It seems like an age since I've written on here, but in reality it's only been two weeks. So much has happened since the last post that it feels a lot longer. The day after my last post it seemed that the apocalypse was coming, well for Queensland anyway. Here's the scenario: I rock up to work after taking the day off sick (refer to last post for full details haha). I briefly catch up with a few colleagues about the bizarre and devastating inland tidal wave that had rushed through Toowomba the day before. Many of my colleagues are from the area and whilst their family and loved ones were all okay, I think a lot of them felt quite displaced. The idea that a wave of that magnitude could go through the high set inland town was previously inconceivable particularly for those who had lived there, but was now very much a reality. Whilst we all commented and discussed the tragedy of this event, we all went about our day. A mere two hours later the emergency alarm rang. Next thing I know my manager is talking about evacuation plans and king tides. From there it was a rush to lift valuables up off the ground and contact clients to alert them that the office was shutting indefinitely. Brisbane was going to flood and the prediction was that the water levels would reach higher than those of 1974, which saw much of Brisbane's CBD infiltrated with water. The idea that Brisbane could go under seemed like a foreign concept to me, but I witnessed it. From the safety of my lounge room, thanks to the amazing media coverage, I saw my university UQ go under, I saw one of my favourite restaurant precincts Rosalie destroyed, I saw Riverwalk a place that I had taken visitors from interstate many times literally float away and I saw Suncorp where I'd watch my beloved South Sydney Rabbitohs get thrashed by the Brisbane Broncos literally turn into a giant swamp. From my own neighbourhood, I watched plontoons with lights and park benches on top of them float down the river, I watched Sydney Street ferry terminal be overpowered by the unrelenting tide, I saw a car with water up to its roof top and I watched a poisonous LPG gas tank make its way towards Moreton Bay. This event was unbelievable and left almost no one unaffected. Whilst my home and my workplace were safe, I spent the day leading up to the first king tide helping Tim sandbag his business, I waited with anticipation and hoped with all my strength as one my very best friends was trapped in one of the flood affected suburbs and I watched so many places that I frequent go under water. I have never experienced anything like that in my life and I hope to never again.
E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial MOVIE OF THE WEEK
Director: Steven Spielburg
Starring: Dee Wallace, Henry Thomas, Robert MacNaughton, Drew Barrymore and Peter Cyote
Well I think you have to have been sleeping under a rock, under water, in the deepest, darkest swamp in Botswana to have not seen this movie. It was massive both at the box office and amongst the mainstream and like other science fiction movies before it, still to this day has a massive cult following. I think it’s a little hard to really understand why it was and continues to be soo big, but you have to put yourself in the context of when it was made to really get it. Special effects wise, it had been matched by no other (apart from maybe the Star Wars films). It was a unique story and according to my post viewing reading, was inspired by Spielburg’s own childhood (E.T. himself was an imaginary friend Spielburg had as a child). The alien himself was a costume warn at different times throughout the film by two small people and a twelve year old boy who was born without legs. His arms were played by a mime artist and his voice was that of an elderly woman, who chain smoked, hence the husky tone. Pretty interesting hey!
The movie is about an alien by the name of E.T., who is accidentally left behind by his people during a trip to Earth. He is discovered by a young boy Elliot (Henry Thomas), who lures him into his house using lollies. Elliot decides to keep him and only tells his older brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton) about him. Their little sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore) accidentally finds out about him and they swear her to secrecy. The film starts out as being focused on E.T. learning about Earth and its people from his new friends, however he soon starts to become ill and so too does Elliot due to their psychic connection. The children eventually have to confess to their mother Mary (Dee Wallace) about E.T.s existence, as Elliot becomes sicker, but by this stage the government is well aware of E.T. and bust into their home and take it over. In the final scenes Elliot and E.T. both become increasingly sicker and are both dying. In E.T.’s final moments, he breaks his psychic connection with Elliot and the young boy starts to recover, whilst we assume that E.T. has died. Later, as Elliot asks to be alone with the alien’s corpse to say goodbye, a flower in a pot, which died when E.T. did, suddenly comes back to life, symbolising E.T. also coming back. E.T. has been contacted by his people and they are coming for him, which resuscitates him. Elliot and Michael steal one of the government’s vans and with the help of Michael’s friends, as well as E.T.s ability to levitate them off the ground, abduct E.T. and fly on their bicycles over the town, back to the spot where the ship first left E.T. behind so they can return him to his people (who can forget that famous scene with the silhouettes of the boys on their flying bicycles go across the sunset). Mary and Gertie, as well as a sympathetic and dedicated scientist “Keys” (Peter Cyote) meet the boys and E.T. there. They all say goodbye to E.T. and watch his ship return to space.
For me this film is a childhood classic. To be honest with you, I wasn’t looking forward to watching it, just because I had seen it sooooooo many times. But because I was watching it with a purpose I did enjoy it. And here’s an interesting bit of trivia that I found out during my post viewing reading, Robert MacNaughton (Michael) now works as a mail sorter in the American post. Just goes to show that saying of “fifteen minutes of fame” is sometimes closer to the truth then what we think.
8/10
The Dresser
Director: Peter Yates
Starring: Albert Finney, Thomas Courtenay, Zena Walker and Eileen Atkins
Hmmm, I’m still not sure about this film. It was definitely different, but I just don’t think I liked it. The film is about a Shakespearean theatre company in England during World War II. The film stars Albert Finney as “Sir” the head actor and creator of the company, who appears to be suffering with a form of dementia. The film is about the company’s struggle to perform King Lear, a play that they have performed many times before, but this particular performance is being jeopardised by Sir’s progressive condition. He not only struggles to remember his lines, but has frequent outbursts, which are non-sensical and stop him from being able to perform. The film tracks the lead up to this performance and focuses on the relationship between Sir and his dresser Norman (Thomas Courtenay). Norman appears to be the only one who can get through to Sir, is the only one who can calm him down, but at the same time is often the victim of Sir’s abuse and ego. The performances on screen mirror that of the theatre and particularly the dramatic nature of Shakespearean plays. Sir is the “fallen hero”, the veteran and legendary actor, who is well past his prime and is doomed for a tragic end, like many of Shakespeare’s leading men. The other characters in the film are merely parts of Sir’s world and do not have lives in their own right. Norman’s life is about pandering to Sir’s every need, although he does show an inner strength that one would assume he would not have given his chosen line of work. At various points he stands up for himself against Sir’s abuse and he is steadfast in defending Sir against those in the company who doubt he can perform. There’s Her Ladyship (Zena Walker), who is Sir’s wife, who appears to be so passive and so far removed from her husband, that one could argue Norman is almost playing the part of dresser, servant, friend and wife in her place. Then there’s the stage manager Madge (Eileen Atkins), who has dedicated her life to Sir’s company and has sacrificed her own happiness because of her love for him, even knowing that he would never love her back. In the end, Sir is able to live up to his legendary reputation and perform King Lear for his audience, even with the sirens going off the in background signifying that there may be about to be an air raid. In the final scene, Sir shows Norman the first draft of his biography. The only part he has written is the dedication. In this dedication he makes note of all those who work in the theatre from actors to electricians. Norman is very hurt by this, as he has made no mention of him personally or acknowledge the role of the dresser in his dedication to the theatre. Sir then dies, leaving Norman feeling ungratified and although he has wasted his life, as Sir even in his dying minutes could not tell him how much he appreciated him. The film ends shortly after.
I appreciate that this film was different and in its own way almost seemed like a dedication to the theatre. However, I did not enjoy it very much and found it quite peculiar and a bit boring.
I give it a 3/10!
Until next time “I’ll be right here” (ET, ET: The Extra Terrestrial)
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The Sick Day
I never know what's the appropriate etiquette when on a sick day. Sure there's the day's that you call in sick, where you feel like death and the only option is sleeping. But what about those other days, where you're not well enough to be at work, but after tossing and turning for a few hours, sleep becomes a mythological concept? In these situations is it okay to do chores? Is it okay to catch up on Facebook, read a magazine or write on your blog? Or should we become social recluses, riddled with disease, trapped in the deep dark depths of the bedroom, only to resurface once the last sneeze has sounded? Well today I'm compromising! I've got the dreaded and long lasting summer cold and was unable to drag my sneezing and suffling behind into work this morning. So, I'm lying in bed removing the possibility of contaminating anyone else, but at the same time, I'm writing on here.
I also have to apologise, as it has been quite a few weeks since I've been on here. However, despite my absence, I have continued with the films of 1982 and have two to review. So here it goes.
The Verdict
Director: Sidney Lumet
Starring: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O’Shea
The Verdict is a court room drama, starring Paul Newman as broke down lawyer, Frank Galvin. The film opens with various scenes of Frank in bars, drunk in his office and trying to swindle work at funerals (he would approach the family members and claim to have known the deceased and offer his services). Of course at this point he is presented as a very unlikeable character, a maggot, drinking way too much and preying on the grief of others. However, it is quite obvious that there is more to this story then what you are seeing on screen (maybe because it’s Hollywood and there always is more to the story, but I would like to think it is because of a deep insight hehe).
Frank’s friend and colleague, Mickey Morrissey (James Mason), has a soft spot for Frank (we do not understand why at this point) and gives him a civil suit case. However, due to Frank’s self-destructive ways, Mickey tells him they are through after this case. The case is a medical malpractice case, involving a young pregnant woman, who was given the wrong dose of aneasetic and as a result her baby died and she was left in a coma. Her sister and her husband bought the case to Mickey’s firm. They are suing the hospital involved, which is owned by the Archdiocese. All parties are willing to settle out of court with a settlement fee of $210000 going to the plaintiffs. However, Frank much to the opposition of the sister and her husband, Frank decides the case needs to tried, both because he believes that the woman deserves a chance at a more just outcome and because he desires to restore his reputation as a lawyer.
The film is as much about the case itself, as it is about the inadequacies of the court system. The judge (Milo O’Shea) is nothing less than bias and actively works against Frank, openly telling him that he should have settled, dismisses a key witnesses testimony and actually cross examines a witness himself. The defence buys off witnesses and even goes as far as planting a mole, to spy on Frank and Mickey as they build their case. Her name is Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) and she becomes the love interest of Frank in the film. Both Mickey and Frank confide in her. Mickey tells her about Frank’s background and how he ended up where he did. Frank was once a really strong and successful lawyer, until he found out that witnesses were being “bought off” in a case he was trying. He was going to report it, but those involved found out and set him up. He was arrested for witness tampering himself and was only released from prison after he promised not to report his colleagues. His reputation was ruined after this and this led him to his life style of chronic drinking and ambulance chasing. Laura is eventually caught out by Mickey, after he finds a cheque in her bag from the defence. At this point in the film, the case is going really bad and it is only after Frank seeks out a nurse, who was not testifying for the defence that there is hope for his case. Laura turns over a new leaf and does not tell the defence about the nurse. She is then able to testify and tell the court that her job was threatened by the doctors involved if she disclosed that the patient was given aneasetic one hour after eating, when it should have been nine. They even forced her to change what she had written on the admittance sheet. Based on this testimony (even though the judge told the jury to strike it from their memory, based on some loose precedent allowing him to rightfully dismiss the testimony as evidence) the jury come back in favour of the plaintiff and even ask the judge if they can award a bigger amount then that asked for. We do not find out what that is. The final scene is Frank looking across at Laura from a distance. You get the sense from his look that he is appreciative that she did the “right thing” not revealing that witness to the defence, but that he cannot forgive such a betrayal and they will never be together again.
I really liked the movie. I enjoyed seeing Paul Newman in a film, as being from Gen Y, much like Jane Fonda being the exercise lady to me, Paul Newman is the creator of my favourite spaghetti sauce.
7/10
Missing
Director: Costa-Gavras
Starring: Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Melanie Mayron, John Shea
Missing stars Jack Lemmon as Ed Horman and Sissy Spacek as Beth Horman, and is based on a true story. The movie is about the disappearance of Ed’s son and Beth’s husband, Charles Horman (John Shea) during the military coup in Chile in 1973. Beth and Charlie lived there during this period and worked on a liberal newspaper. At the start of the film, they make the decision to return home, deciding that it was becoming too dangerous to remain in the country. The general belief was that American citizens were safe due to an agreement forged between the two counties.
The movie tracks the search carried out by Ed and Beth and the American government’s potential involvement in Charlie’s disappearance. Ed is a high flying businessman and so has good contacts in Washington. At the start of the film he has a strong sense of trust and faith in the American government and is in close contact with staff in the American Consulate in Chile. Beth on the other hand, is very mistrusting, does not believe that Charlie is in “hiding”, which is what the Consulate are telling her is most likely, and is not willing to cooperate in their investigation, opting to find answers herself. Ed and Beth do not have a good relationship at the beginning of the film. It appears that Ed and Charles’ relationship has suffered due to fundamental differences in their politics (Ed is a conservative, believing in the American government, whilst Charles is more liberal and leftist in his politics) and Ed resents Beth, who shares the same views as Charlie.
It is not until Beth and Ed start talking with all those people who were with Charlie in the weeks and days leading up to his disappearance, and through these conversations are able to find out that Charlie was privy to information that could potentially prove America’s involvement in the coup, that Ed starts to question the American government and whether they are doing everything humanly possible to find his son. Despite their differences, Ed loves his son and will do anything to find him. He begs, pleads and offers to be bound and blind folded, if it means he can talk to somebody who knows what happened to his son. The straw that breaks the camel’s back for Ed is when he and Beth uncover the body of one of Charlie’s associates Frank Teruggi. The reason that is the breaking point for Ed is because an official from the Consulate himself, told Ed personally that Frank had left the country, but obviously he had not, as he was dead. Ed finds out towards the end of the film that his son was executed in the National Stadium where the Chilean military were holding people captive. After he finds this out, he takes Beth back to America and sues the American government for negligence. This is the end of the film, however there is a citation just before the credits, that informs the viewer of what happens after Beth and Ed leave Chile. Ed does sue the government, however it takes seven months for them to ship Charlie’s body back to the States making an accurate autopsy impossible. The suit does go to court and after many years of litigation, the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence proving negligence.
The movie was very sad, but I still enjoyed it. Jack Lemon and Sissy Spacek were really good in the film, really bringing the characters to life. I also found it interesting, as I knew nothing of the coup in Chile or the suspicion that the American government may have been involved. In my post viewing reading, I found out that the coup came about potentially because the American government became involved with the Chilean military due to their concern about the socialist regime growing with the Chilean president Allende, being a socialist. He was elected democratically in 1970, however only won marginally, despite America spending nearly half a million dollars supporting National Party leader, Rodriguez’s campaign.
Good movie.
7/10
Until my next entry, “well goooooodddbyyyeeee now, yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah” (Natalie, The Commitments)
I also have to apologise, as it has been quite a few weeks since I've been on here. However, despite my absence, I have continued with the films of 1982 and have two to review. So here it goes.
The Verdict
Director: Sidney Lumet
Starring: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O’Shea
The Verdict is a court room drama, starring Paul Newman as broke down lawyer, Frank Galvin. The film opens with various scenes of Frank in bars, drunk in his office and trying to swindle work at funerals (he would approach the family members and claim to have known the deceased and offer his services). Of course at this point he is presented as a very unlikeable character, a maggot, drinking way too much and preying on the grief of others. However, it is quite obvious that there is more to this story then what you are seeing on screen (maybe because it’s Hollywood and there always is more to the story, but I would like to think it is because of a deep insight hehe).
Frank’s friend and colleague, Mickey Morrissey (James Mason), has a soft spot for Frank (we do not understand why at this point) and gives him a civil suit case. However, due to Frank’s self-destructive ways, Mickey tells him they are through after this case. The case is a medical malpractice case, involving a young pregnant woman, who was given the wrong dose of aneasetic and as a result her baby died and she was left in a coma. Her sister and her husband bought the case to Mickey’s firm. They are suing the hospital involved, which is owned by the Archdiocese. All parties are willing to settle out of court with a settlement fee of $210000 going to the plaintiffs. However, Frank much to the opposition of the sister and her husband, Frank decides the case needs to tried, both because he believes that the woman deserves a chance at a more just outcome and because he desires to restore his reputation as a lawyer.
The film is as much about the case itself, as it is about the inadequacies of the court system. The judge (Milo O’Shea) is nothing less than bias and actively works against Frank, openly telling him that he should have settled, dismisses a key witnesses testimony and actually cross examines a witness himself. The defence buys off witnesses and even goes as far as planting a mole, to spy on Frank and Mickey as they build their case. Her name is Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) and she becomes the love interest of Frank in the film. Both Mickey and Frank confide in her. Mickey tells her about Frank’s background and how he ended up where he did. Frank was once a really strong and successful lawyer, until he found out that witnesses were being “bought off” in a case he was trying. He was going to report it, but those involved found out and set him up. He was arrested for witness tampering himself and was only released from prison after he promised not to report his colleagues. His reputation was ruined after this and this led him to his life style of chronic drinking and ambulance chasing. Laura is eventually caught out by Mickey, after he finds a cheque in her bag from the defence. At this point in the film, the case is going really bad and it is only after Frank seeks out a nurse, who was not testifying for the defence that there is hope for his case. Laura turns over a new leaf and does not tell the defence about the nurse. She is then able to testify and tell the court that her job was threatened by the doctors involved if she disclosed that the patient was given aneasetic one hour after eating, when it should have been nine. They even forced her to change what she had written on the admittance sheet. Based on this testimony (even though the judge told the jury to strike it from their memory, based on some loose precedent allowing him to rightfully dismiss the testimony as evidence) the jury come back in favour of the plaintiff and even ask the judge if they can award a bigger amount then that asked for. We do not find out what that is. The final scene is Frank looking across at Laura from a distance. You get the sense from his look that he is appreciative that she did the “right thing” not revealing that witness to the defence, but that he cannot forgive such a betrayal and they will never be together again.
I really liked the movie. I enjoyed seeing Paul Newman in a film, as being from Gen Y, much like Jane Fonda being the exercise lady to me, Paul Newman is the creator of my favourite spaghetti sauce.
7/10
Missing
Director: Costa-Gavras
Starring: Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Melanie Mayron, John Shea
Missing stars Jack Lemmon as Ed Horman and Sissy Spacek as Beth Horman, and is based on a true story. The movie is about the disappearance of Ed’s son and Beth’s husband, Charles Horman (John Shea) during the military coup in Chile in 1973. Beth and Charlie lived there during this period and worked on a liberal newspaper. At the start of the film, they make the decision to return home, deciding that it was becoming too dangerous to remain in the country. The general belief was that American citizens were safe due to an agreement forged between the two counties.
The movie tracks the search carried out by Ed and Beth and the American government’s potential involvement in Charlie’s disappearance. Ed is a high flying businessman and so has good contacts in Washington. At the start of the film he has a strong sense of trust and faith in the American government and is in close contact with staff in the American Consulate in Chile. Beth on the other hand, is very mistrusting, does not believe that Charlie is in “hiding”, which is what the Consulate are telling her is most likely, and is not willing to cooperate in their investigation, opting to find answers herself. Ed and Beth do not have a good relationship at the beginning of the film. It appears that Ed and Charles’ relationship has suffered due to fundamental differences in their politics (Ed is a conservative, believing in the American government, whilst Charles is more liberal and leftist in his politics) and Ed resents Beth, who shares the same views as Charlie.
It is not until Beth and Ed start talking with all those people who were with Charlie in the weeks and days leading up to his disappearance, and through these conversations are able to find out that Charlie was privy to information that could potentially prove America’s involvement in the coup, that Ed starts to question the American government and whether they are doing everything humanly possible to find his son. Despite their differences, Ed loves his son and will do anything to find him. He begs, pleads and offers to be bound and blind folded, if it means he can talk to somebody who knows what happened to his son. The straw that breaks the camel’s back for Ed is when he and Beth uncover the body of one of Charlie’s associates Frank Teruggi. The reason that is the breaking point for Ed is because an official from the Consulate himself, told Ed personally that Frank had left the country, but obviously he had not, as he was dead. Ed finds out towards the end of the film that his son was executed in the National Stadium where the Chilean military were holding people captive. After he finds this out, he takes Beth back to America and sues the American government for negligence. This is the end of the film, however there is a citation just before the credits, that informs the viewer of what happens after Beth and Ed leave Chile. Ed does sue the government, however it takes seven months for them to ship Charlie’s body back to the States making an accurate autopsy impossible. The suit does go to court and after many years of litigation, the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence proving negligence.
The movie was very sad, but I still enjoyed it. Jack Lemon and Sissy Spacek were really good in the film, really bringing the characters to life. I also found it interesting, as I knew nothing of the coup in Chile or the suspicion that the American government may have been involved. In my post viewing reading, I found out that the coup came about potentially because the American government became involved with the Chilean military due to their concern about the socialist regime growing with the Chilean president Allende, being a socialist. He was elected democratically in 1970, however only won marginally, despite America spending nearly half a million dollars supporting National Party leader, Rodriguez’s campaign.
Good movie.
7/10
Until my next entry, “well goooooodddbyyyeeee now, yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah” (Natalie, The Commitments)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)