Hey folks, Harry here with a fellow geek from Dublin that besides sliding back a few pints, also took in a few films at the Dublin International Film Festival. Here he is to comment on three very very good films that you should all take in if given a chance...
Hi Harry,
I never wrote to you before but went along to see a few films at the Dublin International Film Festival and thought I'd drop you a line regarding some of them. Keep up the good work!
Intacto
I'm actually looking forward to the Hollywood remake of this film. Usually they infuriate me, but when a good premise has been wasted it's always nice to see it given another chance to live. And there really was great promise (and premise) in this film.
The central conceit is that luck is a commodity: you can simply have more of it than some people, it can be passed on, taken away or accumulated.
The film opens with a man on a winning streak at a roulette table. The house is losing big time to this guy so Federico (Eusebio Poncela) is dispatched down to the gambling floor. He sidles up and touches the man, and immediately the winning streak ends.
Federico is one of those special people with extra luck, who has learned how to manipulate it. He survived an earthquake when a small boy and was taken into the care of the casino owner Samuel (Max von Sydow), who survived the holocaust.
Samuel is the Godfather figure at the head of the underworld that has sprung up around these 'lucky' people. The lesser lights contest in games of chance for the right to eventually face Samuel. The twist being that the stake for a game against Samuel is your life.
Federico though has grown tired off his life and tries to escape from Samuel, but he ends up having his luck taken from him by the 'old Jew' as he leaves. Federico vows to take revenge of Samuel, and goes in search of someone with a strong enough gift to defeat the Samuel. After his search turns up a few casual casualties, losers in games of chance, the police start to take an interest in him, particularly an agent played by Monica Lopez, who once walked away from a car accident that killed her family. And when Federico finds Tomas (Leonardo Sbaraglia), the sole survivior of a plane crash, we know that all roads will lead back to Samuel.
While elements of this film were very enjoyable, others were infuriating. Some of the games of chance were ingenious, like the blindfolded sprint through woodland with the last person to hit a tree the winner, but the scenes should have been laced with tension, and sadly they were lacking. Director (and co-writer) Juan Carlos Fresnadillo also succeeds in completely telegraphing the ending.
Alos the rules of how luck is passed on and stolen seem to vary from person to person, and time to time. While this ambiguity might have been deliberate to make us wonder how real these people's luck is, I thought that in a film of this nature the one thing you could't afford to bend on is the foundations of the story.
A diverting, if frustrating film then ñ somebody please iron out the screenplay flaws and give this to David Fincher. Then it could be great.
El Crimen del padre Amaro (The Crime of Father Amaro)
Carlos CarreraÃs film (nominated for the best foreign language film oscar) sets up one of itÃs main points in its opening frame, explaining that itÃs based on a novel written in 1875, and set in 2002. This should set alarm bells ringing for most film lovers. Not another film about how the Catholic church is backwards and slow to change?
Well, yes and no. While the tale is set around religion, the picture itself is really about universal morals. Father Amaro (Gael GarcÃŒa Bernal of Y tu mam· tambiÈn and Amores Perros) plays a young priest sent to a new parish where his mentor Father Benito (Sancho Gracia) sleeps with a local woman, and launders money from a drug dealer, to build a hospital in the area. The young idealistic father Amaro is initially railing against Benito but as he finds himself drawn towards a local girl and incrasingly caught up in the local web of crime he starts to lose sight of what is right and wrong.
To go into more depth would be to do the film a disservice but Carrera splendidly manages to show that life is never black and white, but there are degrees of right and wrong, as characters rise and fall in out estimations, not through changing their actions but through us becoming aware of how right and wrong can be relative concepts. A terrific film that deserves all the accolades it earns.
IrrÈversible
Not actually shown as part of the Festival, but still worthy of a review. Given that this film has already garnered such attention pretty much everyone knows the plot, but just in case, there are spoilers ahead. The film is presented in reverse chronological order and so opens with Marcus and Pierre (Vincent Cassel and Albert Dupontel) looking for the man who raped Marcusà girlfriend Alex (Monica Bellucci). The duo eventually end up mudering the wrong man, showing, presumably, the pointless nature of violence.
The manner of the attack is what sticks in the mind though, Pierre smashing the manÃs head repeatedly with a fire extinguisher. As commentted on by many people, I felt like leaving at this point, as I felt distinctly nauseous. I thought it was due to the intensity of the scene, but later found out that director Gaspar Noe had included sound effects (that relentless droning background noise, sounds sort of like a fog horn) that are often used by riot police to disperse crowds. It has low frequencies designed to turn your stomach.
Some of you may feel that this is part of the cinema effect, that once you put yourself into the hands of a director you have to accept the ride he sends you on. Personally I felt sort of cheated. Noe has consistently banged on in the press about how violence is often trivialised in films, and how he wanted to show it as it really is. I think this sound effect broke his own rule, but regardless the scene is incredibly powerful and affecting. The film continues back through the course of Marcus and Pierre searching for the rapist (or La Tenia, as he is referred to), and back to the party they went to until we get to the rape sequence. (Incidentally, Marcus is a skin head who in one scene makes a conscious choice not to involve the police but to seek his own violent retribution. Does this remind you of any particular political ethos that is gaining increased levels of support in Paris over the past few years?)
Noe not only makes BellucciÃs rape disturbing to watch, by shooting it in one take he made it impossible for censorÃs to attempt to edit it out. At this point any sane person would be incredibly jolted by the sensory assault of the film, and in particular the two scenes outlined.
Sadly Noe then loses the thread of the film compeltely from here, and shows himself to be just another style over content merchant. He shows the two lovers in some gentle scenes, playing around with each other in their appartment. We find out that Bellucci was pregnant, yet the film shows her in the final reel as having a distinct ëbumpà ñ are we to take it that the entire film was a dream? That she survived and had her baby? The film then reveals itÃs coda, or theme. ìTime destroys everything.î Wow.
Has nobody asked themselves what this film is about? What is its meaning meant to be beyond its disturbing imagery? Alex doesnÃt turn up again after the rape, so we never see the effect the incident had on her and the beating she receives after the event means that we are left remembering physical scars, at the expense of the mental ones she incurred. ìTime destroys everythingî is the one absolute that we all know from the time we are born. Everything dies. So is this film a paen to nihilism?
The film is brilliantly put together but has nothing to say, it just wants to show some violence, rape and revenge. If it was about love the film would open with Marcus in hospital holding the hand of Alex (who lapsed into a coma after the beating she received). Which brings to mind some real quality european film making, AlmodovarÃs Habla con ella. See that instead.
If you choose to use this call me,
Johnny Clay
Harry here again... Johnny, the reason that doesn't happen is because after what Marcus does... He wouldn't be at a hospital with the woman he loves, his anger, his furor, his rage has done what the rapist never could do. It's taken her away from him. He's going to jail, for a very long time. Not to some Hollywood happy ending. The film is ultimately about violence begetting violence, which ultimately will forever destroy us all and irreversibly alter our paths in life. At least that's the meaning I found when staring into the abyss that Gasper captured. harry out...
