Transitions

So it’s that time of year. The festive season! The time of year where everybody starts to wind down, make plans with family and friends and perhaps the most fun part of the season, Christmas parties. These are the time to catch up with friends and family that you might not have seen in a while and eat good food, and drink good wine/beer/egg nog, whatever your preference. As much as I love my family and friends, I think it’s the work Christmas party that I look forward to most. It is definitely the most interesting. You know the scenario. There’s the “organiser”, the one who for better or for worse, is determined to get everybody in the spirit. She/he is the one who decorates the office, organises the office secret Santa and spends the days leading up to the party, sending out reminder emails and geeing everybody up for the event of the year. There’s the “conscientious objectors”, the ones who despite the best attempts by the organiser, refuse to attend the party on the grounds of some reason that is fundamentally important to them. There’s the “wall flowers”, the ones who sit on the side because they are either new to the office or afraid that once that crack the bubbles, their drunken “alter-ego” will attend in their place, dancing the night away and telling everybody how much they love them. Then there’s the “instigators”, the ones who magically appear with “just one more” round of shots or a bottle of wine. They are the first to buy alcohol, the ones who as soon as the food is consumed suggest that everybody do a tequila slammer, and after observing the mess they have made, are the first to go home. Then lastly and perhaps most importantly to the party’s survival, the “party animals”. The ones who consume 50 per cent of the bar tab alone. The one’s who dance the funky chicken or decide to krump on the dinner table (depending on the age of the party animal). The one’s who insist that the party needs to move onto the night club precinct because of both a desire to party on, but also because they have been asked by the function manager to leave the venue due to intoxication and need a new location. The interesting thing is attendees not only transition from their professional self, to their party self, no matter which archetype they fit into, but can also transition from one archetype to another throughout the duration of the party. For example, the organiser may transition to party animal, either because they decide to get loose after a stressful period of organising, or in an attempt to liven up the party after the crickets start croaking. The instigator can also become the party animal. In their efforts to influence everybody else to get drunk, they may participate in one too many tequila slammers, and they themselves become the victim of their own instigating. The party animal can also become the wall flower, although that’s normally at work the next week, after they experience flash backs from the night of stripping down to their undies and throwing up on the dance floor.  

So what was the relevance of the analysis of the work Christmas party? Well (a) because I had mine on Friday night, but more so (b) because it is a fun example of transitions and this was the dominant theme coming out of this week’s films.

MOVIE OF THE WEEK

Gandhi

Director: Sir Richard Attenborough

Starring: Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, Sir John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Edward Fox and Ian Charleson

This week of movie watching was the best yet. I had an autobiographical film and a child hood favourite. I have to be honest here, I am slightly intimidated to review this film, as it was so fantastic, I don’t know if I will be able to do it justice. But I’ll give it go.

Gandhi is about the life of Mohandas K Gandhi (he later became known as Mahatma meaning “Great Soul”), a man who not only bought about the separation and independence of India from the British Empire, but who was also responsible for legislative changes in South Africa. In studying history, we so often see injustices bought to an end by a violent revolt or revolution of some kind, but what made Gandhi so special, was his commitment to non-violent resistance. He taught his admirers (and it was not just a few, in fact it was almost all of India who followed his teachings), to bring attention to injustice by non-cooperation. He was fundamentally against complying with laws that were in any way unjust or inequitable, however he was absolutely committed to non-violent means of defying these laws, even if this meant being beaten, incarcerated or worse being killed. And the movie depicts this so well.   

The film starts in 1893 with Mohandas travelling through South Africa on the train to take up his new posting as a solicitor. He is well dressed and is travelling in a first class carriage. He is approached by two of the train’s staff and despite having a valid first ticket, is thrown off the train. The movie depicts this as the moment where Gandhi first becomes aware of social injustice and commits himself to fighting this peacefully at every turn. These are the years of apartheid in South Africa, and not only did this apply to its indigenous inhabitants, but anybody “of colour”. During this period, both South Africa and India were part of the British Empire, so there was a large Indian community in South Africa. Like many colonial nations of the time, laws were blatantly racist and functioned to perpetuate the power of the white man over the man of colour. In the film, Mohandas draws attention to this, by burning his pass, which by law was supposed to be carried by all Indians at all times, simply because they were Indian. The pass was a physical representation of registration, which again was required of all Indians living in South Africa. There is a scene which sees Mohandas severely beaten and arrested for burning his pass and that of other Indians who had presented to protest registration. Through non-violent protest, Mohandas drew international attention to the social injustice in South Africa for its Indian citizens, and the South African General was forced to come to a comprise with Gandhi on registration. The film does not go into detail about the terms of this agreement.

The next part of the film depicts Gandhi’s political efforts in India. Between 1915 and 1945, Gandhi commits himself to liberating India from the British Empire, seeing British rule as another form of social injustice. Due to his efforts in South Africa, Gandhi is already well known when he returns to India and immediately joins forces with the Indian Congress. He organises wide spread civil disobedience, in the form of strikes, public protest and defiance of any law, which sees an Indian being treated differently to an Anglo citizen. One protest sees the British Army massacre over one thousand unarmed Indian protestors. This leads to violent protest all over India. In an effort to stop the violence, Gandhi fasts almost to the point of death. During his time in India, seeing poverty as another form of social injustice, Gandhi and his wife, established an “ashram” (a form of religious hermitage) and live like those who were in poverty. This is the point in the film where Gandhi stops wearing suits as a solicitor would, but rather traditional Indian attire. Not only does he wear it, but he makes all his own clothes, as any impoverished Indian of that time would. He claims that in order to understand poverty, you have to experience it.

Eventually, after many years of civil disobedience and non-violent protest, plus many failed negotiations, due to Gandhi’s absolute commitment to Indian independence, the British withdraw from India. The sad thing is that there is then a religious war between the Hindu Indians and the Muslim Indians over power. The solution: create a new country for Muslim Indians, Pakistan. This leads to more violent anarchy and Gandhi, now being in his early 70s begins to fast again, declaring he would not eat until the violence stopped. Despite pleading from his supporters and friends (his wife had passed away by this point) he refuses to eat until the violence stops. Again, he was knocking on death’s door, but due to his national status and the love he had from all of India, the violence does stop and he is saved. In an attempt to bring about peace and ease the country’s unrest, against the advice of his closest confidantes, Gandhi travels to Pakistan. Sadly, he is shot by an extremist and the nation goes into mourning.

From the little study I have done about Gandhi, I thought the film captured his life and achievements really well. As I stated earlier, the movie depicts a major transition. Gandhi goes from a modest Indian solicitor, to an ideological leader. Ben Kingsley was absolutely fantastic in the role. He embodied Gandhi’s gentle nature, but equally his determination and resolve. He even looked like him. A very believable performance! The sets were amazing. As I was watching it, I actually felt almost as if I was watching a documentary. It looked what I imagine early 20^th century India would have looked like. And I was absolutely emotionally invested in the film, which to me as I always say, is a sign of a great film. It was three hours long and split over two parts, but it didn’t feel that long. In fact, it left me wanting more. I was actually sad when it finished.

All in all a fantastic movie and well deserving of the Best Film award!

9/10

Tootsie

Director: Sydney Pollack

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Bill Murray and Sydney Pollack

So, this was the first film that I have watched as part of this challenge, which I have already seen. Not only once, but many many times. It was a childhood favourite in fact. Also a really great film!

Tootsie is about an aspiring actor Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman), who takes on the persona of a woman he names Dorothy Michaels, in order to get an acting job to raise money for his friends play. He lands a supporting role on a popular day time soap, after many failed auditions, and after his agent, George (Sydney Pollack) fails to inform him that a part that he was supposed to be put forward for on Broadway has been taken by another actor. The catch is the part is a FEMALE hospital administrator.  Despite the fact that he is a very unattractive looking woman, he manages to fool those of his co-stars and the crew on set and the viewing audience (perhaps it’s because Dustin Hoffman has such a small frame and actually does make a dress look good). The irony is that the man, who is a self-confessed womaniser as a man, actually becomes a voice for female empowerment on the show as a woman. This mostly transpires because he is trying to avoid having to kiss his male co-star, and will do anything to avoid this ranging from adlibbing feminist inspired lines, to slapping him in the face. But no matter what the means or motivation for doing what he did on the show, he still speaks to many women as Dorothy Michaels. He in fact becomes so popular, that he is signed to the show for another year, playing the part of Emily Kimberley. The fact that he does not want to play the part of a woman for the rest of his career, coupled with his need to tell the woman has fallen for Julie (Jessica Lange) that he is both a man and in love with her, leads him to reveal himself on the live on the show. In the end, he is able to help his friend fund the play and he gets the girl.

I think what made Tootsie so good, was despite the content of the film (a man dressing as a woman), the movie actually invokes a lot of emotion. There are some funny moments on screen, particularly in the films climax when Michael’s girlfriend, Sandy (Teri Garr) finds love heart shaped chocolates in Michael’s house from a man, so she draws the conclusion that Michael is gay (the chocolates are for Dorothy, but she does not know Michael is Dorothy). Also, when Michael falls for Julie he tries to kiss her as Dorothy and she thinks he is a lesbian. By the way, excuse the interlude, but Teri Garr plays a fantastic role, as kooky, crazy and unstable Sandy. Loved her in this part. But you actually feel for Michael. It’s different to other films that involve gender transformation, where it’s all about the comedy of taking on the alternate gender (think Mrs Doubtfire when Robin Williams’ fake boobs set on fire over the stove top). It’s actually more about how Michael transforms as a man, once he has experienced what it is like to be a woman. After this he is able to commit to one woman and recognise the importance of being honest and faithful. He also becomes a lot more aware of how his actions impact on others. At the start of the film, he is frankly kind of a jerk, unwilling to take direction and unwilling to change his viewpoints, making him very difficult to work with and leading to perpetual unemployment. By the end of the film, he expresses a lot of remorse for fooling everybody and the hurt that he caused by lying about who he was.

A really good film and worth the watch even if you just want to see Dustin in a dress.

7/10

Until next week, “that’s it! This is the last pill, the good bye pill” (Elizabeth, Drop Dead Fred)

The first time

So this week was all about first times and new experiences. It started off last Wednesday, when I learnt how to play a few chords on my five year old guitar. So, my friend Jimmy has decided that he wants to learn guitar and he’s also decided that I’m coming along on the ride with him. The idea that this is a first time experience may sound bizarre given that I referred to my guitar as “the five year old guitar”, but it’s true, it’s a new experience. Five years ago I had a short lived dream that I was going to be the next Jewel (whatever happened to that broad?) I had one guitar lesson with a friend and that was it. My guitar was doomed to a life of dust collecting.

My next first time experience came on Sunday night, when I saw Muse live in concert. I thought the show they put on in terms of the special effects was quite amazing, but I don’t think they as a band transitioned well from studio to stage. Matthew Belamy was a bit “too cool for school”, not conversing with the audience at all. Plus, I think they rely on the sound engineering of the studio a lot to create their unique sound, so the songs did not sound anywhere near as good as they do on CD.

My next first time experience was not at all pleasant and occurred on Tuesday night. I stepped on a bee and got stung. The randomness of this I think will be hard to beat. I stepped on it, not in the park amongst the green grass, but in my bedroom. My bedroom is not located in the country, where the unfortunate create might have lost its way for a mere moment and flown through the window on its way to a sunflower, but rather is located on the outskirts of a busy city. How does that happen? But it did, and I have a swollen, itchy foot to prove it.

My last first time experience occurred last night, when I watched Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark. Yes, I have never seen an Indiana Jones movie before. What did I think, well read on!

But before that, I must review On Golden Pond!

MOVIE OF THE WEEK

On Golden Pond

Director: Mark Rydell

Starring: Henry Fonda, Katherine Hepburn and Jane Fonda

Before I talk about On Golden Pond, I have to briefly revert back to last week’s blog. I realised after posting that I didn’t rate a movie of the week. Now, it may have been obvious from the review, but I definitely rated Chariots over Reds. Both good films, but I just felt more after watching Chariots.

So, onto On Golden Pond. This movie reminded me quite a lot of Ordinary People. It was a family drama, only this time the dysfunctional relationship was between father and daughter (characters portrayed by the Fonda’s. I wonder if there is any truth to life imitating art in this case). Well can I just say that I now understand Jane’s fame. You see, I am a child born in the 80s, so by the time I was old enough to understand celebrity, Jane Fonda was the star of her own line of exercise videos. I missed the movie star period. I thought she was really great on screen and just absolutely stunning in terms of looks. It was before super skinny became the pinnacle of beauty and curves were a bit more celebrated. It was also great to see a Hollywood legend like Katherine Hepburn in action. Great casting really!

So what’s the movie about? Well it’s about a family, who are brought back together by a step son and a holiday cabin. The movie starts with retired married couple, Norman (Henry Fonda) and Ethel Fayer (Katherine Hepburn), arriving at their holiday cabin at Golden Pond. George is a retired professor, who is not only having extreme difficulty coming to terms with the fact that he is ageing, but also has a major chip on his shoulder, which has impacted on his relationship with his daughter, Chelsea (Jane Fonda). Norman has reached a point in his life, where he is pretty much just waiting to die. He has little hope for the future, has lost complete confidence in himself due to his memory loss and is totally disconnected from his one and only daughter due to an ongoing feud, stemming from her resentment on how he treated her as a child. Norman’s only reason for living is his wife, Ethel. They have a lasting and true love, the kind of love that could only develop through time and commitment. Whilst, Henry is quite bitter and resentful that he is getting older, Ethel is the complete opposite. She is cheerful and embracing of her age. She views it as an opportunity to spend more time doing what they have always wanted to do, like spending time at their holiday cabin, picking strawberries and cooking fish. Her catch phrase in the movie is “oh don’t be an old poop”. Whilst she is quite endearing and initially presents as the sweet old lady, the peacemaker in the family, she is quite feisty and has a bit of a wild side. She goes skinny dipping with Chelsea in the film and at its climax, she slaps Chelsea in the face when she speaks derogatorily about Norman, stating “he is also the man I love”.

Chelsea visits Norman and Ethel at Golden Pond, with her new boyfriend Bill Ray and his son, Billy Ray. From the start it is obvious that Chelsea and Norman have issues. Norman is quite cold, constantly making sarcastic comments under his breath and generally being unwelcoming towards her and her new family. Chelsea has been married before and it seems that there is a bit of a back story there, but no detail is given. Chelsea and Bill Ray leave Golden Pond after a few days to go on a trip to Europe and Chelsea asks her mother if they can leave Billy Ray there with her and Norman. In an effort to try and be the peacemaker (whilst she loves Norman, she does appreciate that he has treated Chelsea poorly) she agrees to this. Norman of course is less than enthused, as is Billy Ray.

To the surprise of everybody, especially Norman, he and Billy Ray actually form a really tight bond. They fish together every day and do the things that he should have done with Chelsea as a child. She of course finds this very difficult to accept and this is when she gets into a fight with her mother, resulting in the slapping incident. Of course because this is a movie, instead of hating both her parents, she has an epiphany. She discovers that she is being a victim (it’s true) and takes charge, by talking to her father and asking him to be open to changing their relationship. She seals the deal, by doing a back flip off the dock, something she could never do as a child because according to Norman she was “too fat”. The movie ends with a sense of hopefulness, with Norman and Ethel strong as ever, Chelsea and Norman committed to improving their relationship, Chelsea and Bill Ray becoming engaged (and I guess this time around her relationship might work because she is resolving her “daddy issues”) and Billy Ray having a more stable home life (no details are provided, but it is insinuated that his relationship with his mother has broken down and that is why he is living with Chelsea and his Dad).

I really enjoyed the movie actually. I thought Ethel was a fantastic character. Kind and gentle, motherly, but also feisty, kinky and funny. I felt for both Norman and Chelsea, which as I always say, if a movie can make you feel something then in my opinion it’s a good movie. I understand why Chelsea is so resentful and angry with her father. He treated her poorly and continued to do so. But I also felt for Norman, because for whatever reason he could not express his love for his daughter. Unlike in Ordinary People where it is obvious the mother just doesn’t love her son, this movie is different. Norman does love Chelsea. This is evidenced when he and Billy Ray are out fishing and he keeps accidentally calling him Chelsea, like the experience of being out there reminds him of when she was a child. For whatever reason he is stunted and unable to tell her. Sad sad sad. But all ends well, which is nice.

Overall I give it at 6.5/10!!

Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Ark

Director: Stephen Spielberg

Starring: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen and Paul Freeman

So, it may sound crazy, but yes, I have never seen Indiana Jones before. I was expecting your sort of typical run of the mill, die hard style, action movie. But as my friend Chris said, it was “fun”. I don’t know about anybody else, but when I was a little girl, my Dad used to refer to the evil characters in the movie as the “badies” and the protagonist or hero if you will and his side kicks as the “goodies”. This movie is definitely your goodie vs badie variety movie. Basically it is about this kick arse archaeologist, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) who is hired by the U.S. government to obtain the missing ark, which holds the broken pieces of the tablet that Moses carried down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments on it. Indy is trying to get to this before the Nazis. This movie is definitely action, but almost silly. There is no real gore, but rather slap stick sort of violence. You know where it looks completely fake, but it’s almost supposed to. Like the director is just having a crazy fun time with the audience.

As a whole, I thought the story was quite weak. Just a typical adventure movie. I’m not really getting why it was nominated for an Academy Award. Maybe it was the first of its kind. The stunts were pretty amazing. But I thought the most puzzling part was the end. It went all supernatural, which was weird because it really had no other supernatural elements. The German’s steal the ark from Indy and they take it to a secret island (they steal it from him on the sea, whilst he is taking the ark back to America). They open that ark and I guess the power trapped in it comes out and kills them all (like it literally melts their faces off). Indy and Marion (Karen Allen), the leading lady and Indy’s love interest, survive because they don’t look directly at the light coming out of the ark. Random random! In the end Indy takes it back to America and the secret service take it off him. The last scene is this ware house man, transporting the ark in a wooden crate, into a secret warehouse, where there are literally hundreds of other crates with “top secret” written on it. I guess this supposed to be a reference to how much the American government keeps secret from the population.

Again, at the risk of being unpopular, I didn’t like it. I found it boring and had to keep asking Tim to tell me what was happening because I kept tuning out.

3/10

Until next week, “good bye little one” (Willow Ufgood, Willow)

Bleh

Bleh is the word of the day. Bleh mentally and bleh physically. As I sit here staring at the remains of a KFC Combo that I shouldn't have eaten (but it was delicious) and ask myself the question "why are you engaging in food therapy, it never works?" (but for those five glorious minutes of eating that deep fried goodness, I did feel almost euphoric), I just can't help but feel sorry for myself. Why the woeful attitude? Well it’s been a difficult week at work, perhaps the most difficult since I started in my new position.  Assertiveness! Just a word for many, but for me well..... it’s my Mt Everest. The question that continues to perplex me, how does one be assertive, without allowing the crippling fear of “pissing somebody off” override the need to be assertive. This week there have been a few situations which have called for assertiveness and that fear has taken over me. Perhaps this is very fitting though, as the two movies I watched last week, Reds and Chariots of Fire, both had leading protagonists, who were strong in their resolves and absolutely unshakeable in their beliefs and values, despite many critics. Something to be aspired to I think.

I would just like to point out that this was my biggest challenge as of two hours ago. You know what it is now? Writing this post without screaming! Why you ask? Well I just spent two hours writing this and then lost it, so actually this is a re-post of my original post. Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, on-would we go!

Reds

Director: Warren Beatty

Starring: Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton

Before I talk about Reds, I feel the need to provide some pre-context. Before undertaking this challenge, I made a promise to myself that I would not read any material about the films before watching them. I did this because I wanted to be an empty palate, uninfluenced and completely open, when watching the films, without any predisposing ideas that might impact on the experience of watching them and my own personal views about them. However, this week I feel that the two movies I watched may have been the exception to this rule.  This is mostly because they are historical biographies and unfortunately I did not know anything about the lives of those depicted in the film. During my post viewing reading, I learned a lot more about the characters and felt more of an impact emotionally, once I knew more about them. Nevertheless, being a big fan of historical biographical films, it was a good week for meJ

Reds, depicts the political career of American Communist John Reed (Warren Beatty) and his romantic relationship with feminist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). John Reed was a leader in the Communist movement in America, a writer (he wrote a famous text, Ten Days That Shook The World) and journalist, who was present in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. As with any Hollywood epic, the film has romance, and the primary plot is about the relationship between John and Louise, with his political career being the subplot to the movie. According to my post-viewing reading, the romantic relationship between John and Louise is historically accurate, however I am unsure whether the events surrounding their relationship and the nature of that relationship as conveyed on screen are correct. Anyway, true or not, their relationship is presented as being quite tumultuous with various break-ups and arguments occurring throughout the film. Their problems stem mostly from John’s attitude of “free love” and Louise’s inability to commit to this philosophy. She does try this, even having a brief relationship with playwright Eugene O’Neill (Jack Nicholson), which apparently is also historically accurate, but in the end, really only wants John. She breaks off her relationship with Eugene, after John returns from a long period of travel and proposes to her.

Their relationship is also challenged by John’s constant travelling, due to his involvement in the Communist Movement.  After the proposal, they soon break up again, after Louise is unable to accept the affairs that John has been having. They reunite again, when John asks her to go to Russia with him to cover the Russian Revolution. She only agrees to go on the proviso that there is no “funny business”, but of course funny business occurs and they are reunited. I guess it takes a revolution to fix some people’s relationships. Following many months in Russia, they return to the United States, committed to each other and to the idea of settling down together. Unfortunately for Louise, John’s passion and drive for the political movement that was occurring in America at the time and his desire to be a part of that, see’s him return to Russia without her. Whilst she is furious about it, she agrees to remain true to him, on the condition that he return by July the following year. He agrees to this and remains true to his promise, but unfortunately is prevented from leaving by Russian bureaucrats, who refuse to grant him a train pass to travel through Eastern Europe (the only way to travel safely during post-Revolutionary times) as they see him as being too important to the cause. His dedication to Louise, leads him to try and leave Russia without the pass and he is arrested, but eventually released back to Russian authorities. Louise suspects that something suss is going on and despite many objections from Eugene, goes to Russia to find John. After many months, various treks through snow and a train explosion, which John was travelling on at the time, John and Louise are reunited. Happy ending you think? No! Soon after John develops a terminal illness and dies in Russia.

So what did I think of Reds?  Well, Warren Beatty was the first man in the film industry to get simultaneous nominations for Best Director, Producer, Co-Writer and Starring Actor, since Orson Welles and Citizen Kane. Pretty impressive! And the most interesting part of the film, were the interludes, where witnesses from the time period depicted in the film, provided interviews on their personal recollections of John and Louise and that time in American history. Something I have never seen done in any film. But all in all, it fell short for me. Again, as I have said about so many of the other films, I thought the characters were unlikeable. John was quite unemotional at least in his relationship with Louise and a bit of a player, Louise was erratic, uninhibited and at times unsympathetic because of these personality traits and Eugene was quite cruel, narcissistic and an alcoholic it seems. I just felt quite removed from the characters. Even the end where John dies, it did not invoke much of an emotional response from me. Mostly, I think it happened all too quickly (although nothing else in the film did believe me, it went for three hours). One minute I was watching this big emotional scene, where after many months of being apart and not knowing whether each other was even alive, Louise and John were reunited, to the next minute where John is on his death bed. Then literally five minutes later he dies and then the closing credits roll up on screen. It felt a bit like all this build up and... deadsies!

All in all I give it a 6/10 (really a five, but given it was nominated for twelve Oscars, it probably deserves more than half on the rating scale).

Chariots of Fire

Director: Hugh Hudson

Starring: Nicholas Farrell, Nigel Havers, Ian Charleson, Ben Cross

“DA DA DA DA DA DAAAAAA” “DA DA DA DA DA” “DA DA DA DA DA DAAAAA” “DA DADA DA DAAAAAA” If you’ve got a look of “what the hell” on your face then you obviously haven’t seen Chariots. If you’ve got a cheesy smile across your face (think slow mo shots of people running across the beach if you haven’t seen it) then we’re on the same pageJ

Chariots of Fire was the winner for Best Film for 1981. A major upset according to my post-viewing reading, with Reds being the favourite. The film depicts the sporting career of four athletes on the British track and field team, leading up to the Paris Olympics of 1924. The film has romantic themes, people overcoming adversity, ethic s and a grand and recognisable score, all components of a great film. The film’s main characters are Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a Jewish Brit, who was the fastest 100m runner of his time to come out of Cambridge University (he may still hold this record) and Eric Liddell, a Scotsman with devout Christian values.

Harold Abrahams, was among the fastest athletes of his time, but the film also depicts his personal struggle with the anti-semantic attitudes that were prevalent at the time and could have easily threatened his career. Rather, than allowing this to get the better of him, he actually uses it as a motivator. His desire to show his aggressors that he was a winner pushed him to train harder and to keep going. It also unfortunately caused him to have quite a major chip on his shoulder and made him almost obsessive compulsive about winning. This obsession with winning almost cost him his relationship, but luckily for him, she was very understanding and agreed to wait for him until he made his dream of winning gold come true, which of course he did at the 1924 Olympic Games.

Eric Liddell, experienced a different struggle, that of faith versus desire. Eric, as well as an elite runner, was also a Christian Missionary and had spent much time in China doing missionary work before joining the Olympic team.  Throughout the film, he constantly had to manage the demands of his responsibilities as a Christian and that of being an Olympic athlete. For much of the film, he tries to marry the two by using his celebrity status as a platform for sharing his Christianity. He is eventually faced with a choice between the two, and makes a decision that almost ends his Olympic career. In the film, he finds out on the boat to Paris, that the heat for the 100m sprint is on a Sunday, and being a devout Christian, he did not play sports on a Sunday (Sabbath). Despite, begging, pleading and even threats from British officials, including the Prince of Wales himself, Eric remains strong in his resolve and refuses to compete in the event. Andrew Lindsay (Nigel Havers), a fellow student at Cambridge with Abrahams and competitor on the British Olympic team, offers his spot in the 400m event to Liddell (Lindsay had already won Silver in the hurdles and was happy with this).  Liddell accepts and amazingly goes on to win, despite the fact that he had been training for the 100m and 200m events. I found Liddell to be so inspiring. Even with the Prince of Wales himself, imploring him to compete, he refused to compromise his values. Now that’s assertiveness!

My thoughts on Chariots. I really liked it and thought it was deserving of the Academy Award (although I haven’t watched the other two nominie’s for 1981 yet). The content was interesting, it was presented well and that opening score... well cheesy heavenJ

7/10

Well that’s it loyal readers. Fours hours later and I’m done.

Until next time

“See ya sucker” (Janice Ian, Mean Girls)

An Inspiring Lady (finally)

I'm back.. Yes, I realise this was a long break and you may be thinking "ah-oh she's already bailed on Oscar", but no! In fact, it is Oscar who has been lagging the chain! It has taken me two weeks to get my hands on Michael Apted's, The Coal Miner's Daughter (thank you DVD King, I hope you enjoy my $27. Maybe I should ask for a refund for the free advertising). I refused to watch anymore movies past 1980 (I justified Atlantic City to myself because I would have watched a movie from 1981 in the same week as Tess and The Coal Miners Daughter in keeping up with my three movies a week average). But I felt it was cheating to move on any further. I guess I’ll have to make up for it now by having an anti-social movie week (sorry friends and as it happens my loyal followers hehe). However, I feel the need to further reassure you that I haven't lost my mojo. Picture this scenario: I'm sitting in my apartment, it's approximately 30 degrees and I do not have air conditioning, down stairs I can hear the tantalising, yet taunting sounds of water splashing. Is this the Brisbane River you may ask. No. Is it the sound of a small child jumping in puddles after the rain. No such luck, it doesn't rain in Brisbane. It is actually the sounds of my Brazilian partying neighbours living it up in the pool! What is stopping me from throwing on my bikini and literally diving straight into that pool? It's time to write on my blog! That, and I haven't quite given up on the ill conceived notion that all women have at this time of year. That false and totally proposterous idea of "there's still time to get that bikini body that I need and I can do it whilst sitting on my arse and eating junk food, I've just got to will my tummy off and it will go".

Enough ranting about Brazilians and imaginary tummy tucks, let's talk about The Coal Miner's Daughter!

The Coal Miner's Daughter
Director: Michael Apted
Starring: Sissy Spacek and Tommy Lee Jones

So, I actually really enjoyed this film. The PG rating was less than an inspiring when building myself up to watch it, but it was actually quite good. Admitedly, I am bias as I do enjoy biographical films (who can honestly say they didn't enjoy such films as A Beautiful Mind, The Doors, Schlinder's List etc.) However, I do realise that this genre is boring for many and if you are one of those people, I wouldn't waste my time with this movie.

The movie is based on the 60s and 70s country western singer, Loretta Lyn and her rise to fame. Sissy Spacek stars as Loretta and I have to say, she did a great job. Loretta was from the Appalachian region in America. I have to admit, I had never heard of this region before and so had to look it up. Basically, it is a group of states in America and derives its name from the Mountain Range which runs through it. There are a lot of myths around the people who live there, but basically it is an area where stereotypes, such as Cletus from the Simpsons, comes from. Of course, as of any stereotype it is usually based on some very limited and exaggerated truth, but is by no means absolute (sorry that's the social worker soap box coming out). But, because this movie is based on the autobiography written by Loretta herself, I would hope it is as true to life as possible.

Lorretta is the daugher of a coal miner, who although very loving and kind, is very poor and unable to provide for his family. Loretta, simply due to her circumstances (I'm assuming she had very little schooling due to her family’s financial status), at the beginning of the film is ignorant to the world outside of  her small home town and was probably predestined to follow in the footsteps of her parents. That is until she meets her husband Dolittle Lynn or "Mooney", a nick name based on his involvement in “moon shining” (Tommy Lee Jones). She is instantly attracted to the older and reckless man and they marry within a couple of months of knowing each other. She is a child bride and totally ignorant of what it means to be married, particularly in that time (there is a rather disturbing scene of their wedding night, which I felt went dangerously close to crossing the line into a MA rating). Loretta has a lovely singing voice of which Mooney is only too aware (he heard her singing in one of the very first scenes and soon after he started pursuing her). He capitalises on this by pushing her to go and sing at the Grand Ol Opry (a famous venue for country and western performers in Nashville). She basically becomes an “overnight” superstar, touring with Patsy Cline and following her death, continuing to tour solo. She develops a real sense of independence and although Mooney tries to “reign her in”, she defies him at every turn and becomes her own person. Whilst the relationship between Loretta and Mooney was presented on screen as quite dysfunctional, with Mooney being quite reckless and volatile, yet controlling, as Loretta begins to assert herself, you start to see a tender side of Mooney, which is quite likeable and endearing. In one of the final scenes of the film, Loretta is literally overwhelmed with the pressure of maintaining her super star status and cannot sing. She collapses on stage and Mooney comes to her aid. He picks her up and carries her through the crowd to a safe haven. They also have this play fight in the film, where it starts off serious with Loretta becoming upset with Mooney for purchasing a piece of land to build on without checking with her first. In the end, she recedes, as she too wants a new place and they begin to play fight about where the main bedroom should go, with Mooney backing down.

All in all, I thought it was a good film. Interesting because it was based on a true story and I guess it has that “good guy (in this case girl) coming out on top” subtext (Loretta was a small town girl, with a limited education and very little social skills, who became a super star).  There were some comedic moments too, where Loretta would make some form of a social faux pas due to what she termed, “not stupidity but ignorance”, which provided a lot of amusement (there was one scene where she spoke on the radio about how horney she felt because she thought the meaning of that term was happy or excited).

I give it a 7/10.

Until next time “that’s all folks” (Porky Pig, Who Framed Rodger Rabbit)

Oscar, you bastard!

Well I know it's only three weeks in, but it seems Oscar and I have had our first fight and in front of my parents too. Ohh the humiliation. We kinda made up, but things are definitely still not the same.

First off, it seems that he is not making himself completely available to me. What do I mean by this? I have had extreme difficulty getting The Coalminer's Daughter (circa 1980). This has seriously hindered my ability to get to know him as we cannot move forward until I am able to watch ALL films nominated for Best Film in the Academy Awards of 1980. Point one against Oscar!

Point two...... Tess!!!!!!! What a woeful film, if I've ever seen one. Absolutely, unequivocably, wholeheartedly, absolutely the most horrendous film. I'm sorry, but what was the Academy thinking? Worse still, my parents were up visiting for the weekend with Tim and I. When I told them of my plans for the next twelve months, my Dad being kind of a movie buff, was intrigued and offered to meet with Oscar. So we turned on Roman Polanski's, Tess. Our thoughts? See the review below!

Tess (1980)
Starring: Nastassja Kinski, John Collin, Peter Firth, Rosemary Martin
Director: Roman Palanski

So, this movie is about a self-pitying, passive and drab girl called Tess and is set in England in the 1800s. She is the daughter of an alcoholic farmer called Durbeyfield. Some how (honsestly the first 45 minutes, actually make that the whole film, I had trouble keeping up with what the heck was going on) the father finds out he has descended from the aristocracy, and more specifically the d'Urberville family. He sends Tess to check out a family living nearby, who share the same surname, and the son of this family (Alec) becomes obsessed with her. He forces himself on her, she runs away on a horse and carriage, then suddenly she is working on a farm. The camera pans to a shot of of a lady holding a baby, who she suddenly hands to Tess and she starts breast feeding the child (we can assume at this point that she had a baby and we are now viewing the future). Then suddenly, we cut to a scene of the family home, where a minister knocks on the door, asking to be let in "to bless the baby". Tess' father gets mad and refuses. Suddenly, it cuts to a scene of Tess approaching the minister, asking him for a "Christian burial" (Dad and I were looking at each other with utter confusion at this point, but we assumed the baby died, which it turned out we were right). He refused, so she became slightly emotive at this point and raised her voice beyond a whisper to say "I'll never come to your church again" (wow I really felt that, great directing Roman). Then suddenly, the scene cuts to Tess on a dairy farm, blah blah blah, she meets another man, Angel, doesn't tell him about the bastard child, they get married, he finds out, sends her back to her family but tells her to pretend they are still married for "appearances", the family become homeless because no body is working, she goes back to "raper" man, Angel comes back, she kills raper and then she is hung.

Actually when I was writing this I thought, this sounds like a compelling story, but it just was not presented well. Let's start with the character of Tess. Again, like our female lead in Raging Bull, she was very very passive. Even though eventually, she overpowers the man who was the reason for all her misery by killing him, it didn't seem like the action of a strong person. Rather it seemed like the action of a weak person, who is both not strong enough to reject a man who treated her so badly (Angel comes back and asks for her forgiveness after an unspecified period of time, which is when she kills Alec) and who also allowed herself to get into the position of misery in the first place. She was just so accepting of whatever happened to her and didn't seem to fight any of it. She allowed herself to be in a vulnerable position with Alec, which resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, she accepted Angel dumping her without any objections, even in the final scene when her and Angel are trying to escape the authorities, they make their way to Stone Henge, and whilst Angel was compelling her to continue running, she just gave up and accepted that she would be caught and hung. Hello, you're in Europe Tess, cross the border into another country, you will never be caught. I'm pretty sure there was no "boat people" or "assylum seekers" in 1800-and-whatever and there was certainly no widely broad cast "most wanted list". There was no internet, phones or television for her "mug shot" to be circulated through. She could have gotten away.

More than the female protagonist letting this film down, was the cinemotography. Dad and I just couldn't keep up. Scenes would jump around everywhere, with no evident links between the two, so you were guessing the whole time what was happening. Although chronological, time was not presented in a logical way. Scenes would jump from one to the other, the one before feeling unfinished and the new one being unclear because there was no obvious link with the one previous. Overall it was confused and boring. Characters were quite unemotive, the muscial compositions were quite drab and did not invoke strong emotional reactions (think Indiana Jones, Titanic and Star Wars - the music in these films were almost as memorable as the movies themselves), even the costumes were quite bland (think Shakespeare in Love, Elizabeth, Braveheart - all based on even earlier time periods in the Unite Kingdom then Tess, and the costumes are amazing).

All in all, highly disappointing.
2/10

MOVIE OF THE WEEK
Atlantic City (1981)
Starring: Susan Sarandon, Burt Lancaster and Kate Reid
Director: Louis Malle

This film is what saved my relationship with Oscar. Although, in my opinion not a great movie, it was certainly a step up from Tess. It is about a group of people, some how linked to the underworld of Atlantic City. The main character, Sally has relocated there from Vegas to become a dealer on the tables. This hobo looking couple rolls into town, who we later find out is Sally's sister and husband (Sally's husband left her to run off with her sister, who is an extreme hippie). They come into town because they have no money and need a place to stay, so they approach Sally. Meanwhile, in Sally's building lives Lou. He is a small time criminal, who likes to look at her through the window, pouring lemon all over her body (she works in the seafood buffet at a casino and puts lemon all over her to get rid of the fish smell). Lou lives with an elderly woman, Grace, who is the widow of a criminal acquintance of his and is very demanding, demeaning and bitter. Sally's ex-husband is pointed in the direction of Lou, to sell drugs that he stole from the Mafia. They kill him and Lou continues to sell the stash to a regular buyer. The Mafia finds out that Lou has their drugs and comes after Lou and Sally (by this point Lou has persued Sally and they have had a one night stand). Lou shoots the two goons in a struggle, he and Sally run off, Sally decides to flee abroad where she can persue her dream of becoming a casino dealer and Lou returns home to Atlantic City, where he and Grace sell the remainder of the stash.

Story not the best, pretty standard, but can see it would have been original in its time. The relationship between Grace and Sally's sister, Chrissie, is quite endearing and enjoyable. Here you have a tough, old battle axe and this soft, whimsical hippie, who come together and definitely make for a good laugh.

All in all, not a bad film. I'm yet to see a really bad film with Susan in it.
5/10

Until next week, "good morning, and if I don't see you again, good afternoon, good evening and good night" (Truman Burbank, The Truman Show)

No Ordinary Man

So it's been a busy week. My fiancee Tim and I went and visited what seemed like our 20000nth potential wedding venue and actually couldn't find anything we hated about it. Believe me this is a miracle. Really, we have rejected places for such reasons as the following: ugly carpet, low ceiling, too big, too small, bad smells (eww I still shudder at the thought of that place), weirdly shaped room, freaky wedding coordinator and the list goes on. So to actually be seriously considering a place is very exciting. But, I haven't forgotten about Oscar and have spent two nights and one afternoon with him (one night was a monage situation with Tim joining us).

So, I've watched three of the nominees for best film from the 53rd Academy Awards (1980). It was only 30 years ago, but it just seems like a completely different time. The one thing that I've noticed that is common between all three films is that the directors/writers appear to be presenting these films to a more intelligent audience. Unlike a lot of the movies of today, which often have predictable endings, the exact same storylines (boy meets girl, girl rejects boy for a more attactive one, but then realises the love of her life was right in front of her the whole time - YAWN) and the same actresses (e.g. think every Katherine Hiegal movie - except Knocked Up, love that movie), these movies were very different, highly unpredictable and (some) were highly captivating. Two of the films were even black and white, which I took to be meaningful in very different ways.

Ordinary People (Winner)
Starring: Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler-Moore, Timothy Hutton
Director: Robert Redford

Wow, how tortured are these people!! This was my thought when I watched this movie. Yet sooo repressed. The emotional unrest is like the elephant in the room, that nobody talks about. You feel it in every scene. Whilst I couldn't relate directly to the content, the thing I liked about the movie, is that anyone can relate to what I think is one of the key themes coming through the film: the feeling of loving somebody, who does not love you back and the pain of not being able to talk about that (hello every high school crush I ever had).

So basically, the film is about this middle class, American family, living in suburbia, where everybody knows everybody. The film starts out, just after the son has returned home from a mental health facility (he attempted suicide following the death of his older brother). The father (Donald Sutherland) is the kind and loving peace maker in the family, the son Conrad (Timothy Hutton) is a very damaged teenager due to the death of his brother and his mother's emotional dettachment from him and the mother (Mary Tyler-Moore) the home maker and middle class, middle aged socialite, who is quite cold and shut off from her son, but interestingly not her husband. The film depicts the family's life not long after the death of the eldest son and how they cope with this. But I think the mother's lack of love for Conrad, goes back before the older son's death in the form of favouritism. It's just so sad. Coming from a family background of being an only child and having an overbearing mother, it was really sad to watch. She literally cannot reach out to him and is almost mad at him for attempting suicide, like it was an embarassment to her. The son ends up going to a therapist and has to deal with all his issues relating to his brother's death (they were on a boat and the brother drowned, so he blames himself for not saving him), as well as the family issues. In the end he actually confronts both his parents and the father is almost forced to choose. Conrad actually comes to terms with his mother's lack of love for him and stops being angry about it, even giving her a hug towards the end of the film, which doesn't sound like a big deal, but there was literally no physical contact between them other than this moment. The mother is unable to change her feelings, which is too much for the father to deal with and in the end he has to admit he doesn't love his wife anymore. The saddest part is, he really did love her so much before he came to the realisation that she can never love their son. He is forced to end their twenty plus year relationship. I was so in awe of his courage, I have to admit. It would have been easier I think for him to keep burying his head in the sand and keep reassuring the son that it was "all in his head" and his mother does love him (which is what he did at the start of the film). However, he cannot live with that and choses bravely to face the truth, which ultimately brings him closer to his son, but at the cost of his marriage. AHHHHH tortured!!!!

I give it a 6/10. The characters were strong and the story was original. It was a bit slow moving and long, which is why I didn't rate it higher.

Raging Bull
Starring: Robert De Niro, Cathy Moriarty, Jo Pesci
Director: Martin Scorsese
Hmmm, at the risk of being stabbed by the film community (haha as if they are reading this, "whatever" the film community is), I did not like this movie. The characters were unlikeable, the story was kind of blah and it was kind of difficult to follow. I know this opinion will be vehemently opposed, as after I did some reading, I've realised some rate it as one of the best films of all time. But sorry I'm just not feeling it.

The movie is based on the autobiography of Jake LaMotta. I think this is why it is almost what I would call a "gritty realist" film, because it's based on a true story. It's even filmed in black and white, which I think is to create more a gritty depiction of the "mean streets" of the Bronx and to keep the focus on the story. No bright colours to distract the viewer. No fantasy. This is the real world and it's ugly. It's set in the Bronx, everybody swears and the fighting is fixed by Italian crime bosses. The movie is almost a montage of Jake's fights in the ring, with in between scenes of fights in his "real" life with his brother (Joe Pesci) and wife (Cathy Moriarty). None of the characters are likable. Jake is a self-destructive, jealous, volitle and violent man. His brother Joey is skeezy, sneaky and also violent. Seriously, I don't even think Vicky LaMotta his wife is that likeable. She is quite volitile too, but also quite passive. As the viewer, we don't really get to know her story, but I guess it is based on an autobiography, which means it is coming from one perspective, but still I would have liked more focus on her and more of an exploration of why she stayed with him, despite his jealousy and controlling ways. I guess it was because she loved him or maybe she was afraid to leave, but if it was either one or both of this reasons, I don't think they came through strongly in the film. Overall, I didn't really get it. Nothing much happened. Jake kind of just burned out, stopped fighting, opened a night club where he was the host/comedianm (random considering he was so angry for the first three quarters of the film), then went to jail for letting under age women in and then came out and continued with life as per usual (although Vicky left him at the end).

Overall, I didn't like it. I guess it was Scorsese-esqe. But I just didn't feel it. Sorry. 3/10

FILM OF THE WEEK
The Elephant Man
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, John Hurt
Director: David Lynch

Wow, easily my favourite movie of the three. Warning though, you need to watch this when you are able to dedicate yourself to it completely. It requires your complete concentration and can be difficult to follow, particularly at the start. It was also filmed in black and white, but for completely different reasons than Raging Bull.

The film is about a surgeon Fredrick Treves (Anthony Hopkins), who takes on the care of a man with a serious genetic disorder, John Merrick (John Hurt). It's called the Elephant Man, because John was in a freak show and was cruelly named the "Elephant Man" by the owner because of the disfigurement to his face, which resemble elephant features. John is whipped, beaten and emotionally abused by this man, to the point where he does not speak, is unable to breath properly because of a raging chest infection and is just generally traumatised and tortured. Frederick agrees to take John in for medical care to treat his bronchitis, but then offers him permanent shelter and refuge in the London Hospital, with much opposition from other medical professionals. The film is about Frederick assisting John to come out of himself. John is actually very intelligent, but has been so traumatised, he is unable to speak or share his knowledge. He has such a gentle soul and whilst it might sound "cliche", the movie I guess is about showing true internal beauty, which despite his hideous external appearance, John has. His mutilated face not only result in him being treated cruelly and stop him from forming close relationships (at least at the start), it also restricts him physically. He is unable to lie down in bed, as this restricts his breathing, so he has to sleep upright.

The movie concludes with John being kidnapped by the freak shower owner, being freed by the "other freaks" and finding his way back to Frederick and the London Hospital, but finds out he is terminally ill. Rather than leaving his death in the hands of destiny, John takes charge and does the one thing he has always wanted to do, lies down in bed. This leads to his death. Ultimately he dies a happy man, having experienced love and friendship from Frederick and having been exposed to human kindness through Frederick and a famous actress who befriends him, invites him to the theatre (a big deal for somebody who never goes out in public) and dedicates the show to him.

Loved it loved it loved it. So moving and a wonderful story, showing all aspects of the human condition. 8/10

Stayed tuned for Tess (1980), The Coal Miner's Daughter (1980 and if I can find it, having some difficulty) and the first of the 54th Academy Awards (TBA)!

Until then, "make like a tree and get outta here" (Biff, Back to the Futre)

An intriguing and brilliant idea or a mid-twenties crisis?

So, I've never done anything like this before (blogging that is). The closest I've come was my fickle attempt at keeping a diary in high school, which lasted barely beyond a month and became more of a chore than an opportunity to off load my random and some what hormonal driven thoughts for the day. But here I am, joining the 21st centuries version of a high school girls diary. Only, I'm a little older, a bit more damaged and perhaps a little wiser?

So why have I decided to create a blog? To keep me committed to the task at hand I guess. If I feel I'm accountable to somebody (anybody), even a stranger who may be across the other side of the world, than maybe I will be able to follow through. The task: watch every movie nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards between 1980 and 2009/2010, within a year. This seems like an easy task you may think, but that's a total of 155 movies, approximately 23250 minutes of film (based on an average of two and a half hours per film) and an average of three movies watched per week to complete this task by October 2011. On top of this, I work full time, have an active social life and am trying to plan a wedding. Time is not my friend!

Why am I doing this? Hmmm.... good question. I guess I consider myself to be a part of a relatively new class of people or maybe a classic Gen Y. The kind of person, who went to school for thirteen years and then immediately to university afterwards. The type of person who has always had a goal and now is kind of just going through the motions with nothing really to work towards. Don't get out the violins just yet, I am very happy and consider myself very lucky. I guess I just need a goal, no matter how trivial. Why blog about it? You may be thinking I'm a Julie Powell wannabe, however I'm only Julie if somebody actually reads this and seeing as I'm not confident about that, lets just say, I'm publicly ranting via the Internet:)

So come along if you want and spend a Year With Oscar too (three movies per week friends:)) or read about my year with Oscar. Hopefully, I'll be here in a years time completing the movies of 2009/2010.... or not. Who really cares!