Review: Against the Sun (2015)

large_MV5BOTk5MjU0NTg3Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTI3NTUzMzE_._V1__SX1216_SY712_

I reviewed Against the Sun for Rogerebert.com. I have a fascination with survivalist stories, human beings making it out of horrendous encounters with Mother Nature, or whatever. Against the Sun is the true story of three downed airmen in WWII who had to take to a life raft in the middle of the Pacific, with no food, no water, no supplies of any kind.

There are only three actors in the movie (the biggest name is Tom Felton). I am placing this under the Supernatural tag because one of the three men in the life raft is played by Jake Abel, aka Adam Winchester/Milligan. He’s excellent. They all are.

You can check out my review here.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Review: Cake (2015)

jennifer-aniston-cake-movie-poster-sosnation.com_

I reviewed Cake, starring Jennifer Aniston, for The Dissolve.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Locke (2014): Tom Hardy. In a Car. For 85 Minutes.

large_xbgDHskoFfYjYEMGy4Iwcd6yHEi

Locke is 85 minutes long. The entire thing (except for maybe 20 seconds in the opening sequence) takes place inside a moving car. There is only one man in the car. He is Ivan Locke. He is played by Tom Hardy. Ivan Locke is driving on the M6 towards London from a northern suburb. The drive is supposedly going to take an hour and a half. He makes a series of phone calls as he drives.

That’s the movie. He never makes a stop, he never pulls over and interacts with a gas station attendant. It is just Tom Hardy, talking to various people in his life as he makes this drive (which, you learn maybe 10 minutes in, is a momentous one). He speaks to his wife, he speaks to his teenage son, he speaks to a colleague at work, he speaks to his boss, he speaks to someone else I won’t reveal, and these calls are made methodically, meticulously, call after call after call (multiple calls to each person) handling what needs to be handled during the 90-minute drive to London. Over the course of the film, everything changes. Nobody is the same at the end of it.

hardy.jpg

Written and directed by Steven Knight, Locke operates like a thriller, and yet the only action is a man in a car. Yet it is a grueling experience, an exhausting emotional cliffhanger. You think it couldn’t possibly be as gripping as it sounds, you think that maybe it sounds like a gimmick, or something that experimental theatre groups like to try: “I know! Let’s have all the actors be hanging upside down as they do Othello!” In other words, placing an extreme physical limitation on the properties of the written word – in order to see what kind of theatrical sparks can fly operating within those limitations. (Artists love limitations. Good artists do, anyway.) How could a man making phone calls in the same setting possibly hold your attention for almost 90 minutes? That’s the major thrill of Locke. I have read reviews that give away what the drive is about. Thankfully, I read the reviews after I saw the film. Going into it, all I knew was that the whole thing was just Tom Hardy in the car.

Ivan Locke is a man who has always done the right thing in his life. He is a responsible man. He is a good father. His son’s phone calls about the rugby game he is missing on television speaks to their relationship. You get the whole off-screen picture of who Ivan Locke is in his household, which is essential, because by the end of the film, all of that has been altered. It’s damn near Ibsen-esque: Nora flitting around as a happy childlike housewife at the beginning of A Doll’s House to Nora walking out the door a day later. How did such a transformation occur? How will any of the humans bear it?

locke1

Ivan is the foreman of a gigantic construction crew, and the following day there is scheduled a cement pour, the biggest cement pour in the history of Europe, with trucks converging from all over the place. It’s an international company, run out of Chicago, and the pressure is extreme. Ivan Locke is an unflappable guy. You get that. In his job, he is required to micro-manage a pour like this: road closures have to be approved through the local police department, as well as the various neighborhood councils. Every pump has to be checked. And double-checked. Every truck-driver has to be on point, and the cement mixture has to be perfectly right: he has to make sure all of the various distributors send the right thing. If this fails, millions of dollars are at stake. But Ivan Locke is not a panicker. He didn’t plan on having to drive to London, he was completely ready for the cement pour. But circumstances have arisen that makes his drive mandatory. So calls must be made.

The cement pour starts to loom in the foreground as he drives to London. Screaming calls from his boss come in. Panicked shouting from his drunken underling. Problem-solving, under the gun, a careening mis-fire of an event is barreling towards everyone, only hours away and Ivan Locke will not be there.

He hangs up with his boss. He calls his wife. He speaks with his wife. He speaks with his son. He takes a call from the underling, he calms down the underling. He calls the police department to ensure the road closure. He has to track down a councilman to make sure the road will be closed. “I’M IN AN INDIAN RESTAURANT,” screams the annoyed councilman. Ivan slowly, methodically, insistently, keeps working the problem. It is no one’s responsibility but his own, and he takes full responsibility. His voice is soothing and calm, his reaction to panic. He is unable to lie. He does not prevaricate or dissemble. To anyone. He speaks the truth, however destabilizing it will be for those listening. He is that kind of man.

tom-hardy

Director Steven Knight has kept it simple, understanding that the event of those phone calls will be (should be) enough to hold our interest. The brilliant cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos fills the screen with reflections and mirroring windows, headlights and street lamps, highways and traffic, swooping across and superimposed over Hardy’s face. The images meld together into one big collage of lights and blurry movement. It’s a moody approach, maybe a bit too … artsy? or complex is maybe the better word … showing a slight concern that what was going on onscreen would not be enough to hold an audience’s interest. The approach is slightly busy, in other words. However, for me, not knowing where the film was going, not knowing why Ivan Locke set off on that fateful drive, the light show did not detract: I zoomed in instantly on the most important thing, which was those phone calls, and Tom Hardy’s acting. The film is gorgeous to look at and gives a sense of loneliness and isolation. People are amazingly private in their cars. They talk to themselves, sing to themselves, they forget they are actually in public. This goes on here, and those swooping dreamy blurry lights help add to the dreamspace feel, the fugue-state feel.

Locke_(film)

Knight was smart in knowing that the unseen actors on the other end of those phone calls were essential, that these had to feel like real phone calls. There needed to be some major players on the other end. And so the cast he assembled, Olivia Colman, Ruth Wilson, Andrew Scott, Ben Daniels (and more) breathe life into their unseen characters, they are real people on the other end, and you can hear background noises, and doors closing, drawers being opened … all in real-time. It feels spontaneous. I watched the special features and learned that Tom Hardy was out there, “driving” a car, being pulled along by a truck … and the rest of the cast members were holed up in a hotel somewhere, and they would actually call in to him, live, via cell phones. So these were real calls happening, a real in-the-moment back-and-forth. These weren’t voices recorded in a studio, and patched in later (one of the main issues I had with Her: you could tell that those two people were not actually talking to each other.)

Ivan Locke is surrounded by a complex and busy world: he has many obligations, obligations that are NOT a drag on him. He welcomes them, actually. It means he is responsible. It helps him have a sense of identity. He takes pride in being a good husband, an involved father, he takes pride in being a reliable boss, someone people can depend on. It is that very pride that is his … well, not downfall … but it makes him do what he does in the film, it makes him set off on that drive to London. He has made a mistake and he must fix it. Otherwise, who is he? What has his life has been about? If he shirks his responsibility here, in this one thing, he will never be able to look at himself in the mirror again. And so he must live according to his code.

He is trying to do the right thing.

And lives shatter because of it.

The film is a wrenching unforgettable experience. You forget that it’s just Tom Hardy in a damn car. You feel the whole WORLD around this guy. And there’s no way out but through. Call by call by call …

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

Because …

B7ozspUIAAIiicq

He’s the best, that’s why. And this photograph is smokin’.

Posted in Actors | Tagged | 65 Comments

Supernatural, Season 10, Episode 10: Open Thread

5-Supernatural-Season-10-Episode-1-S10E1-title-card-600x337

Seeing a play tonight and this is a 4-deadline week. Knocked two out of the way, two more to go, so I’ll be scarce round these parts. Have fun. Catch up with you all when I clear my desk.

Posted in Television | Tagged | 96 Comments

Wadjda (2013); written/directed by Haifaa Al-Mansour

90cfc973614e534b80ee7a1b22c83dc3

The behind-the-scenes stories would be enough to put Wadjda in the history books: The first film to be shot inside Saudi Arabia. By a Saudi director. A female Saudi director. Because of the restrictions placed on women in the public sphere, director Haifaa Al-Mansour could not be out on the streets of Riyadh with her actors, she had to be holed up in a truck nearby, watching on the monitors, and communicating through walkie-talkies or cell phones with those out on the street. The cast is all Saudi. Al-Mansour wrote the script and it is a personal vision of her nation, including celebratory aspects as well as criticism.

haifaa-al-mansour__140301003842

Wadjda shows, in ways oblique and overt, what happens in a culture that shares a vested interest in turning women into literally non-persons. But what is also there in the film is a funny and well-told story about a very real little girl, trying to get along at school, trying to get along with her parents, trying to get away with as much as possible without getting in trouble, basically. She’s a wisecracker. She’s an eye roller. She’s played with beautiful natural-ness by the remarkable Waad Mohammed. The way she lolls on the couch playing a rugby video game with her dad is a perfect example: her body language is totally relaxed, there is no self-conscious “acting” happening. Many of her scenes are with the phenomenal Reem Abdullah, the actress playing her mother, arguably the biggest (and really only) female star in Saudi Arabia. The two of them create a poignant and extremely real mother-daughter relationship. There are other Saudi artists involved (including the excellent Ahd, who plays the severe principal at Wadjda’s school), but many of them have had to travel to Europe or America in order to study film, make films, work. But Reem Abdullah has stayed in Saudi Arabia. I have never seen her work before (she stars in a popular Saudi television series), and she’s fantastic in Wadjda. The layers she reveals of her character’s experience, the amount of stuff she allows us to see (insecurity, judgment, despair, rage, helplessness, gentleness, vanity, sexual anxiety and desire) … it’s fearless, especially considering that the “Saudi woman” is practically non-existent in terms of representation out there in the world of art. Mostly we just see fully-cloaked-and-covered figures. Reem Abdullah is a pioneer, too.

ra

The plot:

10-year-old Wadjda wants to get a bike. Her best friend is a little boy named Abdullah (Abdullrahman Al Gohani), and he has a bike, and she wants to race him. But bikes cost money. Bikes are also “not for girls.” Her mother warns, you might lose your virginity while riding one. But Wadjda is the type of person who will not take No for an answer. So she begins a secret campaign to raise enough money to buy the bike she wants, a gleaming green beauty she first sees floating above a wall on back of a truck like a vision from a dream, and then parked on the sidewalk outside of a toy store. That’s her bike.

wajdja3

In order to raise money, she makes twisted yarn bracelets and sells them at school, up-selling them to unwitting classmates. She’s a natural hustler. Any time anyone asks her to do something, she puts a price on it. “Sure, I’ll take that note to that boy outside for you … it’ll cost you 20 riyals.” In one upsetting scene with Abdullah, her little friend, she starts to cry with frustration over something, hiding her face in her hands. Abdullah is 10 years old. He loves his friend. He does not know how to handle the situation and finally says, “I’ll give you 10 riyals if you stop crying.” Without looking up, Wadjda shoots her hand out. It’s hilarious.

She bargains and hustles the store manager (Ibrahim Almozael, his performance cracked my heart!), trying to talk him down from his original price. The answer is always No, but he does “hold” the bike for her, reserving it until she can raise the money. He looks at her, and you can tell he quietly admires her, he wants her to get the bike. He won’t GIVE it to her, though, because what would be the lesson in THAT.

WADJDA-articleLarge

Wadjda is an indifferent student, but when she hears that there will be a Quran-recitation competition with a money-prize for first place that could get her that bike with money to spare, she signs up for the competition and puts her nose to the grindstone. It’s sheer drudgery at first. Her religious teacher is frustrated with her, praising the other students, warning them that if they have their period they have to touch the book with Kleenexes. All of the girls giggle. The religious teacher snaps, “You think it’s funny? It’s not funny.” This is a tough woman to please, man. Wadjda is daunted by what she has to do, but she remembers how much she wants that dreamy green bike.

wadjda-waad-mohammed-1

The limitations placed on the filming, its pioneering aspect, the danger surrounding the whole endeavor might make one tempted to grade the film on a curve. Thankfully, Wadjda doesn’t need that. It’s a remarkable achievement, confident and deep, funny and angry, and the story (more complex than it seems on the surface) holds together in taut and loose ways, similar to the multiple threads woven together to make bracelets like the ones Wadjda sells in school.

2349077637

The moment where Wadjda first gets a glimpse of the bike is a perfect example of Al-Mansour’s visual sense, its magic and energy, its perfect right-ness for the moment. Wadjda wanders aimlessly through a dusty construction lot, her veil falling off her head in the wind, and she suddenly stops, seeing something in the distance. At that moment of connection, the camera starts moving away from her, quickly, at an angle, emblematic of the emotion of the moment and also representing the thing that she is looking at, moving away from her. In the next moment, we see what she sees: there’s a white wall on the edge of the construction lot, and beyond that is a busy road full of traffic. Floating above it, on the back of an unseen truck, is a green bike. The camera swoops along, following the bike, moving away from Wadjda, and then moving back in to her, as her eyes follow the vision into the bright desert distance.

wajdja2

wajdja

The final 10 minutes of the film brings a release of emotion that made me think my heart would burst.

Wadjda is not a stand-in or a symbol for Oppressed Womankind. But, of course, throughout the film, incessantly, she is reminded that the world is not set up for her freedom, or for her getting what she wants, in things large or small. She is about to “come of age,” and girls disappear completely into marriage (and under the full abbayah) at extremely young ages (one of her classmates, a pudgy girl of around 12 years old, is married off). Wadjda does not even experience that larger world as unfair, or not in a way that consumes her every thought. What is the MOST unfair is that no one will let her have a bike! THAT’S the real injustice.

132053288_movie_452066c

Keeping the focus on that bicycle allows the film enormous freedom to make its larger points, to weave in the problems of the adult world, as well as the truly uneasy worry, trembling throughout, over what will happen to Wadjda. Will she get her bike, for sure is an important question. But what then? She’s smart and capable and she also has a high tolerance for sticking-to-it through unpleasant tasks, all qualities that will make a wonderful well-rounded adult. But what is there for her in Saudi Arabia? Marriage in a couple of years? Even her strict traditional mother has moments of uncertainty, and her lashing out at Wadjda about her tomboyish-ness, her desire for a bike, is really a lashing-out at the world that will not just let her daughter be whoever she wanted to be. SHE wasn’t allowed to be who she wanted to be, why should her daughter experience anything different? And so tyranny is passed down. It’s an inner tyranny.

1694113949

There is a strong critique of the whole women-aren’t-allowed-to-drive issue, an issue that has made international news in the last 10 years, with various protests spearheaded by Saudi women. Wadjda’s mum works, but she can’t drive to work, and so Wadjda’s dad has to devote a large amount of his salary to pay for a private driver. This causes resentment, economic and otherwise. It inhibits women, for sure (there’s a great shot of the big van filled with veiled women, waiting to be driven to their destination), but it also inhibits men. It’s a waste of money, first of all, and it also places regular guys in a patriarchal position which sucks, all around. Nobody is happy. This is an often un-talked-about aspect of misogynistic cultures, and Wadjda portrays it head-on, especially in the character of Iqbal (Mohammed Zahir), the guy hired to drive Wadjda’s mother to work. He is rude to Wadjda’s mum, abusive even. As far as he is concerned, he is driving around worse than second-class citizens, he’s got a bunch of animals in his car, and he has no compunction about treating them contemptuously. Wadjda sasses him to his face, “You have no manners!” and Wadjda’s mum also reprimands him for his tone, but what else can she do? She’s trapped.

The film works so well, ultimately, because of director Haifaa Al-Mansour’s meticulous and emotional brick-by-brick approach to the collage of events that make up the film. The mother and father’s relationship. The strict principal of the school disciplining girls for laughing out loud in public, or playing hopscotch in the school yard where men can see them. The boring-ness of school lessons. The comfort of forbidden pop songs on cassette tapes. Wadjda’s sometimes-fraught sometimes-affectionate relationship with her mother. And the bike, the substance of things hoped for, the dreamworld of movement/motion/freedom! And there’s a whole other level of grownup-stuff going on in the periphery, stuff Wadjda picks up on but assumes, “Meh, that’s not my problem. I want my bike.” But it becomes her problem.

There’s a moment involving a diagram of Wadjda’s family tree that is, along with Jafar Panahi walking out into the waves of the Caspian Sea in Closed Curtain, the most painful image put onscreen last year.

Wadjda-1-800x492

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Books: The Redress of Poetry ‘Dylan the Durable? On Dylan Thomas,’ by Seamus Heaney

On the essays shelf (yes, there are still more books to excerpt in my vast library. I can’t seem to stop this excerpts-from-my-library project. I started it in 2006!)

NEXT BOOK: Seamus Heaney’s The Redress of Poetry.

Dylan Thomas was a major figure in Heaney’s childhood. His poetry readings, captured on radio broadcasts, released on vinyl, Thomas reading his own poetry, reading other people’s poetry, etc., were in everyone’s collections. (I love that Ethan Hawke’s character references having one of those records in Before Sunrise, Dylan Thomas reading Auden.) In this lecture, Heaney speaks movingly about what Thomas meant to him as a young man, striving towards something, he didn’t know what, looking for voices that could launch him into some other dimension, a dimension of more connectedness, more clarity and authenticity. Heaney, as a grown man, can now perceive Thomas’ flaws in a way he couldn’t back then, swept away by Thomas’ sheer bravura love of words, his drowning in the sounds of things, etc. Heaney talks about the flaws a lot in this lecture, and it’s interesting stuff, especially if you’re on the outside of that particular obsession. For example, I love Dylan Thomas, and he’s one of those quotable poets that I can recite by heart without even remembering memorizing him, and I read Christmas in Wales and Under Milkwood before I knew I was supposed to be impressed or whatever, I read them as a kid, and LOVED them. Digging deeper into them than that, into critical appraisal, was just not part of my experience of him. We learned “Do Not Go Gentle” in class, it’s part of the canon (and rightly so), but beyond that I did not go. So it’s fascinating to hear Heaney’s extremely personal and yet really well-thought-out take on Thomas: how Thomas seemed to him when he was young and impressionable, and how Thomas seems to him now. Heaney makes an interesting observation about negative criticism of Thomas:

Indeed, I have the impression that negative criticism of Dylan Thomas’s work is more righteous and more imbued with this kind of punitive impulse than is usual. Even a nickname like ‘The Ugly Suckling’ has an unusual animus behind it. It often seems less a matter of the poet’s being criticized than of his being got back at, and my guess is that in these occasions the reader’s older self is punishing the younger one who hearkened to Thomas’s oceanic music and credited its promise to bring the world and the self into cosmic harmony.

An interesting perspective on criticism, basically blaming Thomas for not living up to what the CRITIC wanted from him as a young reader.

But, luckily, Heaney does not throw out the baby with the bathwater (Heaney seems categorically opposed to throwing babies out with any kind of water. His whole thing was attempts at not integration, so much, but intersection, an allowing of the possibility that a couple of things can be equally true at the same time.)

Dylan Thomas was famous in his own lifetime, not just for his verse but for his lifestyle and drunken shenanigans. He was a big drunken brat, and his behavior was legendary, and if you go to the White Horse Tavern in New York you can see a plaque commemorating him. The tavern was a big writer’s hangout (it still is), and Thomas spent an evening drinking there, went back to the Chelsea Hotel, and died a couple of days later. If you believe the myth, when he returned to the Chelsea, he declared, “I’ve had 18 straight whiskies. I think that’s the record!” That was the kind of braggadocio he specialized in, and it did him in. Nobody could survive at that speed. Well, Keith Richards did. But very few others can handle it. Thomas encouraged his own bad-boy myth, he was in a state of permanent adolescent rebellion, one of the reason that adolescent boys thrilled to his poems.

Michael Schmidt, in his Lives of the Poets, writes:

Thomas weaves spells. He engages language, rather than expresience. When the spell releases us, nothing is clarified. There is a kind of authority to the word magic of the early poems; in the famous and popular late poems, the magic is all show. If they have a secret, it is the one we all share, partly erotic, partly elegiac. The later poems arise out of personality. There are exceptions. “Poem in October”, with its brilliant details, works like “Refusal to Mourn” and “Do Not Go Gentle” against the tragic grain. In “A Winter’s Tale” Thomas’s rhythmic achievement is at its most subtle. The later work is rhetoric of a high order.

Heaney’s lecture is extremely in-depth and takes a look at much of Thomas’ work, the early stuff, the later stuff, and discusses his own reaction to these poems (first as a young man in the 50s, hearing them on the radio or on vinyl, and now, in the 1990s, with more experience).

I’ll excerpt part of the section that has to do with Thomas’ most famous work, the unforgettable villanelle “Do not go gentle into that good night.”

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Excerpt from The Redress of Poetry, ‘Dylan the Durable? On Dylan Thomas’ by Seamus Heaney

‘Do Not Go Gentle’ is obviously a threshold poem about death, concerned with the reverse of the process which occupied Thomas in ‘Before I Knocked.’ In that earlier poem, the body was about to begin what Thomas calls elsewhere its ‘sensual strut,’ here the return journey out of mortality into ghost hood is about to be made, so in fact the recurrent rhymes of the villanelle could as well have been ‘breath’ and ‘death’ or ‘womb’ and ‘tomb’ – but what we have instead are ‘night’ and ‘light.’ And the night is a ‘good night.’ But, for once, a characteristic verbal tic has become an imaginative strength and not just an irritating cleverness. ‘Good night’ is a pun which risks breaking decorum of the utterance but which turns out in the end to embody its very complexity and force. The mixture of salutation and farewell in the phrase is a perfect equivalent for the balance between natural grief and the recognition of necessity which pervades the poem as a whole.

This is a son comforting a father; yet it is also, conceivably, the child poet in Thomas himself comforting the old ham he had become; the neophyte in him addressing the legend; the green fuse addressing the burnt-out case. The reflexiveness of the form is the right correlative for the reflexiveness of the feeling. As the poem proceeds, exhortation becomes self-lamentation; the son’s instruction to the disappointed father to curse and bless him collapses the distance between the sad height of age and physical decay in the parent and the equally sad eminence of poetic reputation and failing powers in the child. ‘Do Not Go Gentle’ is a lament for the maker in Thomas himself as well as an adieu to his proud and distant schoolteacher father. The shade of the young man who once expressed a fear that he was not a poet, just a freak user of words, pleads for help and reassurance from the older, sadder, literary lion he has become, the one who apparently has the world at his feet.

Not that Thomas intended this meaning, of course. One of the poem’s strengths is its outwardly directed address, its escape from emotional claustrophobia through an engagement with the specifically technical challenges of the villanelle. Yet that form is so much a matter of crossing and substitutions, of back-tracks and double-takes, turns and returns, that it is a vivid figure for the union of opposites, for the father in the son, the son in the father, for life in death and death in life. The villanelle, in fact both participates in the flux of natural existence and scans and abstracts existence in order to register its pattern. It is a living cross-section, a simultaneously open and closed form, one in which the cycles of youth and age, of rise and fall, growth and decay find their analogues in the fixed cycle of rhymes and repetitions.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: Three Night Stand (2015)

large_MV5BMTQzNjAxMDYyNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTg2NjY5MDE_._V1__SX1216_SY712_

My review of Three Night Stand, a French-farce-ish rom-com is now up at Rogerebert.com.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Review: Appropriate Behavior (2015); from writer/director/star Desiree Akhavan

large_MV5BMTQzMzQ5MTE2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTQ3ODI2MzE_._V1__SX1216_SY712_

I had been looking forward to seeing this: written and directed by Desiree Akhavan, who also stars as the lead character, Shirin. The movie uses all the familiar cliches of a Brooklyn-area hipster lesbian love story, with an insistently deadpan tone, and yet with the added depth and complexity of the lead character being the daughter of immigrants from Iran, and not “out” to her parents. So it’s a love story. It’s also the story of being the child of immigrants, of having feet in two worlds, the American and the Persian.

I really liked it.

My review of Appropriate Behavior is now up at Rogerebert.com.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Jafar Panahi Will Not Be Silenced

Iranian-film-director-Jaf-007

Jafar Panahi was arrested in 2009 on the suspicion of making a film critical of the regime in Iran. He was not allowed to travel, to give interviews, to make films. He was in prison. He went on hunger strike. Finally, the sentence came down, and it was devastating: A 20-year ban on making films. People made impassioned speeches about him from the international stages of the Berlinale and the Cannes Film Festival. I hosted an Iranian Film Blog-a-thon on my site, just as a way to show solidarity and to (in my own small way) deny the Iranian regime the privacy with which they wished to operate. Jafar Panahi is official Iran’s worst nightmare: a local artist, critical of the conditions in Iran, especially the position of women (which he lampoons in Offside, a great film, and shows with a documentary-like realism and brutality in The Circle), who makes films that have a passionate international following, people in Evil America who sit around waiting for “the next Panahi.” The regime HATES that. It’s awesome. Keep hating, haters. You’re not the boss of me. Persecuted and hounded for years, they finally “got” Panahi, and it was a devastating time for those of us who love Panahi’s films.

But since then … we have had two extraordinary films from him (one smuggled out of Iran inside a pastry to make its premiere at Cannes). People who collaborate with him are also arrested, their passports revoked. And yet the stakes are so high, and Panahi is so beloved, that people are willing to take those risks. The mere FACT of the EXISTENCE of these films is an extraordinary testament to not only Panahi but any oppressed artist anywhere.

The films he has made since the official ban came down have been This Is Not a Film (my review here) and Closed Curtain (my review here, a film which was on my individual Top Ten for 2014.) After Closed Curtain, I found myself thinking, despairingly, “Where can he go from here? Is he saying goodbye?” The title alone seemed to suggest his state of mind.

He is not supposed to be doing ANY of this, remember. He is supposed to have vanished. He is supposed to accept silence (as his heartbreaking letter smuggled somehow to Isabella Rossellini, read from the stage of the Berlinale attests).

And yet: he has not accepted the ban on his career. Officially, in Iran, he has been silenced. Unofficially, and illegally, he has continued to make films. He is a hero. Not to just us “out here” but to his fellow Iranians. Because of the Internet and bootleg DVDs, his films are seen by everyone there. A total crackdown is impossible in this day and age, and it’s a beautiful and precarious thing.

Jafar Panahi has a new film coming out. !!

It is called Taxi and it will be premiering at the Berlinale, a film festival with which Panahi has a warm and affectionate relationship. He will not be allowed to travel there, of course.

But another film exists. Panahi has been making another movie.

Vaclav Havel, when asked how he had survived under Communism for so long (with constant arrests and persecution and imprisonment, when his plays were famous around the world but virtually unproduced in his own country, all of his works banned), would say that he lived “as if” he were free. Spoken like a man of the theatre, reminiscent of the concept of Stanislavsky’s “magic What If.” To an actor, the question “What if” is akin to a magic spell, like it is for a child. The “what if” becomes as real as the reality before you. And so Vaclav Havel, in the face of enormous oppression, made the choice to live AS IF he were free.

Jafar Panahi is doing the same thing. He is not free, but he is living AS IF he were.

My heart is so full of emotion right now.

I can’t wait to see it.

Posted in Directors, Movies | Tagged , , | 3 Comments