Reviews

Greek singer Theophanis Lamboukas, met his mentor Edith Piaf in the summer of 1961. She affectionately called him "Sarapo" which means "I love you" in Greek and he kept it. They married the following year, when she was 47 and he was 26. In one of her most famous and last songs, she sings a duet with him, and addresses him by saying : «…You’re the last one, but you’re the first one, etc.» These words say it ALL ! Later, both were buried in Piaf’s monument at Père Lachaise cemetery, in Paris, since he died in a motorcycle accident in 1970 – seven years after her own demise. Apart from that very important «hole» regarding Théo, I found the movie only occasionally gripping, mainly thanks to Marion Cotillard’s moving «reincarnation» of Piaf. The whole movie is just too episodic, lacks focus and Piaf in it seems to have no real individuality of her own : we are only given a superficial outlook on her personality (which could easily apply to hundreds of stars, emerging from a very modest background, and who – having reached international fame, lived in short rather pathetic lives). There’s nothing about her deeper beliefs, motivations, numerous lovers, eternal search for the «perfect love and lover» -- which Théo seems to have been for her, at last ! Yet, as I said, he’s never even mentioned ! But many of her songs are more or less partially heard (less than more). In spite of a rather expensive and accurate period look (and with so many good actors and some stars), what a waste of talent !

Who would or could ever believe in the eventual success of the «last strategy» depicted, in that film ? Even if it's allegedly «taken» directly (as it should) from the famous «Art of Warfare» ancient writings)? It’s not only very naive but very disappointing ! Would an experienced, mighty ruler be so easily «fooled» by one of his worst enemies' wife (knowing who she is and especially at a time when he's in the middle of a war with her husband -- even if she IS rather beautiful ... ? She comes to him, with no other explanation than to «prepare some tea» for him ! This occurs when that ruler should be watching very carefully the «crucial-to-his-immanent-victory» changing directions of the wind. Not only does he «forget» about that, but he even drinks some tea — not suspecting at all that the warm, delicious liquid COULD be drugged !!! Need I state what the outcome of this enormous blunder leads to ... ? Yes, it is a very spectacular movie, with lots of noise, action, bloodshed and, at the end, so much FIRE, FIRE, FIRE… The rare and almost saving graces related to some very few scenes are finally lost amidst so much... «sound and fury» !Also, who could make out with certainty, perhaps apart from at the very end, WHO IS WHO — among all the many protagonists (excluding the woman’s husband, the man in white, and the «evil and mighty ruler, mentioned above) ? However, I must be fair and admit that one wonderful shot remains in my memory, with admiration and almost wonderment : the long flight of the dove above a river filled with hundreds of (computer originated but very well done) war ships ...

This is meant to be a «constructive and positive» comment on Mr. martinivk's own comment -- as far as its «FORM» is concerned, not its essence, with which I fully agree. I admit that I was surprised that it was published with as many wrong words, often directly taken from French ! Here is just a sampling of what I mean -- limiting myself to just Mr. martinivk's first paragraphs. And I do NOT want or mean to «play» teacher, but as a very personal opinion, I deplore the fact that sometimes, comments are written a little... shall we say... «carelessly» (when it would be so easy to find a bilingual dictionary on the Web!).

Here goes:

************************************

just what i wanted to see on screen one day in my life, 15 May 2006 (CAPITAL LETTER IS REQUIRED AT THE BEGINNING.) Author: martinivk from London, ENGLAND *** This comment may contain spoilers *** I found this comedy just amazing, it does remind me a lot about my childhood and my Racine's («ROOTS», which in French are «racines» -- not «Racine's», referring to the great classic playwright Racine!). very proud also to be a french-Algerian («F»rench deserves as much a CAPITAL as «A»lgerian!), when i («I», CAPITAL LETTER, if only for consistency -- see the opening words) see this cocktail (STRANGE WAY OF DESCRIBING SUCH A «MIXTURE» OF ACTORS, NOT DRINKS!) of French and Algerian actors working together in France and Algeria, etc.

No hard feelings : I appreciate the time taken to write such a «heart-felt», warm and fair comment !

I really mean well and wish Mr. martinivk the very best !

Imagine this: a rich, middle-aged and attractive lady living in Westmount (one of the most «chic» parts of Montreal), in a big house, with a loving husband, servants, etc. She may seem to be very lucky and «have it all», yet.... One day, all of a sudden -- as if awakening from a bad dream --, realizing the meaninglessness of her life -- she packs a valise, takes her expensive car, drives away, having decided to end it all. But she needs a period of adjustment before committing suicide. By pure accident, she decides to take a room in a rather shabby boarding-house, near a bus terminal. And, slowly, with her, we uncover one by one the few tenants of that place. All fascinating in their ways, all mostly pathetic, and yet also very humane.... Béatrice Picard is just faultless as the housewife who needs to «get away from it all». However, I found Angèle Coutu (once famous in soap-operas but, in my opinion, always a limited actress «range-wise»), well, I found her rather unpleasant in the stressed vulgarity of her language and manners, and not very attractive to look at, particularly as she tastelessly exhibit herself in a scene, fully in the nude, passively awaiting a young boarder to «give her physical satisfaction», while she's spread, with wide opened mouth and legs, on a bed «like a melting, fat and collapsing piece of old meat !». This being said, I would recommend this movie for those who like slow, bitter-sweet movies dealing very realistically and yet somewhat poetically with the «inherent anguish of living life itself». After all, it is a successful adaptation of a novel by the great Marie-Claire Blais ! (*) As described by Rachel Lakronne, in her movie column in the prestigious «Presto Presse», Vol. 32, No. 12, January 1988.

Nietsche used to say that «To accept common morality (not humane ethics) is a condemnation of Life!»... Perhaps it all boils down to everything being «political». Or is it all a matter of time (and a lot of unnecessary suffering before our so-called civilized» societies liberate themselves from some still «primitive» or «middleageous» moralistic laws and mores. This being said, I admit that I would have wanted that movie to be much less of a kind of self-promoting views of a marijuana «affectionado» and a take-off on «Super Size Me». And, at the same token, a more «objective» (relatively speaking) rendering on that controversial subject : none of the possibly «negatives» aspects of pot use were pointed out. Doug Benson's whole movie «enterprise» and approach SEEMED rather sincere but very rarely subtle or funny -- not even in his stand-up comic scenes. They were often very crude with a strong tendency towards scatology («Is there an anal obsession hidden somewhere, dear Dr Freud» ?) even if I kind of like their very directness. To me -- on a more «superficial» note -- physically, I globally saw Benson as a slightly cross-eyed guy (with his left eye much more opened than his small left one !). Obviously intelligent, eloquent and quick-witted, alas he looked like an unattractive young man well on his way to a quickly advancing chubby side. Good try and better luck next time, Doug !

First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title («Stories», in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is «très drôle: rappelle Tati !» («Very funny: reminiscent of Tati!». The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s French «modern» society. Of course «Kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -– but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make «Kitchen» a «Tatiesque» movie ? This being said, I have to admit that «Kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any «dramatic impulse» : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising –- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes» -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -– such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were, in fact, «too subtle» for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread-winning «dictatorial» demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -– the way that in that film Folke (Isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, «Vive la différence», as the French say !

I was greatly disappointed with this movie, greatly ! Why ? For many reasons. Having heard so many favorable echoes about it, it did not help at all when I was «confronted» to the «real thing» ! But there is much more than just disappointed expectations. The main Belgian character -- interpreted in a languid manner by Olivier Gourmet -- is so unappealing, so morose, so uninteresting, so humorless, and physically unpleasing (fat, slow moving, with a vague air of not being very quick-witted)... The other, younger, character is, globally, somewhat better. I had immensely liked Paul Ahmarani in Philippe Falardeau's -- the same director -- first and much, much better film «The Left Half of the Fridge»), this time his head seemed even more «special» than ever, with hardly any eyebrows and a more hooked nose ! As for the «story» itself, I found it muddled, confusing, uninteresting, without any emotions, or suspense... and with only a hint of (supposedly ?) humor. All this being stated, the only very brief surprise came from the car accident with the big ostrich-like bird. Finally, I wonder as to how on earth could such a movie be so «successful» ? I know that Gourmet is usually a crowd pleaser, usually in secondary parts of European movies. And so... Apart from having this film dealing (in such an oblique and slow manner) with a person's search for his roots and the fact that, deep down, all origins and races are inter-linked, what's all the positive fuss about ? I can only guess that the many satisfied spectators might have chosen to mainly identify with these aspects -- roots, identity -- «spreading», so to speak, their admiration to the film as a whole. Perhaps this ling -- Mulderville.net (in French) -- found in the External reviews section will help understand what I mean. P.-S.: I might SEEM to be stressing the physical appearances of the two leads. If I do that, it's not to oppose, in a fickle way, «beauty» to «ugliness», not at all, but to oppose likability to its opposite !

«Rashômon» was about 4 CONFLICTING versions about what really happened between 3 men and 1 woman, resulting in a rape and a murder. «Requiem» is about the same chain of events but seen from the different points of view of 8 characters -- not so much conflicting versions as versions stressing each person's «interested and therefore individually focused» view point. Thus, the story is gradually unfolding -- but not necessarily in a linear way. I know that film critic Michel Coulombe might have spread and influenced the rumor as to the similarities between the two films in question (notably, perhaps when he introduced «Requiem», when it was shown on television, namely at Radio-Québec -- now Télé-Québec). Actually, the «grand-daddy» of such «prismatic story telling» might be Ford Maddox Ford's great novel «The Good Soldier» (of which I have not seen the 1981 TV adaptation). But perhaps more memorably, the best and richer example of such a device would be the monumental «Alexandria Quartet», by Laurence Durrell. Although very limited in this latter novel's movie adaptation («Justine», directed by George Cukor, 1969), some variations as to «what really happened» can still be found in it. Note: as good as «Requiem» really is, I think that it might require more than one viewing -- in order to properly understand and put together the different pieces if its fascinating (and sometimes very violent) puzzle. Enjoy...

I found that this movie was often clumsily filmed: static long scenes, some unseen reaction shots, etc. -- almost as if it was hastily filmed -- as economically as possible. Also -- perhaps more for female audiences --, it was filmed in a «physically frustrating» way. Overall, too many important clues to the understanding and logic of the story were unnecessarily «hidden» -- specially the ones dealing with what really happened at the very end to Ledba. There were also unnecessarily «prudish» scene -- after all, this film was filmed in 2004, not in 1954 !!! -- such as the two frontal male nudity scenes in which the lighting (or rather the shadows) camouflaged the genitals. Either you show full nudity or you don't ! I'm referring to two scenes, the first when Legba pulls down his trunks and stands stark nude on the beach at night, facing Brenda. The other, when Sue's Haitian lover climbs into bed where she's lying with most of her body covered with sheets. Another thing I noticed: many people wrote about Legba'a «very beautiful» physique. Although his face is very boyishly charming and handsome, his body is far too slim (his legs seem almost as shapeless as long wooden sticks) -- ironical that his name is... LEGba ! Overall, he does not seem to be very sexually «inspiring» -- he has sensuality, yes, but not much sex appeal. Perhaps the producers couldn't find a more suitable actor...? The same possibility might apply to Karen Young. In spite of her great acting, she looked far older and withered than her mid-forties. And she's far to skinny also (with the same type of legs as Legba's). In the very brief scene were she finishes taking a shower, her very bony and flat chest is seen. But perhaps she was cast ON PURPOSE since a much more attractive actress would seem less convincing as a «sexual tourist» -- although she does play the part of a repressed woman from Georgia who had her first orgasm at 45 with Legba, when he was 15 ! All this being said, the scenery is great, the topic still very actual, humane and important. And there's the presence of the cool and always wonderful Charlotte Rampling who is ALMOST miscast : does a woman as attractive as she STILL is -- even at 55 -- «need» to «retribute» young men for intimate company...? But PERHAPS -- just a supposition -- for some woman, once having «tasted» the... let’s say euphemistically... the «close and warm conviviality» of a «divinely attractive» Haitian man... it's very difficult NOT to long to renew the experience... again and again.

Many people claim that Robert Lepage is a «genious» ! Well, he might well be... But who could deny that his physique is very far from being pleasant to look at...? We all know that -- due to an early illness -- he's TOTALLY hairless -- no facial or body hair whatsoever ! So, of course, he has to wear wigs. Wigs that are ALWAYS noticeable to sharp eyes ! In this movie, he wears two different wigs since he plays two different characters -- two brothers. And even with artificial eyebrows, his face is «strangely» unbecoming. Therefore, one can say that both brothers are rather UGLY and somewhat effeminate -- specially the one with long hair -- ironically, the one who's NOT supposed to be gay. In most of his films, I think that Lepage seems to be obsessed with at least two themes : the difficult relationship between brothers and having a scene set in a sauna -- often where gay characters are found. My comments might seem superficial but... are they ?

So many debates about the «guy in Jerusalem» with whom Zachary slept with and the relationship between that event and Christianity ! I'll just say two things about all that : 1- If you're really at ease with your own sexuality -- whether straight, gay or BISEXUAL (*) --, then you would not try to defend your views with so much vigor... and waste your «precious» time doing that. No, you would never try to convince ANYONE of anything... Since, in reality, trying to convince others so passionately might mean that you're trying to CONVINCE YOURSELF about your own... sub-consciously unconvinced... «pseudo» convictions... about homosexuality and Jesus, etc. (Freud, 101). 2- In the Gospels, was Jesus really EVER reported as saying anything whatsoever about homosexuality ? (*) Even in 2007, it's strange how bisexuality STILL seems NOT TO EXIST to so very, very many people !!! I know, I know : it's so much easier and more convenient to pigeonhole people as being «black» or «white» -- thus deplorably and unrealistically ignoring that, in fact, most of us are located in the «grey» areas -- anywhere between the two «extremes». «Errare humanum est», as they say in Latin. ;-)

I thought I recognized him, when I saw him in the«Making of» which I found on the DVD of that movie. Fussing around and clumsily repeating «you know what I mean?», while trying to properly direct the actors. When I saw him last, he was just a teenager. I was visiting Cairo, more than 20 years ago. An Armenian common friend of Karim's father and my own mother invited us to a brunch garden party. I'll never forget how little Karim -- even back then, at about 15 or do --, was creating a fuss by running after some chicken that he insisted upon putting out of their «misery» by stepping on the poor beasts bleeding small heads ! So ... when I saw that scene towards the beginning of «The Beautiful Beast», in which a shot bird is about to be crushed by Miss Dhavernas shoe... I remembered that garden party. A very cruel, shocking movie dealing with a f... up trio ! But captivating ... well, let's say... in an «unhealthy» manner. Not for the faint of heart or the morally strict (lots of incestuous hints, some more than obvious such as when a young woman masturbates her own brother, sitting in a bathtub !). But realistic. And even sometimes poetic. Bravo Karim, you went a long way since that memorable garden party.