For next Monday, Monday, March 15th, we're got a world premiere comedy (not opening until March 26), starring Don McKellar, thanks to our good friends at Metropole. Cooking With Stella is a lighthearted, satirical, social comedy about an unsuspecting couple in the Canadian Diplomatic Service posted to New Delhi who inherit a household of Indian servants headed by the wily, charming... and totally inspiring cook - Stella.
Cook in the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, Stella is brilliant at padding her salary - a few pilfered items, minor overcharging, and a special phone-order duty free business. Stella's cozy domestic set-up implodes when Tannu, an honest nanny, threatens to expose Stella. Eventually Stella wins Tannu's full cooperation (and then some!) and unlikely partnership embarks on a much grander, riskier scam.
***
Lundi prochain, le 15 mars, nous présentons une comédie de première mondiale (n’étant pas à l’affiche avant le 25 mars), mettant en vedette Don McKellar, grâce à nos bons amis de Métropole Films. Cooking with Stella est une amusante satire sociale racontant l’histoire d’un couple affecté à New Delhi au sein des Services diplomatiques canadiens. À leur disposition se retrouve une armée de serviteurs indiens dirigés par l’astucieuse, charmante et très inspirante chef cuisinière, Stella.
Stella Elizabeth Matthews, cuisinière affectée au Haut-commissariat du Canada à New Delhi, est très ingénieuse pour faire fructifier ses revenus: légères tricheries, subtiles hausses des prix, et un petit commerce de commandes téléphoniques sans taxes. Son confortable univers s’écroule lorsque Tannu, d’honnête domestique, menace de dévoiler Stella. Mais éventuellement, Stella gagne son entière collaboration (et plus encore!) et une association se développe sur un plan beaucoup plus élaboré et très risqué.
*****
...contempo upstairs/downstairs story provides an interesting, often lively glimpse into the household of a Canadian diplomatic family living in India...
Une histoire contemporaine upstairs/downstairs qui nous donne un captivant et vivant aperçu au sein de la maisonne de diplomates canadiens vivant en Inde.
Variety
***
A light, clever comedy written by director Dilip Mehta with his sister Deepa. At the heart of the film is the culture clash of misunderstandings (and cultural disagreements) between a young Canadian family living in a diplomatic residence in New Delhi and Stella (Seema Biswas), an indefatigably crafty housekeeper. Don McKellar and Lisa Ray are terrific as the newcomers but it’s the Indian cast members who have the most fun in the Mehta's fleet-footed satire.
Une brillante et légère comédie du réalisateur et scénariste, Dilip Mehta et de sa soeur, Deepa. Au coeur de ce film se retrouve un choc ethnique incompréhensions (et de désaccords culturels) entre une jeune famille de canadiens vivant dans une résidence diplomatique à New Delhi et Stella (Seema Bisway), une vigoureuse et astucieuse ménagére. Don McKellar et Lisa Ray sont fantastiques en tant que nouveaux venus, mais ce sont les acteurs de la distribution indienne qui prennent le plus de plaisir dans la délicate satire de Mehta.
National Post
A solid crowd-pleaser about the collision of cultures as a Canadian diplomat (Lisa Ray) and her husband find life in Delhi rather, um, grafty. Do we admire their live-in cook for teaching McKellar about Indian cuisine, or frown on her well-established system of kickbacks? Either way, it's a tasty meal.
Une histoire sûre de plaire sur l’affrontement des cultures alors qu’une diplomate canadienne (Lisa Ray) et son mari trouvent la vie à New Delhi quelque peu, disons-le, friponne. Sommes-nous attendris par leur cuisinière pour ses leçons de cuisine indienne à McKellar ou est-ce que nous sourcillons sur ses solides tactiques frauduleuses. Peu importe, c’est délicieux. Eye Weekly
***...an appealingly wry, distinctly Indo-Canadian spin on upstairs-downstairs tales of servants who outwit their social betters.
Attachante ironie, clairement Indo-Canadienne sur les contes upstairs/downstairs de servantes qui ont réussi à déjouer leurs supérieurs sociaux. National Post
Toronto Post
Malgré que je n'ai pas encore vu notre présentation du 8 mars, Le Hérisson (The Hedgehog), j'ai lu (deux fois) le roman best-seller de Muriel Barbery, duquel ce film fut inspiré. L'Élégance du hérisson retrace les rencontres inattendues de trois voisins, tous demeurant dans un immeuble à appartements très bourgeois en pleine ville de Paris : Paloma, une jeune fille de 11 ans effroyablement intelligente; Renée Michel, une discrète et recluse concierge de grande culture littéraire et l'énigmatique et distingué veuf japonais, Kakuro Ozu.
Et j'ai lu les critiques françaises.
While I have not yet screened our March 8th offering, Le Hérisson (The Hedgehog), I've read Muriel Barbery's bestselling novel (twice) on which this movie is based .The Elegance of the Hedgehog traces the unexpected encounter of three neighbors, all living in a middle-class apartment building in central Paris: Paloma, a fearsomely intelligent 11-year-old girl; Renee Michel, an unobtrusive, erudite concierge; and the enigmatic Kakuro Ozu, a distinguished Japanese widower.
And I've read the French reviews:
Ce qui nous est donné à voir est la découverte d'une complicité inattendue entre trois personnages habitant le même immeuble bourgeois parisien. Car tel est l'usage : hormis lors des tentatives de dîners citoyens, les voisins ont le réflexe de sceller entre leurs appartements des cloisons étanches, et d'entretenir des relations à peine civilisées, ne sacrifiant qu'aux règles élémentaires de politesse. Les locataires de ce bâtiment de grand standing qui nourrissent cette histoire sont à priori inconciliables, puisqu'il s'agit de la concierge, d'une gamine de 11 ans, et d'un locataire étranger.
(What we have here is an astonishing complicity among three characters, all residing in the same hoity-toity Parisian apartment block. Such are the traditions of such buildings that neighbors hermetically seal off all contact between the various tenants, maintain relationsips that are only marginally civilized, only conceding the very minimal concessions to civility. The elders of the place who encourage such practices, maintain by definition their irreconcialable distance from the three central characters of the movie, since we're talking here of a concierge, a little girl of 11 and a tenant from Japan. Le Monde ***** De ces trois personnages improbables sortis du roman de Muriel Barbery L'Élégance du hérisson, la réalisatrice fait des aventuriers secrets de la conscience, naviguant au milieu d'un monde endormi dans son confort matériel et intellectuel, unis par des complicités secrètes. Le microcosme de l'immeuble se prête à ce jeu très visuel entre l'apparence et son envers. C'est plaisant, astucieux, ironique, touchant. Avec une Josiane Balasko finement malgracieuse et formidablement généreuse.
(From these three characters from Muriel Barbery's novel, L'Élégance du hérisson, the director creates hidden adventurers, making their way through a world, dozsing in its material and intellectual comfort. The microcosm of the the apartment block provides a visual stage between appearance and reality. Astute, ironic, touching. With Josiane Balasko, exquisitely bad-mannered and formidably generous.) Le Figaro ***** Young director Mona Achache focuses three delicate souls, perceived by others as "odd", eccentric, different: Renée, the concierge, dowdy and ignorant, Paloma , the "complicated" young girl, and the Kakuro, refined, respectful, tactful. I felt raptured by the delicacy and the calmness of these characters, wonderfully interpreted by three talented actors. I identified myself with the little Paloma, because she reminded me at her own age, when I liked being on my own, finding my secret refuge, where I could stay alone with my thoughts. Go and see it, you will be enchanted by these three simple, plain, but magic characters. IMDB
Sa jeune réalisatrice, Mona Achache, se penche sur trois êtres complexes, étant perçus comme différents et excentriques : Renée, la frustre concierge mal fichue; Paloma, jeune fille ténébreuse, et le distingué Kakuro rempli de tact et de respect. J’ai été ravi par la délicatesse et le calme de ces caractères, magnifiquement interprétés par trois acteurs de talent. Je me suis identifié à la petite Paloma, parce qu’elle m’a rappelé comment j’étais au même âge, alors que j’aimais faire tout par moi-même, découvrant mon monde secret, dans lequel je pouvais être seul avec mes pensées. Allez voir ce film, vous serez enchantés par ces trois personnages simples et sans façons mais tellement fascinants. IMDB.
Over the past 12 months, Cinémagique has showed a string of French movies, all of which meditate on the role race and religion play in the lives oftheir characters. Cerebral civilized folk, talking (and listening) in full sentences, providing astute observations on their lives. They're French, doncha know! In Cinémagique's first-ever offering, Entre Les Murs (winner of the 2008 Palme d’Or at Cannes), a pasty-pink Parisian prof attempts to inculcate eternal French values into frisky immigrant Arab, Oriental and African teens. To no avail. In the end, as a teacher, he is learning far more than he inculcates.
Un Jour, Tu Comprendras tells of a French Jew (Jeanne Moreau), discarding the religion and race fictions she has spun all her life in order to recuperate the irrecoverable past of her parents.
L'Heure d'´Eté mediates on the dissolution of the traditional French family values, as siblings disperse the family home and find new lives across the globe.
In Les Beaux Gosses, a raunchy sex comedy, Director Riad Sattouf (who grew up, an Arab immigrant teen in Brittany), remembers those fantasizing, masturbating teen years, learning to be a French kisser in Rennes.
Last week, in Vilaine, our charming ugly Cinderella finds her St. Valentine in a guy from Bénin. Traditional French rectitude take a whupping at every turn. You get the point. Ah! French movies! You just gotta love 'em!
Now next Monday, we have this masterful prison saga, Un Prophète (winner of the 2009 Palme d'Or), and in three weeks our much-anticipated Le Hérisson.
OK, so no surprise that race and religion are at the centre of Un Prophète as well. A illiterate delinquent (immigrant Arab) only learns how crime pays after he's locked up for six years, by negotiating his own survival midst three warring criminal underworlds, Arab, Coriscan and Italian. One guy says, The idea of this place is to come out a little smarter. And he sure does. This is a rags-to-riches underdog movie, rooting on (despite yourself) this petty thug's Darwinian struggle for his own survival. The illiterate man-without-a-country emerges a kingpin Caid.
A couple of heads up. This is one brutal tour de force, which runs 2 hourse and 40 minutes, so we won't have time for post-coitals (Alas!!) Unless members wanna have a drink in the bar after. And at the very beginning one scene has drawn the wrath of Quebec cnsors, although honestly it's nothing compared to the mayhem of Hollywood movies.
****
Au courant des douze derniers mois, Cinémagique a présenté une série de films français dans lesquels figuraient des gens civilisés (ce sont des français…vous savez!), qui parlent (et écoutent) par des phrases complètes, nous faisant part de leurs astucieuses observations du rôle que la race et la religion jouent dans leur vie. Nous vous offrons lundi prochain, Un prophète, qui risque d’être un extraordinaire film à tout casser – un captivant thriller de crime dans le décor d’une prison à sécurité maximum.
Notre première présentation, Entre les Murs, (Palme d’Or 2008 au Festival de Cannes), est l’histoire d’un jeune professeur de lettres parisien qui tente d’inculquer à des élèves d’origines multiples (adolescents d’origine arabe, orientale et africaine) les valeurs d’être un vrais Français. Sans succès. À la fin, il apprend plus qu’il n’enseigne.
Plus tard, tu comprendras raconte l’histoire d’une juive française (Jeanne Moreau) qui cache certains événements de sa vie reliés à la race et à la religion, voulant ainsi empêcher la reconquête de la mémoire familiale et le désir de remuer le passé.
L’heure d’été est une chronique familiale, où l’histoire est celle des enfants d’une même famille confrontée aux objets de valeur du passé. Ces enfants, vivant dans des endroits dispersés autour du monde, tentent malgré tout de rester une famille soudée et d’éviter les affrontements et les déchirements.
Les Beaux Gosses, une comédie sur le passage à l’âge adulte. Son réalisateur, Riad Sattouf (immigrant arabe qui a grandi en Bretagne), relate des souvenirs personnels de sa propre adolescence, dans un monde de fantasme et de masturbation, tentant difficilement d’apprendre à devenir un beau gosse.
La semaine dernière, dans Vilaine, notre charmante et vilaine Cendrillon fait la rencontre de son Valentin, un beau mec du Bénin. C’est alors que les principes traditionnels français prennent, à tout coup, une sérieuse défaite.
Vous voyez l’idée…ah! ces films français ! On les adore !
Maintenant, lundi prochain, nous vous présentons une majestueuse saga qui se passe dans un environnement carcéral, Un Prophète, (Palme d’Or 2009), (et dans 3 semaines, Le Hérisson).
Dans Un Prophète, il est aussi question de la race. Un délinquant qui ne sait ni lire ni écrire (immigrant arabe) réalise, après avoir été incarcéré pendant six ans, que le crime est payant. Il négocie sa propre survie au sein de trois clans de criminalité différents, arabe, corse et italien. L’un dit : l’idée de cet endroit est d’en sortir plus futé que le voisin. Et il le devient
C’est finalement, de la misère à la richesse, l’histoire d’un simple petit voyou (quoique vous en pensiez) qui se retrouve dans un combat darwinien pour assurer sa propre survie. Le jeune illettré sans pays ni frontière devient un chef-maître Caïd.
C’est un brutal tour de force d’une durée de 2 H 40. Il ne restera malheureusement plus de temps pour une après-discussion (Hélas!). À moins que les membres ne désirent prendre un verre au bar à la fin. Une scène au tout début a attiré l’indignation des critiques québécois à la censure, mais bien honnêtement je vous dis que ce n’est rien comparativement aux bagarres destructives retrouvées dans certains films hollywoodiens.
Vilaine starts out as a tender, touching Cinderella chick flick. Melanie Lupin (a scrambled anagram of Amelie Poulain), feeling bummed, questing after her gorgeous, sensual hunk, suffers a Valentine's Day massacre of her ego at the hands of her three best friends (while she watches Love Story). The movie then morphs. Mélanie decides enough is enough. It no longer pays to be gracious. And mutates into a vengeful Kathy Bates (as in Misery): a delirious, racist, greedy, manic tornado of revenge fantasy. For her, nothing exceeds like excess.
This feminist politically incorrect tract (written/directed by two young guys) could have been called The Revenge of the Ugly Duckling (its English title is gonna be Ugly Mélanie - ugh indeed!), mocking endearing Hallmark sentimentality: sappy Hollywood movies (Titanic, Love Story, The Graduate), Valentine's Day schmaltz, mothers, old folks homes, ceramic animals, best friends - one more example of France's ability to take the mickey out of rectitude. Instead of walking the neighbor's basset, Mélanie ties its leash to the back of an idling bus. When the zooed elephant breaks free, it provides a fresh take on a bull-in-a-china-shop concept (in the world's only animal ceramic museum). Indeed, the French SPCA protested Vilaine's on screen depiction of pets - particularly kittens and Basset hounds - when the movie was first released.
As in all Valentine's Day movies,while everyone in Vilaine indeed gets to the altar by the final reel, Mélanie guarantees that none of the best friends gets matched with her intended. Vilaine's star, Marilou Berry is daughter of celebrated French actress-director, Josiane Balasko (whom we'll see in two weeks, starring in The Elegance of the Hedgehog). Marilou made her debut at age 8, in a movie (My Life Is Hell) directed by her mom. We hope to cadge an interview with her, when she's in town next week. Jean-Patrick Benes and Allan Mauduit co-wrote and co-directed this antic madness, their first feature. (93 mins).
***
Vilaine s’annonce comme étant l’histoire d’une touchante et attendrissante petite poulette à la Cendrillon. Mélanie Lupin (vague interversion d’Amélie Poulain), sentant que l’on profite de sa gentillesse, poursuivant sa quête d’un bel et sensuel adonis, subit une écrasante humiliation de son ego aux mains de ses trois meilleures amies (pendant qu’elle regarde Love Story). Le film prend une toute autre allure lorsque que Mélanie décide qu’elle en a assez ! La bienveillance ne mène nulle part. Elle se métamorphose en une vindicative Cathy Bates (comme dans Misery) : un délirant et puissant tourbillon de vengeance l’envahit. Selon elle, rien n’est plus excessif que l’excès. Cette comédie féministe politiquement incorrecte (écrite et réalisée par deux jeunes gars) aurait pu être titré La Revanche du Vilain Petit Canard (The Revenge of the Ugly Duckling), sympathique raillerie sentimentale Hallmark : de tristes films d’amour hollywoodiens (Titanic, Love Story, The Graduate), sentimentalisme excessif de la Saint-Valentin, les mamans, les résidences pour gens âgés, les petits animaux d’argile, les meilleurs amis – encore un autre exemple du savoir-faire de la France de tourner la raison en dérision. Au lieu de faire la promenade au basset du voisin, elle l’attache à un autobus garé. Elle est comme un éléphant dans un magasin de porcelaine (dans la seule boutique au monde de petits animaux en céramique). En effet, la SPCA française a protesté sur certaines scènes d’animaux (plus particulièrement chatons et bassets) dès la sortie du film. Comme dans tous les films de la Saint-Valentin, alors que tous dans Vilaine arrivent à bonne fin, Mélanie promet qu’aucune de ses meilleures amies n’approchera l’un de ses prétendants. La vedette de Vilaine, Marilou Berry, est la fille de l’actrice, réalisatrice, scénariste française, Josiane Balasko, (que nous pourrons voir dans deux semaines, dans Le Hérisson). Marilou a fait ses débuts dès l’âge de 8 ans, dans le film (My Life Is Hell), réalisé par sa mère. Nous espérons obtenir une entrevue avec elle lorsqu’elle sera parmi nous la semaine prochaine. Jean-Patrick Benes et Allan Mauduit ont été co-scénaristes et co-réalisateurs de cette rocambolesque comédie, leur premier film (93 min.)
Raucous, passionate oldsters, Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) and his Countess Sofya (Helen Mirren), are impassioned seduction charmers, plying their considerable wiles on underlings and overbearing sycophants alike. Mostly, its War and Peace on the Home Front. They have, after all, been married nearly 60 years. He, the ascetic stentorian, defends the greater interests of mankind, while running some sort of a Christian anarchy commune.
She - sensual vibrant mother of his 13 children- whew!! - has mouths to feed. Besides she alone knows Tolstoy's anti-sensuality purity kick can be overthrown with one good toss in the hay. And she is ever ready for that.
Plummer this year, turns 80, but you can't tell in by the way he gallops across the screen and into the mattress. Mirren, now 64 (she'll be 65 in July), is dressed in virgin white in this one. This operatic Masterpiece Theatre is set on his glorious Russian estate, white birches, in 1910, just as Thomas Edison's popular inventions - the movie camera, the phonograph - are arriving, and the movie takes a bemused advantage of tha fact.
And yet, Tolstoy was the 20th Centruy's first literary megastar. Nothing on screen in this movie suggests that Tolstoy inspired both Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Nor why. Which is a pity. It's all sensulaity v. the puritans. So is any of this true? Who cares - it's a movie for stage actors, playing to the back of the house, and such luminous cast - Paul Giamatti, James McAvoy (Atonement) and Kerry Condon take to the assignment with gusto . We now can anticipate that Last Station probably won't win the Best Foreign Oscar (White Ribbon will), but who cares? it's a cornucopia of pop history, gusto and passion.
***
Gens âgés grincheux et passionnés, Léon Tolstoï(Christopher Plummer) et sa noble épouse Sofya (Helen Mirren), sont d’ardents séducteurs de charme, faisant abondamment usage de ruses et de serviles flatteries tout à la fois. C’est Guerre et Paix chez eux. Il n’en demeure pas moins qu’ils sont mariés depuis presque 60 ans. Lui, homme de personnalité vibrante et rigoureuse, défend les plus grands intérêts de l’humanité, tout en faisant marcher une sorte de commune chrétienne chaotique.
Elle, l’explosive et sensuelle mère de ses 13 enfants, a des bouches à nourrir – ouf!. D’ailleurs, elle est la seule à savoir que l’entichement de Tolstoïpour la pureté et l’entretien d’une façade d’anti-sensualité, peut facilement fléchir d’une simple et furtive marque de tendresse. Et elle est continuellement prête à faire face à la situation.
Plummer aura 80 ans cette année, mais impossible à deviner lorsqu’on le voit galoper à l’écran et sur le matelas. Mirren, maintenant âgée de 64 ans (65 en juillet) est tout de blanc vêtue. Ce théâtral chef-d’œuvre prend place sur son domaine en Russie, bouleaux blancs, en 1910, juste au même moment où les inventions populaires de Thomas Edison -la ciné-caméra, le phonographe – font leur apparition, ce qui permet donc au film d’en tirer un avantage stupéfiant Tolstoïfut l’un des écrivains majeurs de la littérature russe.
On ne voit rien à l’écran dans ce film qui incite à croire que Tolstoï a inspiré autant Ghandi que Martin Luther King. Ni pourquoi. Dommage ! Tout est dans la sensualité vs. les puritains. Est-ce qu’il y a un peu de vérité dans tout ceci ? On s’en fout – c’est un film pour des « stage actors » d’une distribution formidable – Paul Giamatti, James McAvoy (Atonement) et Kerry Condon. Nous pouvons dès lors anticiper que Last Stationne sera pas récipiendaire de l’Oscar du meilleur film en langue étrangère (White Ribbonle sera), mais ce n’est pas grave ! C’est une corne d’abondance d’histoire pop, de plaisir et de passion.
Our very special Q&A guests this week, Hila and Gerry Feil, have spent much of their last four years, rescuing that treasure, Lies My Father Told Me from celluloid ravages of age and neglect. And will tell us how they went about this ressurection.
The project began in 2005, when producer Harry Gulkin screened a 35mm theatrical print of "Lies My Father Told Me for Gerald and Hila. Even with the best projection facilities, the image and sound had badly deteriorated. And so began a four year effort. Although the Feils are not film restorers, with a combination of experience and skills, they set to work, Hila as a film researcher, writer, Gerry as a director- cinematographer.
Celluloid disintegrates. Nitrate movies are particularly threatened (in 1967, the entire NFBs nitrate collection spontaneously combusted in the middle of he night. In 1980, the Cinématheque in Paris lost an entire warehouse as well). Most of the film stock from the silent period has disintegrated, and hundreds of original prints have been lost.
A Very Brief Introduction to our Guests:
GERALD FEIL joined the New York Filmmakers group in 1959 (Robert Drew, Richard Leacock, D.A. Pennebaker, the Maysles and Mitch Bogdanowicz) -- the group responsible for revolutionary camera and sound techniques for the Cinema Verite" documentaries. In 1961 Gerry worked with Brook as "independent second director," cinematographer, film editor, sound designer and associate producer on "Lord of the Flies" He was Director of Filmed Sequences and Director of Photography for the ABC Network “”AFRICA” (Emmy and Peabody awards.) In 1999 he supervised the photographic restoration and telecine transfer for the Criterion Collection DVD of then deteriorated "Lord of the Flies." Gerald Feil is a Life Member of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, an active member of the American Society of Cinematographers the Directors Guild of America and the International Cinematographers Guild.
HILA FEIL began her film career in 1962 as a negative matcher and a film researcher. At CBS she was a assistant film editor for "The 20th Century" series with Walter Cronkite. She has written four books of fiction for young adults, translated Shel Silverstein’s classic “The Giving Tree” into French. Together, Hila and Gerry collaborated on a nine month long film expedition into unexplored regions of Papua New Guinea, aired as a prime time special on the NBC .
Lies My Father Told Me (1975, Canada, 104 mins) Directed by Ján Kadár
This heart-warming film set in the 1920’s Montreal is seen primarily through the eyes of David, a grandson who lives with his Canadian-born parents, his Grandfather Zaida, a junk peddler (who emigrated from Russia), and Zaida’s aging horse, Ferdeleh. David’s father, a man of science, dreams of striking it rich by designing unique inventions. Zaida, on the other hand, works hard for his living. Intuitively, David responds to his Zaida's love, travels the back alleys of author Ted Allan’s Montreal with Zaida and his horse Ferdeleh and carriage. Zaida answers all of David’s questions about the world in terms of the Creator and the miracles that he performs. But this winter there are no miracles to spare David the pains of growing up.
The film’s screenplay, by eminent Montreal writer/playwright Ted Allan, is based on his autobiographical short story, ‘Lies My Father Told Me’. The film was directed by Czech filmmaker Ján Kadár (winner of the 1965 Academy Award for Best Foreign Film for ‘The Shop on Main Street’). ‘Lies My Father Told Me’ was nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, won the 1976 Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. Jeffrey Lynas who played young David was nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Supporting Actor. It won six Canadian Film Awards (today’s Genies) in 1976. The film stars Yossi Yadin as Zaida, Jeffrey Lynas as David, Len Birman as David’s father and Marilyn Lightstone as David’s mother, with screenwriter Ted Allan playing the role of the revolutionary tailor, Mr. Baumgarten.
Ted Allan & Harry Gulkin
***
Ce film touchant se déroule dans la communauté des immigrants juifs des années 1920, passe principalement par le regard de David, le petit-fils. Ce dernier vit avec secs parents nés au Canada, son grand-père Zaïda, un brocanteur venu de Russie, et le vieux cheval de ce dernier, Ferdeleh. Le père de David est l’homme de son époque: matérialiste et moderne, il rêve de devenir riche en signant des inventions originales. Par contre, Zaïda est un homme modeste qui trime dur, tout en attendant patiemment l’arrivée du Messie. David répond spontanément á l’amour de son grand-père. Ensemble, tous les dimanches, ils écument les ruelles de Montréal dans la charrette tirée par Ferdeleh. Zaïda s’ingénie á répondre á toutes les questions que lui pose David sur le monde, son Créateur et ses miracles. Mais, cet hiver-là, nul miracle ne viendra épargner á David la dure réalité du monde des adultes.
Lies My Father Told Me est un classique du cinéma canadien qui réchauffe le cœur. Se déroulant dans le Montréal des années 1920, le film porte un regard sur la vie des immigrants juifs venus s'établir dans la métropole québécoise. Sensible et écrit avec intelligence, le drame s'articule autour de la relation affectueuse qu'entretiennent un jeune garçon de six ans et son grand-père orthodoxe, qui lui raconte de multiples histoires. Conçu par l'éminent auteur et dramaturge Ted Allan, le scénario est une adaptation d'une nouvelle autobiographique écrite par celui-ci, également intitulée Lies My Father Told Me.
Réalisé par le cinéaste tchèque Ján Kadár, lauréat d'un Oscar (Le Miroir aux alouettes), le film a reçu une nomination pour l'Oscar du meilleur scénario original et a gagné en 1976 le Golden Globe du meilleur film étranger. Jeffrey Lynas, qui interprétait le rôle du jeune David, a reçu une nomination pour le Golden Globe accordé à la meilleure performance d'acteur dans un rôle de soutien. Le film a aussi remporté en 1976 six prix du Palmarès du film canadien (prix Génie d'aujourd'hui). La distribution comprend Len Birman, Marilyn Lightstone, Jeffrey Lynas et Yossi Yadin, de même que le scénariste lui-même, dans le rôle d'un tailleur révolutionnaire. *** My thanks to our friends (esp. Ezra) at the Segal Centre for allowing me to borrow their text, pix and translation of Lies.
Austrian director, Michael Haneke's The White Ribbon was the much-deserved winner of the Palme d'Or in Cannes, May 2009. And I'm delighted to have it open our winter Cinémagique season. It is one riveting hypnotic - and tough - movie - its full translation from the German is The White Ribbon: A German Children's Story. And most of the Children are members of a small rural village Lutheran choir - reared in repressive puritanical ways. Those perceived to have been bad, wear their own version of the scarlet letter, in their case, a white ribbon - to remind them of their own fall from purity and innocence. Those who are defiant - male and female - are brutally caned. Haneke's original working title for the movie was The Right Hand of God.'
My point was to show the consequences of absolutism if applied to an ideal, then that ideal, either political or religious, becomes inhuman.... These children believe they are the right hand of God: they have understood His laws, and follow it to the letter. This makes them punishers of the others, who do not obey the same ideals.
White Ribbon is a meditation on the origins of evil. Beneath a bucolic veneer of sweet innocence lies a reign of terror. In a feudal German village just before World War I, great malevolence is being perpetrated - the murder of a child, canings for minor infractions, incestuous molestation, blinding. An old man (whom we never see), decades after the events, unravels a series of horrific atrocities in the small village in which he taught. We're in Hannah Arendt's banality of evil territory here. Arendt wrote, Adolf Eichmann himself was not evil , he obeyed orders, but did not feel guilty. This long course in human wickedness had taught us ' the lesson on the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.
Yeah, banality of evil. Not just freak accidents, as is first suggested - and you get a pretty good idea by whom, early on. Yet no one will believe what everyone suspects - we, the audience included. Two cops have no clue. Amongst the village powers that enforce the social moral strictures - the Baron, the Lutheran preacher, the town doctor - only the schoolteacher voices any suspicions. And he admits his version may not reflect "the truth in every detail. Much is hearsay and "a lot of it remains obscure to me even today." Many questions are unanswerable and yet the strange events that occurred in our village . . . may cast a new light on some of the goings-on in this country. Both the movie and some reviews hint at an exploration of the genesis of naziism as well. Mebbe!
How such an extraordinary film could have won this year's Golden Globes as Best Foreign Language Movie is beyond my powers of explanation.
Some caveats are in order:
White Ribbon is long - 2h30 minutes, so bring nibblies;
the horrific descriptions might scare some mavens off, but most of the violence occurs off screen. This is a whodunit spellbinder, not a horror flick;
some of the material is deliberately confusing
like Hurt Locker and the Hunger, you may find some parts disturbing to watch, but will appreciate having made the effort after.
Michael Haneke
***
Le ruban blanc, un film franco-germano-italo-autrichien du réalisateur autrichien Michael Haneke, a obtenu la Palme d'Or du Festival de Cannes 2009. Et je suis ravi que ce film fasse l'ouverture de la saison d'hiver de Cinémagique. C'est un fascinant film hypnoptisant, mais dur sa traduction intégrale de l'allemand est Le Ruban blanc: une historie des enfants allemands. Et la plupart des enfants allemands sont membres d'une chorale luthérienne au sein d'un petit village rural; élevés dans un rigorisme corseté. Ceux perçus comme ayant été méchants, portent leur propre version de la lettre écarlate, dans leur cas, c'est un ruban blanc pour leur rappeler leur propre pureté et innocence. Les rebelles, homme ou femme, sont brutalement punis. Le titre initial de ce film de Haneke était La Main Droite du Dieu.
« Mon but était de démontrer les conséquences de l'absolutisme lorsque collé à un idéal, qu'il soit de nature politique ou religieuse, devient alors inhumain…Ces enfants croient qu'ils sont le bras droit de Dieu : ils ont compris ses lois et les obéissent à la lettre. Ceci leur permet de sanctionner ceux qui n'obéissent pas à ces lois. »
Le Ruban Blanc est une méditation sur les origines du mal. Derrière une apparence bucolique de douce innocence se retrouve un règne de terreur. Dans un petit village féodal germanique d'avant la Première Guerre Mondiale, plusieurs méfaits s'y commettent: un enfant est assassiné, des punitions corporelles sont infligées pour de légères infractions, agressions incestueuses, aveuglement. Un vieil homme (que l'on ne voit jamais), des décennies après ces événements, révèlent une série d'atrocités ayant eu lieu dans ce petit village où il a jadis enseigné. Nous sommes dans le concept philosophique de la banalité du mal proposé par Hannah Arendt. Elle écrivit, Adolf Eichmann lui-même n'était pas méchant, il obéissait aux ordres et ne se sentait aucunement coupable. Ce long parcours dans la méchanceté humaine nous a appris sur la terreur et sur le défi de la parole et de la pensée de la banalité du mal.
Oui, la banalité du mal et pas simplement de bizarres accidents tels que suggérés : et vous avez une très bonne idée dès le début par qui ils sont perpétrés. Personne ne veut croire en ce que tous les autres se doutent et l'auditoire non plus. Deux policiers n'en ont aucune idée. Parmi les gens du village ayant le pouvoir de faire respecter et d'appliquer des restrictions tant sociales que morales, le Baron, le pasteur luthérien, le médecin du village, le seul professeur de classe unique. Il admet que sa version ne reflète peut-être pas « la vérité dans tous ses détails ». Ce n'est en majorité que du bouche à oreille et « beaucoup me demeure toujours inconnu encore aujourd'hui». Il admet que plusieurs questions demeurent toujours sans réponse mais « les étranges événements arrivés dans notre village…apporteront un jet de lumière sur ce qui se passe dans ce pays. » Autant le film que quelques critiques suggèrent que c’est une exploration sur l'origine du nazisme. Ceci est très possible.
Recherche: http://www.lerubanblanc.com/
Un peu d'avertissements s'imposent :
White Ribbon est d'une durée de 2H30…apportez des grignotines;
Les descriptions horrifiantes peuvent faire fuir certains cinéphiles, mais les ébats de violence se passent hors projection. C'est un ensorcelant roman policier, pas une tragédie d'horreur;
Certains faits portent volontairement à la confusion;
Tout comme Hurt Locker et the Hunger, certains passages sont troublants, mais l'effort en vaut la peine.
Saturday, Jan 2, 2010 21:01 EST Michael Haneke's "White Ribbon"
The enigmatic Austrian director on his chilly, gorgeous new period piece exploring the rural roots of fascism
By Andrew O'Hehir
I don't know whether Michael Haneke ever plays chess or poker (the former seems a lot more likely). But either way, he'd be a deadly opponent. Mild-mannered, formal and professorial, the bearded Austrian filmmaker is not a difficult interview subject in any ordinary sense. He was neither grouchy nor combative in our half-hour conversation. He was unfailingly polite, never refused to answer a question and even cracked one or two quiet jokes.
But I gradually became aware that the director of "Caché," "The Piano Teacher" and the new international sensation "The White Ribbon" -- winner of the Palme d'Or at Cannes and best-film and best-director prizes at the recent European Film Awards -- was steering our discussion exactly as he wished. Beneath his calm and courteous demeanor, Haneke exerts an inexorable, iceberg-like confidence, which you can also see in his films. With minimal effort, he brushed away my attempts to link his work to his background or his private life, and calmly insisted that the unanswered questions and unfinished narratives in his films -- the very ingredients that fascinate viewers -- are unimportant and superficial.
Now, if you've seen any of Haneke's films (others include "Time of the Wolf," "Code Unknown," "Benny's Video" and two different versions -- one in German, one in English -- of the horrifying "Funny Games") you know that they have the uniquely unsettling quality of operating on several different and perhaps contradictory levels. Haneke generally wants to draw you into a compelling story, draw a political or philosophical parable, and remind you that what you're watching is just a fiction -- "an artifact," as he puts it -- all at the same time.
In Haneke's notorious "Funny Games," a pair of amoral and sadistic killers, who are less like characters than imaginary specters, address winking asides to the audience -- and at a crucial juncture rewind the film with a remote control. "Caché," Haneke's biggest hit, appears to focus on the question of who has been making sinister videotapes of a middle-class Parisian family and leaving them on the doorstep. As in David Lynch's somewhat similar "Lost Highway," the mystery is both unsolved and (I believe) unsolvable. But Haneke isn't just trying to undermine the narrative stability of conventional cinema, although he's doing that too. He's shining a spotlight on the atmosphere of paranoia and submerged guilt in which the middle-class family's entire life has been constructed.
At first glance, "The White Ribbon" is the most mannered and most beautiful of Haneke's films, and you could describe that fact as a calculated gamble on his part. Set in a village in rural northern Germany in 1913, with World War I looming on the horizon, it's a gorgeously photographed and oddly riveting chronicle of a late-stage feudal society running on fumes. Shot in spectacular black-and-white by cinematographer Christian Berger, and marvelously acted by a first-rate German ensemble, "The White Ribbon" captures a mood of thickening tension and mounting violence as a series of brutal but apparently unrelated events -- vandalism, fires, accidents and abductions -- turn the people of the village against each other and shatter what remains of a fragile social consensus.
If Haneke's most obvious point is that the hierarchical, aristocratic society of peasant Germany was replaced by something much worse -- by the "New Order" created by its mistreated children, a generation later -- it definitely can't be reduced to a fable about the roots of fascism. "The White Ribbon" is a dense account of childhood, courtship, family and class relations in a painfully repressed and repressive society, which seems to channel both early Ingmar Bergman and the "Bad Seed"/"Children of the Corn" evil-tot tradition.
Haneke's title refers to a ribbon parents of the period affixed to the sleeves of preadolescent children suspected of "impure" thought and behavior (i.e., masturbation). On one level, this story is about a very simple notion: The physical and psychic violence inflicted on one generation by another is always passed along, often in heightened and more dramatic form. But this severe and striking period piece is also a story that subtly but constantly reminds us that it is a story, and as such cannot be trusted. Even at the risk of undermining his own film, Haneke wants us to see history as a problematic and partial narrative, one that has more to teach us about the present than the past.
I met Haneke in his Manhattan hotel suite during his visit here in September for the New York Film Festival. We sat at a round table with an interpreter between us, which only heightened the atmosphere of competition and/or negotiation. Although Haneke understands English pretty well (or at least much better than I understand German), he waited for translations in both directions. Occasionally he corrected the interpreter or broke into brief snatches of English; I've marked those passages, as they seemed like important moments in the poker game.
All your earlier films have had contemporary settings, so it's striking that you've done a period piece. I suppose there are some obvious reasons why you picked this time and place, rural Germany just before World War I. But I'd like to hear you explain it.
Unfortunately, Germany is the place and time in which ideological radicalism is most prominent, and that's why I chose to set the film there. But it would be a mistake if one were to reduce the film to a German example.
"The White Ribbon" is also your first film in black-and-white. Were your reasons for that primarily aesthetic or, I don't know, primarily philosophical?
There are two reasons for choosing to shoot in black-and-white. The first is that all of us, if we think back to that period, know it almost exclusively from photographs. Photography had been invented shortly before, and we all know the period from photographs we've seen. I thought it would be easier to enable the spectator to enter the story by shooting it in black-and-white.
That's the first reason. The other reason, however, is that shooting it in black-and-white automatically produces an element of distance for the audience, in the same way as does the use of a narrator. The film opens with the narrator saying, "I'm not sure if the story I'm about to tell you corresponds to what actually took place. I can only remember it dimly. I know a lot of the events only through hearsay." So both those elements, then, raise mistrust in the audience as to the accuracy of what they're going to be seeing, and the reality of what they're going to be seeing. Both the black-and-white and the use of a narrator lead the audience to see the film as an artifact, and not as something that claims to be an accurate depiction of reality.
Do this period and this place have any personal significance for you? You've spoken about the political importance, but you were born in 1942, the heyday of Nazism. I wonder, for example, whether your parents were young people in a similar time and place?
I think that most of my films have very little to do with me or my family. I was more interested in the theme: How are we ideologically conditioned?
All right. For film buffs, it's hard to avoid thinking of Ingmar Bergman or Carl Theodor Dreyer when you see this beautiful black-and-white photography, the rural Northern European setting, a story that's about child-rearing and young love and religion.
Of course I admire the directors you mention, but there are any number of directors I admire. I've heard the comparisons of my work, or this film at least, to Dreyer, and for that reason I recently watched "Ordet" again. I have to say that I see very little in terms of connections or similarities. In terms of the aesthetics, Dreyer's staging and lighting are very theatrical, whereas I was looking for more realistic light. If there was any specific influence, it was much more the photographs of August Sander, who was the great German photographer of that period. If we oriented ourselves to anything, it was his work.
You're depicting the 20th century here, but this doesn't look anything like the age of industrial capitalism. Was it really still the feudal era in rural Germany at that time?
At the time, 85 or 90 percent of the population lived in villages. So the vision of society that I present is a mirror of a feudal society, in which there was the baron at the top of society, going down to the farm workers. In between them, you had the teachers, the professional classes, the pastor. The film in that sense reproduces the classes that were present in society at the time. Had I chosen to locate the film in the city, then social relationships would have been far more complicated and far less easy to discern.
I suppose what you're showing us is the feudal order at exactly the moment it breaks down. I mean, the baron [played by Ulrich Tukur] is the most powerful man in the village, at least in theory. But we see his fields destroyed, and his son abducted and abused. His power is broken.
Yes, that's precisely what you see in the film.
One of the hallmarks of your style is that you withhold acts of violence from us. Horrifying things occur, in this movie and in others, but we generally don't see them. What interested me in "The White Ribbon" is that you withhold other kinds of intimate or emotional acts as well. When the farmer sits with his dead wife's body, the camera remains behind the wall. We can tell he's grieving but we literally can't see it.
I'm always trying to enable and arouse the imagination of the spectator. Especially when you're dealing with powerful emotions and tragic situations, I avoid using close-ups. First of all, the close-ups are always false. It's unrealistic. They're indiscreet and they're kitschy as well. I think it's far more powerful if you see this expression of pain indirectly. You hear a sigh, and that's far more evocative than if we'd shown a shot of him.
In this film you also express emotions that are -- how can I say this? -- not strongly associated with the work of Michael Haneke. [Laughter.] There's the relationship of the young lovers, the schoolteacher [Christian Friedel] and his girlfriend [Leonie Benesch], which is very tender and tentative. There's the heartbreaking scene in which a little boy gives his father a caged bird, and even though the father is a cruel and unsympathetic figure, we see his humanity at that moment. It's like you're throwing us a lifeline, a way out of this place: The terrible things that happen are not the only things in life.
The film depicts the story of so many people that I think it's realistic. In real life, not only catastrophes happen, but also pleasant things as well. There can be relationships that are positive. It's also economic in dramaturgical terms. If it were a film about couples and there were only two or three leading roles, then it would be different. You concentrate on the conflict, and that's more than enough to keep you busy in the film. Here I think it's important to show positive as well as negative energies. That corresponds to our experience of daily life, in which not only terrible things happen. There were love stories in concentration camps as well.
One of your principal subjects here is education and the treatment of children. Can I sum it up by saying that you think the methods of child-rearing in this time and place had disastrous consequences?
I think that education is one of the decisive points in human experience. When I was making the American version of "Funny Games," there was a word I discovered that I find is so indicative. There's a scene in which one of the two boys pees himself, and the other one says, "Please forgive him. He's not housebroken." I think that word is so illuminating: It suggests that we have to be broken for the house. We have to be broken to be acceptable socially, and that's the dilemma of every educational system.
You have to partially destroy or restrict the freedom of the individual in order for him or her to function in society. That's the dilemma of every generation, and I'm not convinced that current approaches to educational theory are necessarily the ideal solution either.
You want people to perceive this as more than a parable about the roots of Nazism, isn't that right?
The question that I'm asking is: What conditions have to be in place for people to seek to grasp such ideological responses? In a position of hopelessness, humiliation and despair, people clutch at any straw, and those straws usually take an ideological form, whether religious or political. Out of hopelessness, they turn to ideology -- the model is always the same, although the external forms may be different.
You spoke earlier about using the black-and-white photography and the narration as a distancing mechanism, a way to remind the viewer that the film is an artifact. There's another sense in which you are challenging the audience. As you did in "Caché," you lead us part of the way toward a solution of the central mystery: Who is committing these violent acts, and why? And then you seem to suggest that solving the mystery is not actually important.
Those are the least important questions. In my previous film, "Caché," the question of who sent the videotapes isn't important at all. What's important is the sense of guilt felt by the character played by Daniel Auteuil in the film. But these superficial questions are the glue that holds the spectator in place, and they allow me to raise underlying questions that they have to grapple with. It's relatively unimportant who sent the tapes, but by engaging with that the viewer must engage questions that are far less banal.
There are so many different things that take place in "The White Ribbon" that there are any number of possible explanations. It may not be that the acts have been committed by someone intentionally. For example, when the barn burns down, it's possible that was simply caused by an accidental spark. Perhaps the hay had been stored when it was too wet, and spontaneous combustion happened. Perhaps the farmer's wife who died simply fell. It was an accident, and she was not murdered. The explanations, in fact, are so unimportant. In real life, there are any number of events that take place that we don't understand. It's only in mainstream cinema that films explain everything, and claim to have answers for anything that happens. In reality, we know so little about what happens. It's far more productive for me to confront the audience with a complex reality that mirrors the contradictory nature of human experience.
It strikes me that in "Caché," and perhaps in this film as well, there literally is no answer that explains what is happening.
[In English.] There could be an answer!
Well, we can point back at you, the director of the film. Who is making those videotapes and sending them to the family? You are!
[Laughter.] Every interpretation is right.
[In German.] I always say that a film is like a ski jump. The film constructs the jump and enables the spectator to jump. It's up to each member of the audience to jump, and they're all going to jump differently. I create tension. I raise certain questions. That's my intention, but it's to give the audience a chance to respond.
[In English.] The film ends in the head of the viewer, not on the screen.
On the simplest level, you want to leave us asking: What happens next? What will the events we have seen lead to, and how do we think about them?
[In English.] Yes, and why? Why do things happen like this? Everybody has to find his own explanation.
[In German.] It's important to always try to tell a story in a way where there are several credible possible explanations. Explanations that can be totally contradictory!
I know you want this story to have present-day relevance. But you're running a risk, aren't you? Viewers can watch this beautiful, stylized film that's set almost 100 years ago in a society that no longer exists and think, "Well, that was then. Things are different now."
Yes, absolutely. It wasn't my intention simply to warm up an old subject for itself. I think the problems that existed then are the same today: Are we conditioned to accept and embrace certain ideologies? That is as relevant today as it was back then. I'm not simply trying to re-create a certain age. I'm not a history teacher.
I remember with my first film that was shown in Cannes, "The Seventh Continent" [in 1989], there was a screening and afterward we had a discussion. The first question came from a woman who stood up and asked, "Is life in Austria as awful as that?" She didn't want to accept the difficult questions being raised in the film, so she tried to limit them to a specific place and say, "That's not my problem." You could make the same mistake with this film, if you see it as only being about a specific period.
***
Peter,
Thanks for this interview. I have seen Caché and Funny Games and both of these along with White Ribbon did, more or less, the same thing to me as a viewer, They used a setting, characters and a story in a manner I admire, something quite different from the mainstream. In mainstream film everything is knitted together for you, while in these types films you know the narrative is a repository of ideas or concepts that you are free to, or are compelled to, linger over during and after the screening. European cinema seems more comfortable with this arrangement, this relationship between the director and the audience.
I know you have heard me say this before: Hollywood films are often like a pleasure house but then again they are like prisons. You know what to think and feel at every moment because of the way the films are constructed. Some, but not all, European cinema lets you out of that prison, trusting you to form your own ideas about the film. I dare say that sometimes a prisoner, when set free and standing at the door of the prison as he is about to leave its rigid yet perhaps comforting structure behind, might feel the fear of stepping outside. The parallel here is with an audience who is set free. The fear of leaving the known and comfortable behind often makes audiences nervous, not trusting their own ability to navigate the world outside the confines of the usual narrative structure. I actually saw a man get up and kick the screen during Godard's "Vent d'est" while studying at the British Film Institute in the 70's. I never forgot that image because it so graphically illustrates the intense frustration an audience can feel when deprived of the usual comforts of bourgeois narrative. Film, as a medium, seems to many to have the obligation of telling a coherent story whereas any other medium seems freer to have a large variety of natural purposes. When I pick up a pencil someone watching me might think I was about to doodle or do a math problem. They wouldn't necessarily demand that I write a story. With a camera it seems that nearly everyone wants you to tell them a story. I relate this to bedtime as a child when a story was soothing and a medium of comfort. It seems that Hollywood or western cinema-goers are looking for that same comfort and when someone like this director comes along and subverts that then the audience is uncomfortable. Enough of that!
Wednesday night, Jan. 6, 2010 was a fabulous start to our 2010 film club series at the Imperial Theatre with marvelous adaptation of screenplay by Robert Nelson Jacobs based on Geeta Anand`s Pulitzer winning book, The Cure! Brendan Fraser met us at the entrance and presentented the film in a warm, humorous manner on the beautiful Imperial stage. This film is not to be missed with Ford & Fraser outdoing themselves.
Brendan Fraser plays John Crowley, a biotechnology executive, whose two youngest children are afflicted with Pompe disease. Along with his wife, Aileen (Keri Russell), he raises money for research scientist Robert Stonehill (Harrison Ford) (most likely representing the real Dr. William Canefield), forming a company to develop a drug to save his children's lives.
Not to be missed, this film gives faith & proof to all that determination can rise above the most powerful structures to save lives, when a seasoned Harvard educated MBA`er joins forces with a brilliant researcher scientist to join forces with a deal that corporate venture capitalist can`t refuse. The best part of this film is that ``chasing the wind`` did have a winning outcome in this real life case. It also proved WC Fields belief & Christopher Plummers` fear in `Sound od Music` that children upstage the best of actors!
This cast of children are fabulous so do not miss this film!
Happy New Year to you all, Katherine M.
***
Loved the movie and especially the theatre - I LOVE that place - wish they were open for more movies. .. a friend of mine will also be writing you about joining and they will come too but I'll let her book it.
Thanks again for tonight
julie
***
Good movie, down to earth, reality, no fakes, lesson to all, how lucky we are to have people that can tap into the geniuses we have all around us and are not recognized or supported by society wasn't this always the case. perhaps this will never change. should have an international think tank (no polititians) perhaps we could beter tap into our own priceless resources and make a better world for all. I could go on and on but the movie delivered the mesage at all leves.
***
Came home so happy to have seen Extraordinary Measures - many thanks for making this possible,
Marilyn
***
It was fun to be there, so thanks indeed for arranging that.
Straight up I should say I am just not a big fan of this type of Hollywood movie so I went in with moderate expectations, and the film lived up - or down - to those.
I thought the acting was convincing within the limits of the script. I appreciated the relative complexity with which the film tackled the scientific trade-offs of developing pharmaceuticals, and I appreciated that it did not go down the road of either demonising or glorifying that industry or medicine in general. Given the subject matter it was not as wildly sentimental as I feared.
What I did not like was the "hollywood polish", which I find irritatingly hard to both define and articulate, but somehow makes mainstream movies like this ultimately bland and neither believable nor out of this world. Why do the people and the sets have to be so beautiful, the family so functional and well-behaved even in crisis, the quirks so cliched (like Ford's mad scientist shtick) and the symbols so overt (like the fish toy) ?
Nothing was really brilliant about this film so it did not rise above sameness and blandness. The story is true, relatively accurately portrayed as far as I can gather, and almost unbelievable in what the family managed to achieve yet as piece of cinema I just did not find it compelling.
Susan
****
Once again, thank you for organizing our presence at the Premier of Extraordinary Measures. I am so grateful that I was there to share the opening energy with so many people in attendance.
I was so touched by the story and the actors, in particular Brendan Frazier. His commitment was so genuine. Stories like this can be very difficult to tell on the big screen but not with EM. Even though I knew the premise, I was still engaged and surprised from beginning to end. What a touching inspirational story that I took home in my heart and am still reflecting on. How wonderful that human stories are continuing to be told more and more.
They are as inspiring as you are Peter, for manifesting such a wonderful group of Cinemagique. Where members are privileged to enjoy such beautiful screenings together!
Thanks so much, Dawn
***
... enjoyed the movie had seen the trailers previously when attending other movies. It was very interesting, first I heard about Pompe, although had heard of Muscular dystrophy. The dedication of the movie to tell this story, the importance of research, motivation, sacrifice, risk time , money and hard work for a pitch at the possibility of a happy conclusion.
Louise d.
***
I am sorry to say that this movie did not do it for me. Even though the subject is based on a terrible disease and real facts (you think?). A real intrigue was missing, something that would have made it more of a medical thriller instead of an Hallmark movie of the week.
Diane
***
Before going to see the movie, I thought it's going to be predictable throughout. I was very pleasantly surprised by the very good acting by the stars, Harrison Ford, Brendan Fraser, and Keri Rusell. It was presented very interestingly , and kept my full attention to the end .
Thank you, Peter.
Nelly
***
The Premiere of Extraordinary Measures was an extraordinary event. Brendan Fraser's appearance was totally Hollywood with all the television networks there and cameras flashing non-stop in the gorgeous Imperial's lobby, for half an hour. Brendan presenting his film prepared us to savour an extraordinary film which kept your attenton all the way through. Harrison Ford really played his part out of the ordinary. Brendan Fraser definitely managed to make you feel the pain parents go through when their children have what they call untreatable conditions. This film will give hope to all parents facing children with such health challenges and will further encourage donations to medical research organizations.
Renée
***
Thanx for the tickets for the movie at the imperial. What a treat too to have brendan Fraser address the audience. The film was very enjoyable and the acting was great. Though the script was weak at some parts, I still found it immensly pleasing.
When the Hollywood rotational axis occasionally tilts - Intolerance, The Jazz Singer, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Star Wars come to mind – the seismic tsunami remakes the landscape for all succeeding moviemakers. Don’t miss James Cameron‘s Avatar - see it in 3D Imax. His script may be lame, but Cameron has reinvented moviemaking for the next generation.
2. L’Heure d’été/Un Jour Tu Comprendras/ Entre Les Murs
In Hollywood - to rework a cliché - only the successful movie director is celebrated; in England no movie director is celebrated, and in Canada, nobody knows what a movie director does. But in France all directors are celebrated. From the 1950s nouvelle vague on, the French have instructed us how to think about the aesthetics of moviemaking. These three felicitous reminders, coming out spring 2009, show a nation, still at the top of its cinematic form.
3. Hurt Locker
Katherine Bigelow’s Hurt Locker provided a excruciating depiction of exactly what kind of hell war - and in this case, America's Iraq war - must be. Not since George-Henri Clouzot’s Wages of Fear and/or Spielberg’s Jaws have movie pyrotechnics scared the bejeezus out of me.
4. An Education
Nick Hornby’s felicitous rendering of smirking bourgeois British anti-Semites in 1960, and one teen’s willful self-liberating escape from her own mean and pernicious upbringing.
5. Precious/The Soloist
January 2009, Barak Hussein Obama became America’s 44th President, and we looked upon African-Americans with a new dignity. In the spring, the Jamie Foxx/Rob't Downey Jr. The Soloist did the same. And last month, we met Precious. Only friend Phillipe and I seem to think Precious will win the 2010 Oscar.
6. A Serious Man
Those two skeptical Coen scamps, wondering what their Jewish God must be thinking, torture a dorky Minneapolis prof with all manner of bourgeois afflictions - a philandering wife, dubious children, hostile associates - in order that a trinity of rabbis can expostulate on the wisdom of this divine disorder. 7. Sugar/Sin Nombre/Che
OK, nobody, but us cinémaniacs went to see these three vigorous Sundance movies about the firestorm engulfing Latin America, but who cares? Each served as a vivid reminder the American Empire is not only under seige across the Middle East. It is about to explode Down Below as well.
8. Gomorrah
Matteo Garrone’s unsentimental depiction of Neapolitan mobsters’ enterprise of recruiting tots and teens, pregnant women, immigrants into becoming full-blooded criminal entrepreneurs.
9. Che/Girlfriend Experience/The Informant
Steven Soderbergh is just about as original a filmmaker as Hollywood can muster. And he proved it three times out in 2009, each a moviemaking clinic on how Hollywood must make movies, if it hopes to survive digital technology.
10. Cairo Time/Love & Savagery/One Week
Three felicitous reminders that when it comes to making our own movies, some still know how to do it.
Audience members responses to Sherlock Holmes were dramatically different, depending on age, language and gender. Ten kids in the audience, aged 10- 15 absolutely loved the movie: excited by the action, loved the pace, got all the jokes and eft burbling with excitement. Those up to 40 years of age talked of the film’svarious technical achievements – the overall bleached look of the images, the sooty London décor, the recreations - Piccadilly, the docks, the Tower Bridge - caused considerable discussion.
Sherlock Holmes buffs (some are members of the Sherlock Holmes Society), couldn’t stop talking about the respect the script showed for the original Conan Doyle material.
Many women 65+ said their husbands liked it, or would have liked it but found the action sequences too much, too violent, too long. They found the plot very confusing, esp. the death and the ressurrection. They didn’t get the explanations as to how Holmes figures things out.
I had expected a 100% house, and in conversations after, discovered that many, having seen the Sherlock Holmes trailer (we had run it prior to the three previous screenings), anticipated what the film was going to be like and stayed away. Indeed some said the only reason they came was to support Cinémagique, knowing WB had given us the film.
Here are member verbatim responses:
****
I really enjoyed Sherlock Holmes as did my wife and son. I've read all 56 of the short stories and the four novels so there is no way I would want to miss this film but Barbara and Dave were watching it without all that background...and they loved it too! I think you've got a hit on your hands. David told me at lunch today that he will go back and see it again when it opens and that he will bring many of his friends along. He liked the stylistic way Guy Ritchie handled the characters and the story. Using the slowed down footage to reveal Holmes' thought process as he was about to do something complex showed his ability to think clearly under pressure and revealed Holmes' reasoning powers in a very visual way...Conan Doyle would have approved...an excellent example of how a modern filmmaker can adapt ideas from literature and translate them into something special, something cinematic.
Your guest was a great addition to the evening and I liked how he reflected on the filmmaking process and I also enjoyed the personal touches when he spoke about his interest in saving greyhounds from their post racing life and staying in his local community even though he is starting to get some traction in Hollywood. His family being there to support him was also a nice touch. Seeing him standing there with his daughter emphasized his large stature for sure, but also his humanity.
If I am any judge of Holmes and Hollywood I am guessing there will be a part 2 in the near future. I predict we will see more of your guest in part 2 but he most likely will be working on the side of Holmes and Watson instead of playing the heavy. That's what Doyle would do...
Thanks again for the great evening...did you notice how many films we've seen with Cinemagique this season were front runners with the Golden Globes! Good for you! - John
***
Wonderful evening...à tous points de vue...film, ambiance, belle soirée...merci beaucoup. Louise
***
On the whole, it was just a little too fast, and a little too Hollywood for me to fall into my idea of a Sherlock Holmes-type story, so I would classify it as a 'modernization' although Ritchie created a very believable London of the 1800's. They went to great lengths to give us the clues and to help us follow the story, but I got only the very broad strokes - they could have slowed down the delivery: all those details were given much too quickly for me to follow them properly, but it was such a ride that I had to just let go and enjoy it. This feeling of 'just ride with it' is, I think, a hallmark of an adventure story, not my idea of a Sherlock Holmes film. That said, the things I really appreciated: the sets! both interiors and exteriors were wonderful, the performance of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) personified totally implacable evil, the mapping out of the Tai Chi-based fight scenes, and the wonderful interplay between two master actors, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. The scene at the shipyard was very unusual, powerful and felt completely authentic. Leslye
***
My grandson loved it and especially meeting the villain. Very sympathique he is! . Best Nicole
***
Je n'ai pas de mots...52 étoiles...merci à tout le génie et l'âme qui habitent cette majestueuse production...un privilège exceptionnel d'avoir pu visionner ce spectacle magistral...au temps de noel 2009...ce film fait maintenant partie de nos souvenirs de cinéma préférés...le talent était au rendez-vous...et a su créer un chef-d'oeuvre Sherlock Holmes authentique. Bravo !
***
john and i have enjoyed the fall so much after discovering your movie club - heard about it in the cinema du parc newsletter as that is our "local" so to speak and am very happy to have discovered it.
anyway, i wanted to thank you for all the work you have done on the season!! Happy holidays and see you in the new year, - julie
***
Sherlock certainly had a lot going on. Loved the cinematography, slow motion-capture choreography, fantasy sets, and editing. Not quite sure about the casting? I am a huge fan of Robert Downey Jr but not in this particular role. Maybe Anthony Hopkins, Hugh Laurie, Rupert Everette would have told a different story, the story I was expecting.
I wanted to feel more for the characters, really care about them, love them..I guess I don't think of Sherlock as being so young and athletic! The action was a fun ride but I missed not having more mystery/intrigue and less fast filler. Dawn
***
Aller au cinéma, c'est pour voir ce genre de film qui profite pleinement du grand écran.
Sherlock Holmes est un bagarreur. Il faut bien se tenir occupé! Autrement, il se morfond entre deux enquêtes, imaginant mille et un scénarios et testant toutes sortes de mixtures à une époque où la science devenait de plus en plus importante. Son ami, le docteur Watson, est heureusement là pour l'aider à être un peu plus présentable. Un "straightman", mais qui sait se battre lui aussi!
Holmes est un génie troublé, qui a besoin d'action pour vivre. Chacun de ses déplacements est une invitation a retenir tous ces détails qui lui permettent de résoudre les intrigues. Et des détails, le film en fournit abondamment. Le Londres du milieu du 19e siècle est surpeuplé, et sale de toute cette fumée de charbon. Très propice aux mystères.
Qu'est-ce qu'on cherche quand on va au cinéma? De l'action: DES TONNES! Des cascades? PLEIN! Des effets spéciaux? Vous ne les verrez pas ou très peu tellement ils sont bien réussis. On se croirait à Londres. Du paranormal? C'est la base de l'intrigue, où de jeunes femmes sont tuées pour accomplir un rite. Une histoire d'amour? Deux même, mais bon, c'est secondaire dans ce film. Important pour les suites? On verra. Le décor, les costumes, les explosions, les menaces, l'intrigue, le scénario (c'est une histoire de Sherlock Holmes après tout!), méritent un détour par le cinéma. Tout le film est présenté par une solide équipe de comédiens, autant pour les bons que les méchants et même les policiers. Dans la version anglaise (très British comme langue parlée, avis aux auditeurs moyennement bilingues!), le géant est présenté comme un français. Mais l'est-il? Et survit-il?
Voilà le genre de film que l'on attend des grands studios hollywoodiens. Même dans ses excès.
J'ai pu voir ce film dans le cadre des activités du club Cinémagique, un ciné-club qui présente des nouveautés à chaque semaine au Cinéma du Parc à Montréal. Nous avons eu comme invité le fameux géant du film, Robert Maillet, qui habite au Nouveau- Brunswick. Bien sympathique de finir un film avec un de ses acteurs et d'en apprendre un peu plus sur les capacités de Robert Downey à excéuter ses propres cascades.
Sherlock Holmes? Définitivement, cher Watson. Et en espérant une suite aussi glorieuse.- daniel
(Published on Flickster/Facebook)
I thought the film was well-matched with the intellect of Holmes: complex, quirky and witty. I marvel at the appeal to a wide age range. It takes everyone along with the action at its own pace and the viewer is challenged to keep up. In this way, the intelligence of the audience is not taken for granted. The previous exposure (if any) one may have to Holmes as a character of our imagination built since the publication of the books and release of various films did not matter. This was a new experience for all.
Downey's incarnation is entirely believable to a contemporary audience and plays with any previously established characteristics to reveal him as more outlandish and layered than expected. The film thus exceeded my expectations and I want to see it again and again. I was thoroughly absorbed, entertained and intrigued. The speed of language, and repartee created a rush of excitement from beginning to end. The Holiday Season timing is perfect.
Robert Maillet was a great ambassador for the movie, again totally unexpected. He had a refreshing manner and charming way of answering questions. You were also an ideal foil for him during the question and answer period with your respect, understanding and knowledge of filmmaking as a collaborative art form. Robert's role in the film was an example of the attention to detail that could have been easily overlooked upon a single screening of the film. The fact that he was flown in for this, heightened the overall reception and allowed us to explore the darker side of the movie from the point of view of the villain of the piece. I noticed that Robert was also on CBC Radio in Montreal while he was here and his infectious enthusiasm, respect for his fellow actors and Director, Guy Ritchie, and obvious pride in his own performance came across even on radio. Somehow his physical size equalled his voice and the interviewer seemed captivated by his honesty and integrity. Thank you and thank you, Warner Brothers! Marlene
***
Sherlock Holmes: Wow! A very interesting interpretation. A genius who needs action to take care of himself. He loves to fight, and every step is an oberver point of view. Clues in everything he sees - not very good for his mental health!
Helped by his straightman Dr. Watson (who sure knows how to fight!), they solve intrigues set up in the mid 19th century dirty London. The city is full of details, and its creepyness adds to the story plot.
What do we want when we go to the cinema? Action? LOTS! Stunts? PLENTY! Special Effects? So good you won't notice them. You will be in this old London. Paranormal? This is the main idea of the story. Love story? Even two, could we say, but I admit it is really secondary. Important for future releases? We'll see. All set design, costumes, explosions, threaths, story line (it is a Sherlock Holmes story after all!) are worth a detour by your favorite theater. The whole movie is sustained by a solid team of actors, as well for the goods, the villains and even the policemen. The English version is really "Old British" for the language. The exception is a French giant (is he really French?), who adds a nice touch to the feature. He's a villain, so he dies. Really?
This is the kind of movie we like from Hollywood studios, even with their excesses. I got to see this movie with the Cinémagique movie club, presenting new features of all kind every week at Cinéma du Parc in Montreal. We had a guest, the giant Robert Maillet, who lives in New Brunswick. It was nice to complete a presentation with one of the actors of the movie, who allowed us to learn a little more about the true stuntman capacities of Robert Downey (yes, he does as much as he can).
Sherlock Holmes? Definitely, Watson. And hoping for a glorious sequel. Daniel
***
First of all thank you for providing the opportunity to see the film. Not sure whether the producers would want these comments:
The work to recreate 19th Century London was extremely effective. I was really impressed. The story line, with its frenetic chase was a little less appealing; it reminded me more of Raiders of the Lost Ark than Sherlock Holmes.
The portrayal of Holmes was not consistent with the Holmes of Conan Doyle. Holmes is described as an intellectual who might have known everything about martial arts, but would much prefer to think about them rather than develop the practical skills. He was also a misogynist, who might have been fascinated by the brain of a smart woman but would not have fallen in love with her. The scruffy look of Holmes was also odd. The drawings published with the original editions showed a very well dressed individual.
Much of the books (and earlier depictions) depend on the relationship between the severely gifted Holmes and the well grounded and not so swift Watson(elementary, my dear Watson). A close partnership, yes, but not between the almost equals portrayed in the movie. The relationship between House and Wilson in the popular medical drama series is closer!
One might argue that the portrayal in the movie uses artistic license. However one would hope that any interpretation is consistent with the ‘facts’ provided by Conan Doyle. This is not. Martin
***
Sherlock Holmes dusted and revisited !
Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is like nothing you ever saw or imagined. The reconstruction of London at the time of the action is probably more accurate than ever portrayed before. Slums are slums, streets are dirty and dangerous, and most dwellers on the unkempt side. The rich are super rich, the poor, super poor
Sherlock,as portrayed by Ritchie and brought to life by Robert Downey Jr. is multifaceted. He is a Martial Arts expert, (Downey is himself an adept) with a superior intellect, divining abilities, wry sense of humour, a scientific curiosity that borders on dangerous and with a tendency to be on the slob side rather than neat and with a trying sense of friendship that would make any normal person decide he is not worth befriending. In short he is very different than ever seen before.
Jude Law's Watson, sidekick and mystery solving partner, is his preyed upon friend and colleague who comes through even in the most trying of circumstances. The chemistry between the two actors is good and believable as we witness them They battle against the evil plot of Lord Blackwood who confounds Scotland Yard. They will of course solve the mystery and save their country. Both are put through very difficult situations made even more impressive with the use of special effects and a sound track that accentuates the sombre, the evil , the tense, and the comic.
Rachel McAdams is Sherlock's dangerous love interest and some of their scenes together are downright funny. Mark Strong plays a villain true to colors. The villains are really bigger than life! Robert Maillet Bouctouche New Brunswick, born wrestler turned actor is impressive.
If the plot is thin, the villains, villainous, the dialogue is at times difficult to understand. It is as if they mumble. The action is continuous, it is a film that is action packed with impressive special effects and gives a new look and probably more accurate look at Sherlock than ever seen before. I wonder what Sir Conan Doyle would say. He probably would have a good time and so will you ! Nicole ***
This is a refreshing new look at the most famous of all fictional detectives, Sherlock Holmes. Nowadays the market is flooded with mystery stories. We tend to forget that crime fiction of the Western world only became an accepted style of writing in the 19th century. In the early days there were no police or private detectives trying to figure out how, why and by whom crimes were committed. Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, who first appeared in publication in 1887, is often described as the first consulting detective. His methods of observation, deductive reasoning and forensic skills influenced police methods and criminology all over the world.
Robert Downey is certainly a different actor than Jeremy Brett, THE Sherlock Holmes of British films. He is rather rougher around the edges than we are used to. But Downey’s portrayal accents some aspects of Holmes’ character that we haven’t seen as much previously, his prowess in bare-knuckle boxing for instance. Downey is very observant and has the audience as well as fellow actors cringing as he keeps tasting items to deduce what they are. Jude Law as Watson makes a more appealing lady’s man than previous actors I thought. Irene Adler, the one woman who could match Holmes’ skills, is only featured in one of the original Sherlock Holmes adventures (A Scandal in Bohemia). But she (Rachel McAdams) plays a large part in this film and one suspects she will be turning up in subsequent movies. I certainly hope so. I would also enjoy seeing a revival of Dredger (Robert Maillet), the giant villain. Bad guy Mark Strong, playing Lord Blackwood, is wonderfully sinister. I did not find it hard to follow the plot and action
There is some wonderful camerawork in this film. The special effects are very well done. The shipyard and inferno scenes are spectacular. I loved the upside down angle on the chase of Holmes going after Dredger. The slow motion filming is effective, a good contrast to fast action scenes.
It is fun noticing the bits of dialogue which refer to other movie characters, such as Dr Who. My British friend recognized phrases from a childrens’radio show, which director Guy Ritchie must have also grown up listening to.
Some members of the Bimetallic Question, Montreal’s Sherlock Holmes Society, were upset about this film’s departure from traditional British Sherlock Holmes movies. Others saw it as a breath of fresh air. I think this movie does a good job of introducing Sherlock Holmes to a new generation. Nancy
