The kind of comedy that Frank Oz brings us always seems like organized chaos. Whether it's puppets or actors, his characters always seem to be in a constant state of panic. In the case of our characters in Death at a Funeral, they all have good but different reasons for their distress
A distinguished head of their family has died. As in real life, this brings the scattered members of the family back together. The separation of the family can often be for good reasons, such as the brother who has become a famous novelist and lives in New York. Or it might be for other reasons, such as the niece who is escorted by a man who is not welcome by her stuffy father. All in all each arrives with their emotional baggage and we get to inspect it in detail.
All of the performers in this wacky tale do an outstanding job, but I have to say the one that captivated me was Alan Tudyk. Alan plays Simon the man that his future father in law can't seem to accept. Alan is not a overly confident man, even though he seems to be doing quite well as a solicitor. His fear of confrontation with his fiances father leads her to give him a pill which she believes in Valium. It is not. Instead it is a highly charged combination of hallucinogenics that send the guy in to another world that only he can see.
His actions really start the hijinks's when he believes he sees the coffin moving during the memorial service which ends up with the casket being tipped and the body rolling out onto the floor. This role would be raw meat for any actor, but Tudyk plays it with energy and originality while holding onto the essence of his character.
Each of the actors has a simple but believable back story which involves a tie to the family. This funeral exposes their foibles and strengths in a humorous and entertaining way. Oz, brings out the best in his cast and gives us a great night in the dark with neighbors and friends
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Saturday, September 1, 2007
10 Items or Less, He Said
It is true that every story is a journey and in this journey we find two unlikely people discovering each other and themselves simultaneously as they move along.
Morgan Freeman (
Morgan Freeman) playing an actor down on his luck and lost, (If he were a writer we'd say he was blocked.), is researching a role as a grocery store manager in a small independent film. Dropped off in a Hispanic ghetto neighborhood by an unreliable set gopher, Freeman ends up stranded and under the spell of the clerk who checks at the ten items or less counter.
Her name is Scarlet (
Paz Vega). She is a young women who has been relegated to this life by life and who is trying to break out. She alternates between fits of anger and determination and resentment and frustration. Her anger immobilizes her, her determination keeps her going. What she lacks is confidence and some basic skills. Freeman provides the coaching and the resources
What your realize very quickly is that as down and out as Freeman is, he could hook this gal up with even a shitty small little job in show business and she would be off and running. she's smart efficient and good looking. But that would be to easy. Instead he takes her through the paces. He makes her think about how she dresses. He coaches her on presentation. He prepares her for the road blocks and most of all, he shows her that no matter how much he believes in her it's worthless unless she believes in herself. And that of course is the crux of his problem.
Freeman appears as the epitome of self confidence and cool, but he's also an actor, and while his demeanor is practiced and nuanced, it's all all show. Scarlet, once she gets her head out in the open where she can use it to think, begins to realize that he is almost as lost as she is.
With witty dialogue and real feeling these two desperate people reach out to each other providing the proverbial helping hand. Their relationship is sweet and compelling. You get the feeling that there could be something more for the couple if they stayed together, but it wouldn't be real and it wouldn't be long before they realized it wouldn't work. So if your looking for the ride into the sunset hand in hand, you'll get it, but it just won't be at the end of the film
Morgan Freeman (
Morgan Freeman) playing an actor down on his luck and lost, (If he were a writer we'd say he was blocked.), is researching a role as a grocery store manager in a small independent film. Dropped off in a Hispanic ghetto neighborhood by an unreliable set gopher, Freeman ends up stranded and under the spell of the clerk who checks at the ten items or less counter.Her name is Scarlet (
Paz Vega). She is a young women who has been relegated to this life by life and who is trying to break out. She alternates between fits of anger and determination and resentment and frustration. Her anger immobilizes her, her determination keeps her going. What she lacks is confidence and some basic skills. Freeman provides the coaching and the resourcesWhat your realize very quickly is that as down and out as Freeman is, he could hook this gal up with even a shitty small little job in show business and she would be off and running. she's smart efficient and good looking. But that would be to easy. Instead he takes her through the paces. He makes her think about how she dresses. He coaches her on presentation. He prepares her for the road blocks and most of all, he shows her that no matter how much he believes in her it's worthless unless she believes in herself. And that of course is the crux of his problem.
Freeman appears as the epitome of self confidence and cool, but he's also an actor, and while his demeanor is practiced and nuanced, it's all all show. Scarlet, once she gets her head out in the open where she can use it to think, begins to realize that he is almost as lost as she is.
With witty dialogue and real feeling these two desperate people reach out to each other providing the proverbial helping hand. Their relationship is sweet and compelling. You get the feeling that there could be something more for the couple if they stayed together, but it wouldn't be real and it wouldn't be long before they realized it wouldn't work. So if your looking for the ride into the sunset hand in hand, you'll get it, but it just won't be at the end of the film
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Vitus, He Said
If children are a blessing and a curse in our lives, than a child like Vitus is a child plus. He exposes his genius when is given a toy keyboard as a birthday gift. In the video of the birthday party, we see his mother amazement when Vitus takes the toy and begins playing it without a thought.
But his talents are not limited to music and while he takes joy in his ability to play beautiful music, both classical and popular, he has an uneasy feeling about his parents pushing him to excel. His first major rebellion occurs when they drop his piano teacher for enrollment in a music academy. What the director wants us to see is that while Vitus is a music prodigy he is in every way a little boy. He has special bond with his grandfather. As depicted in the film this bond is born from his grandfather's ability to to see the little boy in Vitus and nurture his need to grow up at his own speed.
The second big face off with mom and dad occurs when they fire his babysitter, Isabel. At this point Vitus has a huge crush on her and, as it turns out, a continuing affection for her. To express his anger, he simply locks his parents out of the apartment while he fakes an inability to hear their begging and pounding, while he plays the piano.
The problem I have with this film is that Vitus is the solution to all problems. He saves Isabel from a less than satisfactory relationship, he saves his fathers business career and he saves his grandfather from poverty. In doing this he provides everyone, including himself, with the key to happiness. This is an example of the age old tale of what happens when bad things happen to good people. It's just stretching the limits of fantasy to think that a young boy, no matter how brilliant, could be the solution.
That being said, this film is well presented and is entertaining. It is worth seeing if you can get past the precocious child being the saviour in all situations. The young actor who plays Vitus as a teen is competent and compelling. The parents are portrayed as good people who have lost their focus and the actors do a good job of portraying that. Grandpa is eloquently played by the legendary German actor, Bruno Ganz.
This film closes with one of my most unfavorite scenes. That is the scene where everyone gathers to honor the hero. It can be the courtroom or an assembly in the school, but in almost all cases, the scene is contrived and phony. In this case, I loved it. But I can't tell you why, because it would spoil the film for you.
But his talents are not limited to music and while he takes joy in his ability to play beautiful music, both classical and popular, he has an uneasy feeling about his parents pushing him to excel. His first major rebellion occurs when they drop his piano teacher for enrollment in a music academy. What the director wants us to see is that while Vitus is a music prodigy he is in every way a little boy. He has special bond with his grandfather. As depicted in the film this bond is born from his grandfather's ability to to see the little boy in Vitus and nurture his need to grow up at his own speed.
The second big face off with mom and dad occurs when they fire his babysitter, Isabel. At this point Vitus has a huge crush on her and, as it turns out, a continuing affection for her. To express his anger, he simply locks his parents out of the apartment while he fakes an inability to hear their begging and pounding, while he plays the piano.
The problem I have with this film is that Vitus is the solution to all problems. He saves Isabel from a less than satisfactory relationship, he saves his fathers business career and he saves his grandfather from poverty. In doing this he provides everyone, including himself, with the key to happiness. This is an example of the age old tale of what happens when bad things happen to good people. It's just stretching the limits of fantasy to think that a young boy, no matter how brilliant, could be the solution.
That being said, this film is well presented and is entertaining. It is worth seeing if you can get past the precocious child being the saviour in all situations. The young actor who plays Vitus as a teen is competent and compelling. The parents are portrayed as good people who have lost their focus and the actors do a good job of portraying that. Grandpa is eloquently played by the legendary German actor, Bruno Ganz.
This film closes with one of my most unfavorite scenes. That is the scene where everyone gathers to honor the hero. It can be the courtroom or an assembly in the school, but in almost all cases, the scene is contrived and phony. In this case, I loved it. But I can't tell you why, because it would spoil the film for you.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Mostly Martha, He Said
In the German film, "Mostly Martha", Martha is a Chef that is anal retentive about her food, it's preparation and presentation. We also soon become aware that she has no life outside her kitchen. However, it's not the Martha that probably comes to the American film viewer's mind.
This Martha is the head chef in a fine German restaurant. By her own admission she has worked very hard to get to the position she is in and feels extremely comfortable with her standards. Much to the discomfort of the owner, she finds it easy to tell off a fastidious, but singularly stupid customer, that he doesn't know anything about food and she wouldn't mind if they didn't eat her cooking, if they can't appreciate it.
Her sister, as single mom, dies in an accident and Martha is forced to take care of her eight year old niece, Lina. Martha, while well intentioned, is ill prepared to deal with an eight year old, particularly one that is angry, confused and traumatized by the loss of her only parent.
There is a solution here. Martha is aware that the father is an Italian man, but knows only his first name, Giuseppe. Lina wants Martha to find her birth-father. Lina has the typical abandon childs fantasy about him. While she searches, Martha goes through the problems that any parent has, taking a difficult child to school, finding someone to watch her while she works and getting her to eat the right food.
Than there is the problem of Martha's employer hiring another cook to "help" Martha through her difficult times. Martha doesn't think she needs help and views the new cook, Mario, as competition. We get the feeling Mario is going to be problems in Martha's, now all of a sudden, topsy turvy world. Instead Mario acts as a calming influence in the kitchen, in Martha's relationship with Lina and finally with Martha herself.
This romantic comedy was the basis for a new American film, "No Reservations", starring Catherine Zeta-Jones. I have not seen this film and under normal circumstances I would not. Sorry, I'm no fan of Catherine Zeta-Jones nor American romantic comedies. Both are too predictable and formula driven to be interesting to me. However, the opportunity to compare and contrast will motivate me to rent, "No Reservations" when it is released on DVD.
This Martha is the head chef in a fine German restaurant. By her own admission she has worked very hard to get to the position she is in and feels extremely comfortable with her standards. Much to the discomfort of the owner, she finds it easy to tell off a fastidious, but singularly stupid customer, that he doesn't know anything about food and she wouldn't mind if they didn't eat her cooking, if they can't appreciate it.
Her sister, as single mom, dies in an accident and Martha is forced to take care of her eight year old niece, Lina. Martha, while well intentioned, is ill prepared to deal with an eight year old, particularly one that is angry, confused and traumatized by the loss of her only parent.
There is a solution here. Martha is aware that the father is an Italian man, but knows only his first name, Giuseppe. Lina wants Martha to find her birth-father. Lina has the typical abandon childs fantasy about him. While she searches, Martha goes through the problems that any parent has, taking a difficult child to school, finding someone to watch her while she works and getting her to eat the right food.
Than there is the problem of Martha's employer hiring another cook to "help" Martha through her difficult times. Martha doesn't think she needs help and views the new cook, Mario, as competition. We get the feeling Mario is going to be problems in Martha's, now all of a sudden, topsy turvy world. Instead Mario acts as a calming influence in the kitchen, in Martha's relationship with Lina and finally with Martha herself.
This romantic comedy was the basis for a new American film, "No Reservations", starring Catherine Zeta-Jones. I have not seen this film and under normal circumstances I would not. Sorry, I'm no fan of Catherine Zeta-Jones nor American romantic comedies. Both are too predictable and formula driven to be interesting to me. However, the opportunity to compare and contrast will motivate me to rent, "No Reservations" when it is released on DVD.
Monday, July 30, 2007
You Kill Me, He Said
As an alcoholic, I appreciate the subject being handled realistically in any type of media presentation. The focus of most drama involving an alcoholic protagonist is "the meeting".
I think by now the twelve steps of Alcoholic Anonymous, or AA re known by most people just because of their use in the presentation of alcoholism in media.
The worst are the TV disease of the week type movie. The formula puts the victim at or arriving at the "bottom" or a low point in their use of the drug of choice. The drunk is losing their family, friends and career because of their uncontrolled drinking. If you throw in a squeaky clean trophy wife, a couple of tearful blond kids, you've got the Sunday night movie of the week. In the formula the drunk goes to an AA meeting. First they resist the people and the process. Than they experience a revelation, usually brought on by their sponsor and than they embrace the group and salivation prevails, usually after one more relapse
Better films have been made and in them you see vestiges of the many faces of the problems alcoholic. Understanding that Alcoholism is different for different people and as a result the meeting you go to may have as much to do with your success as the realization that you have a problem and only you can do anything about it.
The comedy "You Kill Me" is he one of the best I've ever seen. One of the things you want as a film maker is a sympathetic or at least likable protagonist. When we meet Frank Falenczyk, he is shoveling snow at his Buffalo, New York home. His incentive for finishing the job is throwing a bottle of vodka a few feet in front of his path. In order to get the bottle he has to shovel the snow. When he gets to the street, he greets his cousin. His cousin has a message from his uncle. Frank is suppose to kill a rival gang leader so that Frank's family gang can retain control of their illegal enterprises in the Buffalo. Frank doesn't get the job done, because he's drinks himself into a stupor as he stakes out the mark.
The family "intervention" is a little unusual in that while they do profess their love for Frank and they express their concern for his ability to function as a family member and employee, they are really pissed off because he is not killing their enemies.
Frank is sent to San Francisco to dry out. The problem is that Frank doesn't want to quit drinking. The only reason he does is because he doesn't have a choice. He gets a job as an assistant at a funeral home, the irony of this is inescapable. The obligatory scene at the meeting is interesting to me because it's so funny. The reason it's funny is because it probably is more realistic than most depictions. The participants are pathetic and self absorbed. As Franks sponsor Tom says, "Some of these people like to wallow in it". Franks bond with the group begins when he admits, not that he's and alcoholic, but that he is a hired assassin. The amazing thing about this film is that Frank's life completely changes not when he faces his drinking problem, but admits how he made his living. He finds friends and of course experiences the life changing moment of falling in love.
This film is so quirky and off beat that it easily could have been a disaster, but because of the direction of John Dahl and the able acting ability of Ben Kingsley, Bill Pullman, Luke Wilson and Tea Leoni, it works wonderfully. Wilson plays something other than a man stuck in a middle school kids body. Tea Leoni exhibits breadth in her ability to play different characters. And Kingsley, well he is one of the worlds greatest actors and taking a role like this shows confidence and ability of an actor who carries that label . This is a must see film for anyone who wants an enjoyable evening out or wants to see a good film about a drunk who wants to reform.
I think by now the twelve steps of Alcoholic Anonymous, or AA re known by most people just because of their use in the presentation of alcoholism in media.
The worst are the TV disease of the week type movie. The formula puts the victim at or arriving at the "bottom" or a low point in their use of the drug of choice. The drunk is losing their family, friends and career because of their uncontrolled drinking. If you throw in a squeaky clean trophy wife, a couple of tearful blond kids, you've got the Sunday night movie of the week. In the formula the drunk goes to an AA meeting. First they resist the people and the process. Than they experience a revelation, usually brought on by their sponsor and than they embrace the group and salivation prevails, usually after one more relapse
Better films have been made and in them you see vestiges of the many faces of the problems alcoholic. Understanding that Alcoholism is different for different people and as a result the meeting you go to may have as much to do with your success as the realization that you have a problem and only you can do anything about it.
The comedy "You Kill Me" is he one of the best I've ever seen. One of the things you want as a film maker is a sympathetic or at least likable protagonist. When we meet Frank Falenczyk, he is shoveling snow at his Buffalo, New York home. His incentive for finishing the job is throwing a bottle of vodka a few feet in front of his path. In order to get the bottle he has to shovel the snow. When he gets to the street, he greets his cousin. His cousin has a message from his uncle. Frank is suppose to kill a rival gang leader so that Frank's family gang can retain control of their illegal enterprises in the Buffalo. Frank doesn't get the job done, because he's drinks himself into a stupor as he stakes out the mark.
The family "intervention" is a little unusual in that while they do profess their love for Frank and they express their concern for his ability to function as a family member and employee, they are really pissed off because he is not killing their enemies.
Frank is sent to San Francisco to dry out. The problem is that Frank doesn't want to quit drinking. The only reason he does is because he doesn't have a choice. He gets a job as an assistant at a funeral home, the irony of this is inescapable. The obligatory scene at the meeting is interesting to me because it's so funny. The reason it's funny is because it probably is more realistic than most depictions. The participants are pathetic and self absorbed. As Franks sponsor Tom says, "Some of these people like to wallow in it". Franks bond with the group begins when he admits, not that he's and alcoholic, but that he is a hired assassin. The amazing thing about this film is that Frank's life completely changes not when he faces his drinking problem, but admits how he made his living. He finds friends and of course experiences the life changing moment of falling in love.
This film is so quirky and off beat that it easily could have been a disaster, but because of the direction of John Dahl and the able acting ability of Ben Kingsley, Bill Pullman, Luke Wilson and Tea Leoni, it works wonderfully. Wilson plays something other than a man stuck in a middle school kids body. Tea Leoni exhibits breadth in her ability to play different characters. And Kingsley, well he is one of the worlds greatest actors and taking a role like this shows confidence and ability of an actor who carries that label . This is a must see film for anyone who wants an enjoyable evening out or wants to see a good film about a drunk who wants to reform.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, He Said
They are older, but than children do grow and change when they are attending high school. The teachers are relatively the same. Hogworts, the school that the young wizards attend still rests sternly on the hill side overlooking the river that flows... Well, we aren't sure where it flows but the it evokes a promise of a future.
The Harry Potter Series both book and film is about the future. It is in essence a coming of age tale that includes a compelling facet of magic. I ask you who hasn't wished that they couldn't solve their problems with a little bit of magic. Harry Potter, like Star Wars Luke Skywalker, is living with the memory and legacy of his father. Harry is the reluctant hero in the battle of forces that have been warring for power for all time. It is, as all good stories are, a battle between good and evil.
In this edition of the saga, Harry is inducted into the The Order of the Phoenix, a group that supports the good Wizards, the organization that refuses to go the dark side. Complicating this situation is in intractable bureaucracy that doesn't want to admit that Lord Voldemort, the leader of those on the dark side has indeed returned to overthrow the good wizards.
Pretty predictable stuff, Eh!
No one will ever argue that J K Rowling can't write a good story. She can indeed. Her books have reintroduced reading to millions of TV, Nintendo, and You Tube addicted teenagers. While the author has strung along her readers through six novels and is releasing the final one in close proximity to the release of this film, she has successfully established a Disney like franchise that will no doubt hook future generations. It's easy to see today's readers introducing their children to Harry just like my folks wanted me to read the "Black Stallion" books and my sister was urged to read Nancy Drew.
But what I'm suppose to write about here is my opinion of the movie. The Harry Potter films have always suffered from poor casting and it starts with Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe's range is insufficient to play the morose and brooding Potter. Even as a young Potter, Radcliffe couldn't portray the innocent and vulnerable Harry. As a now enlightened and supposedly wiser young wizard, Radcliffe can't pull it off.
Emma Watson didn't have enough of a role in this film to judge her worth to the effort and the same must be said of the usually reliable Rupert Grint, in the role of Ron Weasley. The star studded cast does make the film notable in it's performance, but you can't build a strong performance on a star that gets as much screen time as Radcliffe does and who can't shoulder the load. I've always wondered how the film's would fare if Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley was cast as Potter and the limited Radcliffe was playing the buddy role. It couldn't be worse and it would have a chance of being better, Grint can act.
The Harry Potter Series both book and film is about the future. It is in essence a coming of age tale that includes a compelling facet of magic. I ask you who hasn't wished that they couldn't solve their problems with a little bit of magic. Harry Potter, like Star Wars Luke Skywalker, is living with the memory and legacy of his father. Harry is the reluctant hero in the battle of forces that have been warring for power for all time. It is, as all good stories are, a battle between good and evil.
In this edition of the saga, Harry is inducted into the The Order of the Phoenix, a group that supports the good Wizards, the organization that refuses to go the dark side. Complicating this situation is in intractable bureaucracy that doesn't want to admit that Lord Voldemort, the leader of those on the dark side has indeed returned to overthrow the good wizards.
Pretty predictable stuff, Eh!
No one will ever argue that J K Rowling can't write a good story. She can indeed. Her books have reintroduced reading to millions of TV, Nintendo, and You Tube addicted teenagers. While the author has strung along her readers through six novels and is releasing the final one in close proximity to the release of this film, she has successfully established a Disney like franchise that will no doubt hook future generations. It's easy to see today's readers introducing their children to Harry just like my folks wanted me to read the "Black Stallion" books and my sister was urged to read Nancy Drew.
But what I'm suppose to write about here is my opinion of the movie. The Harry Potter films have always suffered from poor casting and it starts with Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe's range is insufficient to play the morose and brooding Potter. Even as a young Potter, Radcliffe couldn't portray the innocent and vulnerable Harry. As a now enlightened and supposedly wiser young wizard, Radcliffe can't pull it off.
Emma Watson didn't have enough of a role in this film to judge her worth to the effort and the same must be said of the usually reliable Rupert Grint, in the role of Ron Weasley. The star studded cast does make the film notable in it's performance, but you can't build a strong performance on a star that gets as much screen time as Radcliffe does and who can't shoulder the load. I've always wondered how the film's would fare if Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley was cast as Potter and the limited Radcliffe was playing the buddy role. It couldn't be worse and it would have a chance of being better, Grint can act.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Jindabyne, He Said
Four guys go on a weekend fishing trip. something happens out there, but they don't want to talk about it. A description of the classic movie "Deliverance"? No, but the comparison could be made. In the case of Jindabyne, the guys didn't really do anything other than ignore the commission of a crime while they continued with their fishing. But tying the naked body of a dead aboriginal girl to a tree root while they continued to fish did not sit well with the people from the small town they lived in and in particular the
In the early part of this film a great deal is made about the importance and the tradition of this fishing trip. Enhancing the significance is the addition of a new young recruit to the group. Each of the participants in this foray have issues that are unique and play into the plot, but the main focus is put on the Kane's, Claire and Stewart. Their relationship is clouded by Claire's desertion of the family following the birth of their son. She's back and they are trying to put their lives together again, but there is much that is not settled. Claire is aware of the scrutiny she is under and Stewart still doesn't understand why she left in the first place
When are merry band of fishermen get into the barely accessible stretch of the river, they discover the dead body of an aboriginal girl floating down the river. We saw her abducted and disposed of in the opening of the film. They decide to concoct a story that blames their tardiness on the sprained ankle of one of them.
This lame story (excuse me I couldn't pass that up) didn't fare well with the townspeople and in particular the aboriginal people in the community. They are taken to task for their heartlessness and racism. No one seems to understand their callousness including one member of their own party.
The latter part of the film sees Claire reaching out, seemingly to no avail, to the native people. It's apparent she is doing this to deal with her own issues as well as the greater problems of misunderstanding and mistrust built between the native people and the white people.
This film takes place in a colorless town in Australia. My guess is that the director wanted that pallet to indicate the drabness of life and to focus n the racial tension in the community. Laura Linny is wonderful as the conflicted Claire. Garbriel Byrne equals her as her husband Stewart.
The problem I had was with the continuity of the script. It seems to me some editorial cuts were made that paid little attention to sequence of facts we needed to know to get us from one place to the next. I remember very little of the discussion, the all important discussion, the men had in deciding to tether the body to a tree root while they continued to fish. And I haven't clue how the town suddenly and unanimously decided the story they told was flawed. I think this was a valiant effort to tell an important story that was lost on the cutting room floor
In the early part of this film a great deal is made about the importance and the tradition of this fishing trip. Enhancing the significance is the addition of a new young recruit to the group. Each of the participants in this foray have issues that are unique and play into the plot, but the main focus is put on the Kane's, Claire and Stewart. Their relationship is clouded by Claire's desertion of the family following the birth of their son. She's back and they are trying to put their lives together again, but there is much that is not settled. Claire is aware of the scrutiny she is under and Stewart still doesn't understand why she left in the first place
When are merry band of fishermen get into the barely accessible stretch of the river, they discover the dead body of an aboriginal girl floating down the river. We saw her abducted and disposed of in the opening of the film. They decide to concoct a story that blames their tardiness on the sprained ankle of one of them.
This lame story (excuse me I couldn't pass that up) didn't fare well with the townspeople and in particular the aboriginal people in the community. They are taken to task for their heartlessness and racism. No one seems to understand their callousness including one member of their own party.
The latter part of the film sees Claire reaching out, seemingly to no avail, to the native people. It's apparent she is doing this to deal with her own issues as well as the greater problems of misunderstanding and mistrust built between the native people and the white people.
This film takes place in a colorless town in Australia. My guess is that the director wanted that pallet to indicate the drabness of life and to focus n the racial tension in the community. Laura Linny is wonderful as the conflicted Claire. Garbriel Byrne equals her as her husband Stewart.
The problem I had was with the continuity of the script. It seems to me some editorial cuts were made that paid little attention to sequence of facts we needed to know to get us from one place to the next. I remember very little of the discussion, the all important discussion, the men had in deciding to tether the body to a tree root while they continued to fish. And I haven't clue how the town suddenly and unanimously decided the story they told was flawed. I think this was a valiant effort to tell an important story that was lost on the cutting room floor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)