Petit’s attempt to cross the twin towers by high wire in 1974. Using truly cinematic recreated footage, James Marsh’s doc is crafted with more suspense and tension than most thrillers.

2. SURFWISE
An almost unbelievable story of the first family of surfing, The Paskowitz’s, who took their family on a camping trip of surfing for over 20 years.

3. PLANET BBOY
A stunning film about the global phenomenon of ‘breakdancing’ – an artform which has expanding in creativity and credibility since what you remember from the 1980’s.

4. ALL TOGETHER NOW
A great documentary about the joining of two artistic institutions – Cirque du Soleil and The Beatles.

5. ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD
Werner Herzog's idiosyncratic story of his journey to Antarctica.

THE BEST PEFORMANCES OF THE YEAR

Best lead performances - Actor:

Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler)

Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon)
Andrew Garfield (Boy-A)
Josh Brolin (W)
Greg Kinnear (Flash of Genius)
Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man)

Best supporting performances – Actor

Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder)
Russell Brand (Forgetting Sarah Marshall)
John Malkovich (Burn After Reading)
Anil Kapoor (Slumdog Millionaire)

Best lead performances – Actress

Meryl Streep (Doubt)
Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married)
Sally Hawkins (Happy Go-Lucky)
Keira Knightly (The Duchess)
Naomi Watts (Funny Games)

Best supporting performances – Actress

Viola Davis (Doubt)
Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler)
Gwenyth Paltrow (Iron Man)
Rosemary Dewitt (Rachel Getting Married)
Hayley Atwell (The Duchess)

BEST ACTION SCENES OF THE YEAR

Batpod Chase (The Dark Knight)
Climatic Battle (Prince Caspian)
Hellboy vs. The Golden Army (Hellboy II)
Opening Mumbai Chase (Slumdog Millionaire)
Iron Man vs. F22- Raptors (Iron Man)
Rambo vs. Burmese Army (Rambo)

FUNNIEST SCENES OF THE YEAR

Sleepwalking (Step Brothers)
Brad Pitt’s telephone call with John Malkovich (Burn After Reading)
Opening Fake trailers (Tropic Thunder)

ACCLAIMED FILMS I JUST DIDN'T LIKE

RACHEL GETTING MARRIED
LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
A CHRISTMAS TALE
THE WACKNESS
BELLA

THE BEST STAND ALONE SHOTS/SCENES OF THE YEAR

Under the pool shot in LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
The repeated awakening scene in WALTZ WITH BASHIR
The MIA train montage in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
Batpod Introduction in THE DARK KNIGHT
The ghostly appearance of Beatrice Dalle in INSIDE
Slo-motion frothing guard dog in STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

WORST FILMS OF THE YEAR

THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PYJAMAS
If you can’t believe the single concept of an eight year old not understanding that people who where striped jumpsuits living behind a fortified fence with barbed wire is not a prison of some sort may like this film.

THE LOVE GURU
Outdated Austin Powers-type humour.

10,000 BC
More garbage from Roland Emmerich

VANTAGE POINT
Completely ridiculous high concept actioner

SPEED RACER
Simply unwatchable

THANKS FOR READING. HAPPY 2009!

THE WRESTLER

The Wrestler (2008) dir. Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood

****

Not only is Mickey Rourke’s phenomenal performance one of the comebacks of the year, so is Darren Aronofsky’s work on “The Wrestler”. After the long road to bring the muddied and overwrought “The Fountain” to the screen a couple years ago, Aronofsky’s latest film feel like a cathartic return to authentic filmmaking, free from special effects, stylistic excesses and pretentious melodrama. “The Wrestler” is as honest as films come – a beautifully executed story about a broken man struggling to make something of his life.

Mickey Rourke plays Randy “The Ram” Robinson once a king in the world of 80’s wrestling, now a middle-aged has-been struggling to make ends meets. The 20 years since his heyday haven’t been kind, his face wears all the battle scars of a life fighting, alcoholism, steroids and many other vices. He speaks with a smokers rasp, and wears a hearing aid. The wrestling meets he fights at are not televised, not performed in large stadiums, it’s the no frills independent circuit – the ‘minor leagues’, if you will, performed in high school gymnasiums and legion halls. The Ram may be old but he still has the passion and talent of a great performer. He honourably throws every ounce of sweat and blood into the ring for entertainment. Everything comes to a halt though when he suffers a heart attack after a particularly brutal match.

He’s now unable to fight, but things start looking up when The Ram makes contact with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood), his grocery store job starts to pan out and a tender relationship with his stripper ladyfriend (Marisa Tomei) progresses. But when the demons of the old warrior come back Randy turns to the only thing he’s ever been good at for redemption – wrestling.

Writer Robert Seigel and director Aronofsky get the milieu of this little seen world of independent wrestling exactly right. The authenticity of these characters make it a fascinate environment just to observe. Though the entire film has a free form quality, the backstage scenes in particular sing with organic naturalism. Despite the brutality of the work, there’s warmth and respect amongst the wrestlers. So it’s easy to see why Randy never left the sport.

Mickey Rourke’s astonishing performance anchors every foot of the film. He’s in every scene, and he embodies the sad life of this man. The reunification scenes with his daughter are truly heartbreaking and the tender romance with Cassidy has us rooting for Randy to succeed and assemble the pieces of his life once and for all. But Aronofsky sustains a simmering dread and tension – a tragedy in the waiting. No matter how good things get for Randy he’s always walking a tightrope and could fall at any moment.

After suffering through the contrived melodrama of “The Reader” yesterday, “The Wrestler” is like a breath of fresh air - a deceptively simple film but the result of hard work from Seigel, Aronofsky and Rourke. As a cinemagoer, no matter if it’s “Iron Man” or “The Reader”, every time I go to the movies there’s a chance of being hit in the gonads with a film that ‘just works’ on all emotional levels. “The Wrestler” works perfectly.

It’s a shame though,  just when as Aronofsky seems to have found his stride with truth and authenticity he’s going back into the high stakes artificial world of blockbuster filmmaking. “Robocop” appears to be his next project. If anything the confidence he’s received from this triumphant masterpiece will hopefully spill over into his next work. Enjoy.

The Wrestler

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) dir. David Fincher
Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett,

**1/2

Midway through this film when a sense of slogging tedium set in I had flashbacks to another lengthy Brad Pitt mood piece, “Meet Joe Black”. “Benjamin Button” is not nearly as bad, yet some of the same faults nearly drown this sometimes fascinating sometimes dreary tragic fantasy tale.

It’s present day New Orleans just before Hurricane Katrina is about to hit, an elderly woman on her deathbed recounts to her daughter the diary of the life of Benjamin Button, her one true love. Flashback to 1920's New Orleans to start the lifecycle of Benjamin Button who began life as an old man (still a baby) and regresses in age to eventually a young handsome man to a young boy then a baby.

Benjamin is brought up by a kindly black woman after the swaddling clad baby is left on her doorstep. The irony is not missed by anyone as Benjamin grows up in her adopted mother's senior citizens' home. He falls in love with Daisy (Cate Blanchett) on first site (is there any other way to fall in love in the movies)? Because of Benjamin's condition their relationship can only blossom when their ages coincide with each other, in the middle. Before then Benjamin tours the world in a tug boat, but always keeping tabs on Daisy. When they finally have a chance to be together it's about 10 years of bliss before Benjamin realizes at some point they will diverge and be unable to grow old together.

The special makeup effects which make Brad Pitt an elderly baby and wrinkly naive child are astonishing. Fincher never jumps far enough in time to provide the drastic physical change we expect. Instead it's a gradual change from old to young. We barely even notice the difference in age from scene to scene. On the technical level the film is a triumph.

“Meet Joe Black” comes to mind because that lengthy Pitt film was plagued with Benjamin Button’s ailments. A distinct and seemingly concerted lack of conflict. The film tries to sustain two hours and forty five minutes of tenderness without a single break of tension, anger, danger or stress, which comes as a major surprise from a director who has made a career from dark material.

Button is drenched with so much tender melancholy and whimsy it’s like Miles Davis playing the harmonica for an entire symphony – one note or one key the entire film. Since Fincher is so obsessive about controlling the tone of his films I don't think he ever forgot to put in the conflict. It's a conscious decision which gives the film it's distinct fairytale quality.

Benjamin never raises his voice, never sheds a tear, rarely even smiles or laughs. Even when he catches up with his age, Benjamin feels like a fish out of water, like Klaatu in ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still”. This alienness to his surroundings feeds into his innate transient nature and the painful decision he makes in the end. The finale brings powerful feelings and emotions mainly because it took so long to get there – a necessity in storytelling terms but often painful and tedious.

The sheer length can be maddening for the impatient, and especially for those who thought “Zodiac” was too long. Are the genuine feelings of sorrow worth the nearly three hours it takes to find this epiphany? It’s worth a shot, but a journey I have no desire to take again.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button