Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts

Monday, 15 November 2010

Such a Long Journey (1998)


Such a Long Journey is humanism, fatalism and mysticism all mixed up in one big, chunky mess that looks like an impressionist's painting and smells like pee. It's not particularly coherent, but that seems to be its aim: a pastiche of life, in all its warty glory, from a cross-section of a Bombay shawl in paranoid 1970s Emergency India.

Based on the book by Rohinton Mistry, it carries the flavors of Mistry's other works (e.g. A Fine Balance): Indo-nostalgic, riotous, deeply humanistic. There is the dysfunctional Parsi family, led by Gustad Noble (Roshan Seth) - a middle class bank clerk who is at times infuriatingly self-pitying, at other times gloriously heroic. His wife, Dilnavaz (Sona Razdan), struggles to keep the balance between Gustad and their eldest son, Sohrab (Vrajesh Hirjee), who has just had the (mis?)fortune of being admitted to one of the prestigious IITs. One day, Gustad gets a letter from his charismatic, prodigal friend, Jimmy Bilimoria (Naseeruddin Shah), a military man who spins tall tales about funding Bangladeshi/"East Pakistani" resistance forces.

The strength of Mistry's story, and this adaptation, is how the fine line is juggled - or, shall we say, a FINE BALANCE is maintained - between what is real and what is fantasy. This isn't stereotypical post-colonial magic(al) realism (though that would have been nice too), but rather it's a sort of unreliable narrator - is Jimmy really a big-shot spy? Do the magical potions Dilnavaz concocts really what keep everyone safe? The film leaves these things ambiguous - sometimes frustratingly so. But that ambiguity, like the incoherence, is all part of the package. Look at this! Life is crazy! Just as the chawl's wall to the street goes from over-frequented public urination spot to religious mural and ad hoc shrine, things often just don't make sense. And you're not even sure how to feel about it.

Indeed, religion is shown to be a fragile, important shield against the urine of life. When Gustad, in a slightly Groundhog Day way, becomes the holiest, shiniest, forgivingest (and, if you'll forgive us the Judeo-Christian default, the Jesusiest!) humanist we've done ever seen, he is shown to finally make some progress. Suddenly, he can laugh. He can cry. He has emotional breakthroughs. The wall doesn't smell like pee anymore.

Poor Roshan Seth was never really used as much as he could have been - we still recall, with great fondness and awe, the subtle genius of his performance in Gandhi (particularly when he confronts Gandhiji after one of the fasts) and the wondrous, dreamy texture of his take on a displanted Ugandan in Mississippi Masala (maybe the only movie where he gets his due). That man could be soulful, people! Such a Long Journey is a rare chance for him to play the lead, and it's intriguing and, ultimately, very satisfying to watch his complex, whiny, miserable, redeemable Gustad. Naseeruddin Shah and Om Puri - the usual stalwarts - have very little to do, but it's nice to see them (especially Om Om Om Puri!). Soni Razdan did what she could, given that - yet again - the ladies get relegated to being concerned mothers, shrewish crones, whores or sexualized secretaries. Oh yeah, or Indira Gandhi.

So, to conclude: domestic, lightly mystical (featuring the Sitars of Transcendentalism), and endlessly interpretable, this is a rare glimpse into middle class workaday urban India, when most other stuff tends to be Orientalist poverty porn or Karan Joharified NRI luxury fests.

Saturday, 8 May 2010

Cairo Time (2009)



Poignant and pleasantly beautiful, Cairo Time tells a well-worn story - Westerner finds romance and beauty in the seductive East - with a gentle, realist touch.

Juliette (Patricia Clarkson), a middle-aged Canadian journalist, is visiting Cairo for a long-planned vacation with her UN staff husband, Mark (Tom McManus). Mark is unexpectedly held up in the Gaza Strip, and Juliette ("Like Romeo and!" a character notes) is stranded in the hotel, so Marc sends his long-time colleague, Tareq (Alexander Siddig), to play host. The attraction between Tareq and Juliette, which is immediate and mutual, simmers for much of her visit - until building to an almost unbearable tension where, if you're like the PPCC, you may find yourself gnashing your teeth, tearing your hair out and begging these characters to just elope, for the love of God!


O wonder!


How many goodly creatures are there here!


But Cairo Time, for all its golden-hued panoramas of sunsets over pyramids, late-night wedding parties and curling hookah smoke, never gives in to the film fantasy urge - and the two star-cross'd lovers must remain firmly grounded in reality. Unlike other doomed couples o' the souq - Bogie and Ingrid, Ralph and Kristen - Juliette and Tareq are doomed by their pragmatism. And it is this realism - that you can't just drop everything and run off with the gorgeous, slinky foreigner, even if there's nothing you'd rather do - that accentuates the beauty and common tragedy of this very plausible love story.


How beauteous mankind is!


O brave new world! That has such people in't!


The portrayal of Cairo is likewise realistic: it is chaotic, majestic decay, and the film shows both the elegance of nighttime Cairo as well as the hassle of being the only white lady in a skirt during the day. Juliette and Tareq engage in several postcolonial plays about Western saviors ("Between you and your husband," Tareq sarcasms, "you may just save the Middle East!"), the dual eroticism (belly dancing!) and sexual conservativism (no short skirts!) of modern-day Egypt, and the hairy problem of romanticizing poverty. But the film is never too cerebral or topical - its main pleasure is the unfolding mature love, and how painfully awkward and achingly beautiful it is to be in the wrong sort of love with a pretty someone from a new place.

The music, composed by Niall Byrne, is an additional pleasure - it sounds like Nicola Piovani by way of Alexandre Desplat, with several tracks by the excellent Egyptian band El Tanbura, as well as some selections from Emirates Airlines' Classical Arabic audio channel to boost up the local feel. We found out about this film by way of the recent New York Times article on breakout performances (that being Alexander Siddig's, though please, he was sexy and wonderful since his days as Dr. Bashir!) and we're very happy we did. Not only are we filthy Orientalists and therefore suckers for romantic sunrises overlaid with haunting adhaans, moody stares over bubbling water pipes and mint tea, and the sun snaking through labyrinthine markets, but we also find love stories about people over 20something very refreshing. Very, very nice.


(the soundtrack)

Sunday, 7 June 2009

The Sweet Hereafter (1997)



Atom Egoyan's stark, beautiful The Sweet Hereafter is a tale about grief, helplessness and the innate, all-consuming need to protect one's children. Ultimately, the film shows that sometimes, even with the best protection and control, tragedy may occur. And, even more confoundedly, the tragedy can be essentially meaningless - a horrible accident with no perpetrators, only victims. How parents accept (or don't) this existential helplessness is explored in a not so much gloomy as meditative picture by the noted Canadian filmmaker.

One day in deepest, snowiest Small Town, Canada, a school bus full of children meets with a terrible accident. Few survive: the beloved bus driver, Dolores (Gabrielle Rose), and a thoughtful middle school girl, Nicole (an amazing Sarah Polley), now in a wheelchair. Shortly after the accident, a lawyer, Mitchell Stevens (Ian Holm), shows up. With apparent emotional authenticity, he begs the bereft parents to join him in a class action suit against - the bus company? The school board? The highway maintenance people? Well, someone. Stevens assures the devastated, grieving townspeople that he can "channel their rage", "assure this never happens again" and "seek, not compensation, but punishment". Meanwhile, during his interviews, we the audience uncover the usual can of worms: one couple are believed to be pot-smoking hippies, widowed mechanic Billy (Bruce Greenwood, in a huge mooch and missing some teeth) is having an affair with the motel owner's wife, and there may even be a case of incest or child abuse in the town.


A powerful image from the film: the looming specter of tragedy. Can we protect our children from everything?


Ian Holm and Sarah Polley were amazing in this!


This may make it sound a bit soppy or melodramatic, but everything is handled with great skill and sensitivity. Furthermore, the story is richly textured along Robert Browning's The Pied Piper of Hamelin, which Nicole reads to the younger children in several scenes:
And the Piper advanced and the children followed,
And when all were in to the very last,
The door in the mountain-side shut fast.
Did I say, all? No! One was lame,
And could not dance the whole of the way;
And in after years, if you would blame
His sadness, he was used to say, --
``It's dull in our town since my playmates left!
I can't forget that I'm bereft
Of all the pleasant sights they see,
Which the Piper also promised me.

The "Piper" could be the lawyer, or Nicole's father, or death, while it's clear the "lame" child is Nicole herself. Though it could also be the widower, Billy, or anyone who survives a tragedy.

The narrative also has a fascinating structure: circling around the accident, a plane trip Stevens takes two years later, the months before the accident, and the innocent childhood of Steven's troubled daughter. The scenes link into each other in novel and, at times, heart-wrenching ways - we watch Nicole read the Pied Piper poem to Billy's two adorable children in one scene, and we watch Billy's aghast expression when he witnesses his children's accident immediately after that. These moments could be months apart, but linking them so close really drives the devastation home.


Bruce Greenwood in his gynormous handle-bar mooch. Canadia Schmanadia, someone get that man into an American Civil War TV movie. Ideas! Who should he play? I say Pickett (of "'s Charge" infamy).


It's ironic that we should have been reading David Sheff's devastating Beautiful Boy just yesterday, as it covers much of the same ground as Egoyan's film. Sheff's son, Nic, became a meth addict in his teens and Beautiful Boy follows Sheff's particular journey as being the parent of a drug addict. In The Sweet Hereafter, the protagonist - lawyer Mitchell Stevens (Ian Holm) - is also the father of a drug addict. And, in one scene, he seems to voice Sheff's most tragic insight: how rage and helplessness can twist love into something very painful, for everyone involved. For Mitchell Stevens, his drug addicted daughter is "dead" to him - her ranting phone calls fill him with visible grief, and he complains not being able to "know" who he's speaking with. In one moment of semi-drunken vulnerability, he seethes: "Well, enough rage and helplessness and your love turns to something else. It turns to steaming piss."

Sheff's other great insight in Beautiful Boy is how, just when you think you've reached your limit for coping with awful tragedies, you find that... you can cope with more. Life goes on. The character of Billy embodies this realization: already having lost his wife to cancer a few years before, he follows his twin children to school in their school bus every morning because, as one character puts it, it's comforting. A sense of control. We then have the pivotal moment, halfway through the town, when Billy helplessly watches the bus skid off the road. This is pretty much inconceivably awful for the PPCC - nervous breakdown-worthy - but Billy plugs on and, importantly, angrily refuses to take part in the lawsuit.

The stark difference between the fathers seems to represent the two ways of coping: anger/grief and grasping for control (Stevens) versus grief/anger and admitting helplessness (Billy). While Stevens seems almost convinced of his own pitch in some scenes - convinced that suing someone will help the grief - Billy is unambiguously clear that, "unless you can raise the dead", there is nothing to be done. Shit happened. That's that. Ultimately, the film seems to demonstrate that the longer you hold onto the belief that you can control everything (or that you should, or have somehow caused your tragedies), the longer you will find yourself angry and grieving at your helplessness. The sooner you let go, the sooner you can achieve a tenuous sort of acceptance or peace.

The beautiful cinematography captures both the pervasive sense of emptiness after such a loss, as well as the somewhat oppressive gloom of wintry remote Canada - though it also allows snatches of bittersweet beauty: the pink rays of the setting sun, Nicole's wisdom. The performances - particularly by Ian Holm, Sarah Polley and Bruce Greenwood - are absolutely amazing. We have a soft spot for Ian Holm (hey, it's Bilbo!) and indeed had been tracking this film for some time, knowing it was one of his best performances. He delivers some very powerful scenes indeed: the dead-eyed lassitude of receiving his daughter's ranting phone calls, the semi-conniving, semi-heartfelt attempts to reel the grieving parents in. Sarah Polley blew us away with her age and grace - it was such a layered, nuanced performance. The last time we saw Bruce Greenwood was eating alien slugs in this year's Star Trek - this, um, had a bit more depth. (Though, hey, go Captain Pike! Woohoo.) We look forward to exploring his other notable collaboration with director Egoyan: Exotica.

We can't help but compare this film to others we've reviewed: in particular, Nanni Moretti's The Son's Room, which examines a parent's grief in a much more microcosm, warmly humanistic way, and another Italian film, Pasqualino Settebellezze, for taking the "survivor's dilemma" (i.e. Is being the survivor really always the best deal?) to its most extreme imaginings. Very different films, but exploring similar themes and therefore maybe worth a look together. In the meantime, tired of PPCC monologues? Watch what Siskel and Ebert had to say about it!