Fire in Babylon

More documentary than film, this story of the West Indies cricket team during the 1970’s and 80’s did however get a limited UK release, and is a must see for any real fan of the game of cricket.

Through interviews with the players of the time, including Viv Richards, Michael Holding and Clive Lloyd, and some colourful characters from the Caribbean islands, it tells how the West Indies went from a divided group of Calypso cricketers to the feared attack that went fifteen years without losing a test series.  It intersperses this with footage from games, along with musical interludes.

This highly enjoyable piece of filmmaking really highlighted for me the difficulties that black cricketers were still undergoing only thirty or so years ago.  In some ways you can look at it and be pleased that there is far less obvious racism, although in the light of recent incidents within football, there is still a long way to go.

In cricket terms it was sad to see that some players, officials and watchers at the time couldn’t see beyond the colour of their skin, and when they started to become dominant, to say that it was only due to not playing the game properly.  They seemed to completely overlook the fact that the winning West Indian team had been inspired by the aggression of the Australian fast bowlers.  But then they of course were white, which makes it OK.

It also gives another slant on the idea that sport and politics should not mix.  However this is only really possible in a perfect world and the truth is that sport is just as intertwined with politics as any other aspect of our lives.  For sportsmen to assume that theirs is an isolated little world is very naive, and as difficult as it is, they should be taking a tougher stand with things that they don’t agree with, even if it means that they cannot play their sport.

But it is also marvellous to see the likes of Holding and Garner, Roberts and Marshall in their prime, peppering batsmen, destroying stumps and causing the mayhem that they did.  One of the great aspects of test cricket is to see how a batsman faces up to a genuine fast bowler.  It is tense and exciting and can really get a crowd going.

I would definitely recommend this to someone who likes their cricket, but also to those who are interested in the social aspects of sport.  Eight out of ten.

True Rubbish

Having heard good things about the recent version of True Grit I recently watched it, only to discover it was yet another Coen Brothers mess of pointless tripe.  After The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading, I should have learned; evidently I have not.

It starts, like most of their films, interestingly enough, with fourteen year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) coming to claim the body of her father who has been shot by one of his hired hands, and who has then ridden off.  She shows off her resourceful character by negotiating a reasonable sum of money from a horse dealer, before going off to look for someone to track down the man who shot her father, and bring him to justice.

Sadly, although the set up is intriguing, the story is pulled off badly.  The men are all hard and hard drinking, mumbling their lines to the extent that the dialogue is hard to follow; I imagine that this was meant to imbue ‘character’, but in the end becomes annoying.  But it proves the fact that the characters are all very one dimensional, including Mattie who turns up with pluck but with no back story to confirm why.

As the film progresses it turns more and more into a generic western, with men showing overblown heroics, who earlier in the film were getting drunk and arguing like old ladies.  And when the ending finally comes you are left with a feeling of being robbed of two hours of your life.

The book itself may be as pointless as the film, I don’t know since I haven’t read it, but if it is then you wonder why it has been made into a film.  If not, then this would have to be described as a poor rendition.  I give it four out of ten, even taking into account the good performance from Steinfeld.

Not so revolutionary

The latest film I watched was Revolutionary Road, the second of the Kate Winslet films which came out almost back to back, but this time she was paired with her Titanic co-star Leo DiCaprio.
In this they play husband and wife living in the suburbs with two children.  He works in a job he doesn't like, for a firm that his father spent years working for, while she stays at home failing to become an actress.  The life they envisaged for themselves several years earlier hasn't quite materialised.
One day it get's too much for Winslet's character and she reminds her husband of his previous dream of moving to Paris and after a short while he thinks its a great idea and they start to plan it. Except he's suddenly been offered a promotion and she gets pregnant and he calls the whole thing off.

To me it was just another 'unhappy couple' film.  I prefer films without some sort of moral, but on the other hand these films just feel somewhat pointless. I'm never quite sure whether to feel pity for the characters or nauseated by their whining.  It would be impossible to set the film in the present day, since the pressure on people staying together in a marriage, happy or otherwise, isn't the same, and in some ways this is one of the films greatest pitfalls.  A truly good film and story should be able to take place whether it is the present day or medieval times.
As a plus, the acting is very good and some of the dialogue can be quite engrossing.  The characters, for all their annoying traits, are somewhat believable, and there is a certain irony in the only person who actually makes sense being someone who is considered mentally ill.
There are a few unanswered questions in terms of DiCaprio's relationship with the father he talks about, along with how they got to first meeting to the situation they are now in.  There is never any evidence that there wasn't any alternative to it, but if life teaches you anything there are always alternatives.  The ending also is somewhat predictable and depressing, and really makes you wonder what the film was trying to say, if anything at all.
My rating is (raised mainly for the quality acting) is six and a half out of ten.

The Reader

I read The Reader a couple of years ago when the film came out, but only recently received the film itself to watch.  Pleasingly, it is faithful to the book with key elements of the plot, and with actors like Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes it is also a pleasure to watch.  It is such a shame that they only have one small scene together.

The story itself concerns a young German boy just after the war, who through a bout of fever meets an older German woman with whom he has an affair.  When she suddenly vanishes he is distraught.  However he sees her again several years later, but in a courtroom where he discovers that she is a former SS guard.

I won’t give any more of the plot away if you have not read or seen it, since it is worth enjoying the story as it’s meant to be enjoyed.  Not that it is necessarily enjoyable, it is actually quite a sad story, and one that stays in the mind for several hours afterwards.  The sign, I think, of a good story.

The themes within the story are also quite powerful, too powerful for me to really discuss here in any way that would do them justice.  I think you should see the film for yourself and make your own conclusions, or even better, read the book.

As for the film it was excellent, with only two small points of contention in that there was more sex than strictly necessary to the plot, and the film itself was slightly over long.  All in all 8 out of 10.

A Midsummer Night's Appartment

I recently watched the film L'Appartement.  I have to say that it is very bizarre, but also funny, enigmatic, and entertaining.
There really are too many plots for me to fully understand, let alone write down in a short blog post, but in brief it follows the fortunes of Max (Vincent Cassell) after he catches a brief glimpse of a former love, Lisa (Monica Belluci), who left him without saying why.  You find out the relationship in flashbacks, alongside him trying to track her down, but then further flashbacks provide more of the truth about them as well as the people around them.  In the end they all begin to wonder who it is they actually love, and the viewer does too.
As the film progresses, you find two of the main characters as actresses in a production of Shakespeare's 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', which provides a clue as to some obvious inspiration.  In the play, through the use of magic, the pair of lovers swap allegencies as to whom they love, however it is through other means within the film that this takes place.
The intriguing thing about the film is that the ending provides no real commentary or consequence on the actions of the characters involved and how they have behaved; there is something typically French about this and usually alien to US film-making where the 'good guy' always triumphs over the 'bad guy' and there are morals to be learned.
Additionally it seems that the film Wicker Park is a US remake of this film, however the two reasons of it being a US remake and the poor cast mean that it is unlikely that I will watch it.
For L'Appartement 8 out of 10.

Back to 1991

I don't know how many of you have been listening to 'Sounds of the 20th Century' over the past few months.  It is a Radio 2 show broadcast on a Thursday at 10pm, and simply plays music, news, sports reports, films etc for an hour from a particular year.  It must have started around ten months ago now since they started at 1950 and have now reached 1992.
I've enjoyed listening to it since it's nice to hear history at first hand so to speak, rather than having it already digested by an 'expert', or even worse, getting it through the memory of a member of your family.  Plus the last few have brought back my own memories of various times and places, 1991 being one of them.
This was the year that Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves came out, a film which I saw at the cinema in Edinburgh with my parents, and I absolutely loved it.  When it came out on TV I recorded it onto video and watched it so so often that the video started to get a bit crackly.
When my fiancee and I heard a clip of it the other week it was suggested that it be added to our Blockbuster list (of dvd's)...instead I went and bought it and we watched it last Friday.  I was still amazed as to how much of the dialogue I could remember, and there are so many little bits to it that are cheesy, funny, exciting and thrilling, that it's still a joy to watch.
The other most interesting thing to happen in 1991 was the 'leg over' incident between Jonathan Agnew and Brian Johnstone on TMS.  It's one of those moments that you can't help smiling or laughing at every time you hear it; it's just wonderful.  And ironically when I was in Waterstones recently I was flicking through their bargain bin and I came across a book called 'Thanks Johnners' by Jonathan Agnew, quite recently published it seems, and a lot to do with Brian Johnstone and TMS (I haven't read it yet). But the amazing thing was that it was signed by JA, and it was only 99p...a bargain I couldn't turn down.
I can't wait for 1993, the year of 'that ball' from Shane Warne, and of course Jurassic Park!

44 Inch What?

Last night I watched 44 Inch Chest on dvd and have to say that it is another film that I find tricky to slot in a category of whether I liked it or not.
While it was on I enjoyed it.  John Hurt and Ian McShane's characters were funny, especially in their interactions with each other, and the dialogue between all the characters was interesting.  It was the sort of stories and dialogue that real people do not talk, and if they did, then in person you would find them dull, but in fiction it helps you get to know them quicker.
But once the film had ended you realised that there had been no real point to any of it.  The ending was a major anti climax along with a disappointment.

The film does have some things to say on the subject of marriage, but still cliched and unoriginal, and on the subject of revenge but it doesn't make them clear.
As an antidote to Tarantino and Scorcese it might work, and to watch a group of English actors working well together it is interesting.  But beyond that, the film is poor. 5.5 out of 10.

Inglorious Filmmaking

I’m glad that I didn’t go to see Inglorious Basterds at the cinema; it’s not that it’s a bad film; it’s just not a very good film.  It does have its humorous moments, homage’s to spaghetti westerns, with a Leone style soundtrack but set in rural France, and it also has moments of great tension.

Sadly, the tense moments only appear around the character of Hans Landa, who is a character whom you actually believe in, and you believe could do anything. 

Shoshanna is also an interesting character with whom, because of all our knowledge about the persecution of Jews, you can understand her motives.  But once again the obvious romance between her and her black projectionist are not explained.  You can’t help wonder whether the only reason why they have been put together is because they were both persecuted due to their race.

As for the violence, it is truly over the top, and seems to be wielded by Tarantino like a child with a gun.  It is dealt with far too a comedic way, both detracting and distracting from the story.  In much the same way the continuous switches between German, French and English (with the relevant subtitles appearing and then disappearing when it switches again).  Am I the only one who finds it impossible to switch from concentrating on listening to reading and back again, without losing something in-between?

All in all it is an ok film, but the story is much too much of a child’s fantasy for it to be truly absorbing and only great after several beers and there’s no Die Hard to watch.  5.5 out of 10.