Film Reviews: March 2004 Archives

Produced in Italy in 2001 this film is an involving piece despite the plot being about a subject that has been around as long as mankind has existed. That subject being ‘love’ or rather the way in which couples interact with each other and the surrounding clichés.

Essentially the film’s subject is Carlo, his girlfriend announces that she is pregnant in the opening scene. We also witness four other typical couples during the proceedings of the film, each one being at a different stage. We have the in-laws’ relationship, an older couple who are going through a rough patch. Then we have each of Carlo’s male friends, a married couple with baby; who are going through a rough patch. A young stallion of a man who is involved in what is nowadays politely known as serial monogamy. A hung-up chap, who cannot get over his ex-girlfriend. The last friend is trapped by a family business and illness in the family and seeks to escape it all.

Together all the sub plots and relationships intertwine and develop. To add extra tension to the proceedings Carlo meets another young girl and become besotted with her, just at the point where his relationship needs the most commitment. There is enough action, fearsome Italian driving included, to hold the attention and I found the film thoroughly engrossing. Despite its complexities the film was very well structured and hence it is easy to follow the plot, if you can concentrate for the 2 hours run-length.

As well as relationship tension, there was also plenty of humour on offer within the plot. I particularly enjoyed the repeated failed attempts at escape by the friend trapped by the family business – even the business itself was amusing. There is plenty packed into this mini-epic, and could certainly be viewed several times without losing its taste. The film is filled with Italian flavour without insulting the country or its people. Gabriele Muccino is certainly a director to keep an eye on.

***** (out of 5)

As many readers will be aware Lars von Trier was one of the founders of the “Dogme” style of filmmaking, and whilst Dogville does not share all the characteristics of a Dogma film Trier’s distinctive style is very much apparent in the feature.

The basic story revolves around a remote community of people, the settlement shares is the name of the movie, whose day to day life is challenged – literally – by the arrival of a stranger to the scene. In this case the stranger is none other than Nicole Kidman (in the role of Grace), a young lady fleeing some mobsters. She is found by writer and philosopher Tom Edison (Paul Bettany), who helps her to hide and avoid immediate capture. As it turns out Tom is due to give the townsfolk a talk about morality and other issues that they find uninteresting, he challenges them to welcome the stranger into the community and help Grace to make it up to them if she stays. From here we learn more about each person in Dogville and how Grace changes all of their lives.

I personally found this film fascinating both technically and from the point of view of the story and how it explores human behaviour. In the latter case we seem to be dealing with power, or rather the perception of it, and how that perception of power can influence behaviour between individuals and between a group of people and an individual.

From a technical point of view this film also impressed me. Trier strips away the set to the bare minimum, chalk lines on the sound stage represent the walls and boundaries of property and props are reduced to the minimum necessary. The actors are forced to mime the opening and closing of doors and other interactions with invisible objects. At first this is unsettling, but by stripping away the physical boundaries we are forced to take notice of the barriers of communication and behaviour between the characters. This also focuses our attention on the performances of the actors (just take a look at the cast list and you’ll get an idea of the talent on offer in this feature). The camera often uses extreme close ups, and scenes were clearly shot multiple times with improvisational freedom – resulting in rather interesting discontinuities of action between cuts. At nearly three hours long the film is not for people who cannot concentrate well for long periods of time or people who require eye candy, there is virtually no eye candy in Dogville! The film however is very well structured, into nine separate chapters that provide a clue to the direction the story will take, and narration is performed by the wonderful voice of John Hurt. The narration itself creates a child’s bedtime story feel to it, and you sense by the end that you have witnessed a tale about morality, or rather amorality.

As to the end of the film, opinions are divided on the subject. Several people I petitioned felt it was over the top and did not like the resolution of the plot. I thought the end was pretty amusing, and personally thought that it was a very just ending, maybe slightly over the top perhaps. I cannot wait for the DVD…

****1/2 (out of 5)

This depressing film revolves around the adulthood of Sylvia Plath, a talented American writer who eventually married Ted Hughes (former British poet laureate).

The story, for those who are not aware, is that Sylvia (Gwyneth Paltrow) is studying at Cambridge University thanks to a Fulbright scholarship. It is here that she becomes aware of the darkly charismatic Ted – played by Daniel Craig (Road to Perdition). They fall in love and eventually marry. From here you either know the story or you do not, but I shall not spoil the film. Suffice it to say that after a happy beginning the marriage goes the way of the majority of relationships these days and the happy, romantic lifestyle of two poets soon dissolves into a much more harrowing tale.

What surprised me most about this film was the focus on the relationship between Plath and Hughes rather than on their respective works that took a back seat after the establishment of the relationship during the film. Obviously a film that is only an hour and fifty minutes long cannot possibly reproduce all the detail of the lives of a busy couple. Having said which I still felt the omission of the works of the two poets, or the removal of these details, was erroneous as these facts were closely related to their relationship. There did not seem much attempt to explain or explore either characters behaviour, merely present the facts. Indeed Ted Hughes comes across as an unforgivable swine, yet having seen the film I still feel as if I have seen a film rather than witness something that was once real.

The film was well made and the acting was excellent, as you would expect. I especially liked the inclusion of Michael Gambon as Sylvia’s neighbour towards the end of the film. He appeared almost like a Godlike figure, offering support occasionally for but not unduly interfering with events.

I suspect this film may do well as a DVD offering, especially if bundled with more works of the artist herself, as this would appeal to fans of Plath. As a film alone it is not outstanding and not worth watching if you are feeling unhappy!

*** (out of 5)