The Lives of Others

I saw The Lives of Others yesterday and found it a remarkable film. German cinema has undergone, not just a renaissance but a complete regeneration. Germany's history in the last 100 years offers an unparalleled cinematic resource; the rise and fall of Nazism, its postwar fracture into two separate countries, one an economic powerhouse reshaped by an alliance of Western Europe and the US, the other its polar opposite, a Communist state firmly rooted within the Eastern Bloc led by Soviet Russia, then the fall of the Berlin Wall, actual and metaphorical the symbol of the division between the two countries and reunification. German cinema in the 1920s was thrillingly innovative, and many brilliant film-makers fled Nazism in the 1930s to invigorate and revolutionise Hollywood.
German cinema suffered badly from Nazism; Goebbels twisted and warped its entire structure and it took decades to recover. Herzog and Fassbinder were major filmmakers but were mavericks, exceptional individuals. Recently, however, German cinema has undergone a major renaissance, starting with Run, Lola, Run, which was energetic, innovative and very entertaining.
Since then we have had Downfall and Goodbye Lenin among others, and now this, which has to be counted as a major achievement. How many other national cinemas have taken such a pitiless and searching look at their recent past? British cinema has had a few notable successes, but it still seems mired in 'heritage' - concerned with the look of the film at the expense of the content. Though I did think The Queen was a useful, interesting and entertaining look at Britain in the last few years and Mirren has thoroughly deserved all her awards.
But this was something else - I found it a haunting and satisfying film that certainly raised questions. I know that East Germans have found the concept of a renegade Stasi officer extrremely implausible and have criticised the film for what they see as its entirely unbelievable premise, that a Stasi officer could, would be able to and would want to undermine an investigation. But this, I think misunderstands the film, which is only doing what films have always done - ask 'what if?'
The final scene had the beauty of a rewarding and satisfying conclusion and a nearly full house went away deep in discussion. Certainly our small party argued furiously about it and I know the film has been the subject of furious controversy amongst many ex-East Germans. I love films which leave you thinking and talking - certainly I went to sleep that night haunted by Ulrike Muhe's extraordinary eyes, described by one reviewer as having the ‘the baneful expression of someone haunted by a premonition of future sorrow’.

An addenda (June 16th). I've just read an article about 'endings' by Thomas Sutcliffe in yesterday's Independent in which he singles out the final scene in The Lives of Others as the perfect example of what he means. In an article about the final episode of The Sopranos which has just been broadcast in the US he talks about those occasions when 'the merit of a film or television series crowds into its final seconds..the screen equivalents of Geoff Hurst's 1966 World Cup goal, crossing the line even as the referee is inhaling to blow the final whistle'. In The Lives of Others 'a man smiles - the faintest smile, and only detectable as such because he's been essentially expressionless for the previous two hours. And yet that fleeting moment of warmth reshapes nearly everything that's gone before, enriching the moral texture of the film'. I've quoted Sutcliffe at length because I really couldn't have put in any better - it's a perfect ending and people flooded out of the cinema buzzing.

Mansfield Park

Watched the DVD of Mansfield Park (1999) last night - I wanted to see how it compared with the recent Jane Austen season on ITV. Well, it wasn't too bad, but it demonstrated yet again the problems actors and directors have with Austen. It's a bit of a cliche that historical films and television tell you more about the period in which it was made then the era they're trying to depict, but Austen's works, probably because her books are essentially about manners and morals, are particularly susceptible. So we had a feisty, modern Fanny, and a sensitive 'new man' in Edmund, plus numerous references to Sir Thomas Bertram's wealth having been derived from his plantations in the Caribbean, and his involvement in the slave trade, complete with Fanny's discovery of a sketchbook of pornographic drawings of slaves. I understand what the film-makers were trying to do but it just seemed tacked on (which it was), and didn't relate to the narrative. They were probably attempting to make a point about the basis of the Bertrams' wealth, but it was all subsumed into the standard Austen happy ending. And as with nearly all recent Austen adaptations, we had to endure a thick layer of loud, treacly background music all the way through - it didn't let up for a moment.
There were some nice performances, mainly from reliable stalwarts like Lindsay Duncan, playing both Fanny's downtrodden mother back in Portsmouth, and the opium-addicted Lady Bertram. Hugh Bonneville, Jonny Lee Miller and Harold Pinter were also excellent - these actors can always be relied on to bring a script to life. I also liked the little girl who played the young Fanny very much.
In the end, though, it was all a bit tiresome - too much slushy music, too many attractive views of large country houses and too many scenes of horse-drawn carriages driving along country roads. Please, please, can we have a moratorium on Austen? Her books used to be rarely adapted, until the enormous and deserved success of Pride and Prejudice on BBC in 1995. Now we're overloaded with them. At least can we have one without background music!

Sunshine

I went to see Sunshine last night. I was intrigued by everything I'd read about it as I've always been a bit of a fan of science-fiction cinema and wanted to see how a 21st-century take on the genre would look, sf films really need to be seen on the big screen.
Well, it was impressive. It falls apart a bit towards the end, but redeems itself in the final scene. For me, it was a distillation of the most notable sf films of the last 40-50 years - I counted allusions to 2001, Silent Running, Planet of the Apes, AI, Dark Star, Alien and Solaris, not to mention Pink Floyd's 'Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun', and experts can probably point out others. But there's no shame in that - they're all worth referencing. And there plenty of new, 21st-century elements, such as anxiety about climate change, which gave the film a fresh, invigorating quality and prevented it from being simply a collection of recycled cliches.
Visually it was tremedous, even more so for the effects being created in an East End warehouse on an astonishingly low budget. It really put several expensive and bloated effects-laden films to shame. The actors, most of whom I hadn't heard of, found it difficult to rise above anonymity, apart from Michelle Yeoh who always commands attention, but the star was, as is always the case in his films, Cillian Murphy. What an interesting actor he is turning out to be! His extraordinary pale blue eyes and chiselled features are simply magnetic, and you can't, and don't, look at anyone else when he's on the screen. He's not conventionally good-looking at all though, in fact he can look very weird, and this means he's had some interesting parts. He was excellent as the the IRA soldier in The Wind that Shakes the Barley, and in Batman Begins he showed that he could also play villains convincingly. He's an actor who has been the star of every film he's in, even when he's not actually playing the leading role, and I'll follow his career with interest. So far, he's played interesting parts in a broad range of films so it'll be fascinating to see if he can keep it up and resist the temptation to do worthless blockbusters.
I wasn't really sure about the last half hour or so of Sunshine - it was somewhat incoherent and I lost the plot a bit (literally!). I could see what the film-makers were trying to do and say, but it wasn't held together strongly enough narratively to really make it work. I read somewhere that Boyle's films have a tendency to go a bit psycho at the end, and this was no exception, but the film redeemed itself, I thought, with a lovely final scene. We're back on a cold, dark, dying earth - Icarus II (the spaceship has succeeded in delivering its payload (a nuclear bomb which has to detonate in the heart of the sun) and the sun dimly appears, and the camera pans back to show an icebound Sydney Opera House, a nice touch. OK, we'e seen scenes like this before in other films, but it never fails, and has additional resonance in an era when the concept of climate change has a tangible reality.

Lust for Life

I caught Lust for Life on BBC-2 last Saturday after a friend alerted me to it. I'd somehow never managed to see it but had always kept at the back of my mind. Well, it was worth it - Kirk Douglas was quite remarkable. Firstly, his resemblance to the self-portraits of Van Gogh was extraordinary, considering KD is a Jewish Lithuanian and Vincent a redhaired Belgian. Then he demonstrated the physical energy one always imagined he must have had. The key to any successful historical recration is not that it's necessarily authentic, but that it should be convincing, and this certainly was. James Donald (one of my favourite British actors of the post-war period) played Theo (VVG's brother), showing the detached but loving compassion that is always present in his letters.
The look of the film was startling; nearly every frame recreated the look of an Impressionist or Post-Impressionist painting. I can't recall any film of the period (1956) possessing such a strong visual imperative - it brought to life nearly every one of VVG's painting and wove them seamlessly into the narrative.
I was delighted to see other favourites - Pamela Brown, one of that small company of magical post-war British actresses who suffered dreadfully from the drive to put the 1950s Rank Charm School look centre stage. With her marvellous eyes and wonderful voice she lit up any film in which she appeared.
Niall McGinnis, another favourite, also featured. It's no coincidence that both he and Brown featured in Michael Powell's 1940s films - Powell always had an eye for interesting and off-centre acting talent.
Yes, it was essentially a Hollywood biopic and only covers the main bullet points of VVG's life, but it bears little resemblance to most examples of the genre. It's a lovely film and KD's performance lights up the screen. I saw an interview with him last week (he's (91) in which he talked about his childhood. He remembered being out on the streets of New York, aged about 6 and finding a potato in the street. He picked it up and instead of taking it home to his family he lit a fire and cooked it in the gutter, he was so hungry. Our actors today don't have that kind of life experience and, although I wouldn't wish being starving on anyone, actors with that kind of background of poverty bring something special to the screen.

David Miliband (2)

I worry a bit that I'm becoming slightly obsessed with Mr Miliband, but I'm not alone. The papers all seem convinced that he's a leader-in-waiting. After another article the other day about him I took the opportunity of looking at his website which contains his blog. Very weird. He's got an extraordinary Fotherington-Thomas-like quality about him (Hello birds! Hello bees!) and seems enchanted and delighted with his status. I wonder though. There's a ferocious ambition in his eyes which bely all that, and his family background shouldn't be dismissed. His father was Ralph Miliband, who I remember as a very left-wing academic, a founding member of the 1950s' New Left. People brought up in ferociously left-wing backgrounds often react against them, but the commitment and zeal endemic to that background still remains. How extraordinary that Ralph's 2 sons (Ed is also a New Labour MP and has long been a close associate of Gordon Brown's) should be at the heart of New Labour, a body I'm sure Ralph would have despised.
Anyway - I shall continue my Miliband-watching. It's going to be very interesting to see how he handles the next few years as I can see some bloody times ahead for the party.

Marie Antoinette

Saw Marie Antionette last night - my latest DVD from Amazon rental. ( I keep thinking that it's too good to last - how can any service that is so efficient, and offers such a cornucopia of goodies possibly survive?). Anyway, I enjoyed it very much. It's a good length, under 2 hours, so doesn't outstay its welcome. (Anything over really needs to be able to justify its length). Sofia Coppola intrigues me; all 3 of her films so far (Virgin Suicides, Lost in Translation are the others) have a precise, lucid quality that I find distinctive, and very attractive. Her privileged status as the scion of one of Hollywood's A-list is evident all over the film; the celebrity cameos (Marianne Faithfull the most notable, looking wonderfully-un-Botoxed or face-lifted) and the presence of substantial acting talent such as Rip Torn, Judy Davis and Shirley Henderson in supporting roles, and Steve Coogan giving an unexpectedly unselfish performance as Marie's adviser all give the film lustre, sheen and substance.
Coppola's background in music video production is very evident, and there are times when the film seems like a collection of them, strung together with short linking sequences which have just enough dialogue necessary to maintain narrative flow.
It's beautifully-realised visually; filmed at Versailles, it's an almost-perfect recreation of Louis XVI's court. Some sequences are reminiscent of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, a favourite of mine; the camera holding on to the scene and staying with it, luxuriating in the look of it. Another similarity is its preoccupation with the strangeness of the past - it really was another country, and they really did do things differently.
As far as the script is concerned, Coppola plays fast and loose with period authenticity, dispensing with it altogether at times. Marie Antoinette and her female companions at times talk like a bunch of Valley girls, but somehow it doesn't matter. Period authenticity is an over-valued concept - looking right, or at least looking convincing is what matters, and MA and her friends may well have talked like the French 18th-century equivalent of Valley girls.
Coppola builds the narrative with layers of scenes with little or no dialogue, snatched fragments of conversation and music, an eclectic collection of 18th-century period recreations, , some ambient tracks, and 21st-century rock-punk songs which I can't pretend to be able to identify. It all falls apart a bit towards the end - somehow its concern with style over substance can't quite encompass the French Revolution, or MA's death at the hands of the guillotine. There's a headlong rush through the birth of 2 children, 'let them eat cake' and the family's flight from the revolutionary rabble. But it remains an extraordinarily accomplished work and Coppola's sensibility towards the film-making process promises much. She really is a major talent.

David Miliband

David Miliband is regularly touted as someone who might challenge Gordon Brown for the leadership of the Labour Party. I doubt very much if he will, but that doesn't mean he won't ever lead the party. During the live broadcast of Brown delivering his budget to Parliament a couple of weeks ago, the camera rested on a group of MPs standing at the back. The group were like Shakespearean courtiers and Miliband, in the middle, looked watchful, dangerous, his dark eyes looking intently and penetratingly at Brown. He will, I believe, either end up executed, or as the executioner. To me he looked like someone biding their time, waiting for the right moment while absorbing everything around him, not missing a thing. He could get his timing horribly wrong, who knows? He could spend a lifetime as a might-have-been, like William Hague for example. Or, if he's patient, he could lie low, wait for Brown to hang himself, quietly build an empire, then get moving when the time is right. Whatever happens, I suspect it's going to be a fascinating political story, worthy of Shakespeare. Brown's whole life, of course, is a full-scale Shakespearean tragedy. We are seeing an endgame here, and Miliband , if he's as clever as he appears, will take full advantage. We'll see.......

Persuasion

Last night I watched the last of ITV's Jane Austen adaptations, Persuasion. I hadn't watched the others; I wasn't attracted by the 'modernising' spin of the publicity, but this one looked as if it might be better, and I thought the BBC's version a few years ago was superb, so was interested in seeing what ITV would make of it.
Well, it wasn't too bad. I always feel a bit weird watching ITV as I rarely see anything on the channel, just the odd South Bank Show and Champions League football match. It's like listening to Classic FM when there's nothing I want to listen to on Radio 3. But it really was a creditable effort in some ways. I liked the girl who played Anne Elliott very much, Captain Wentworth was suitably brooding and tortured, and I enjoyed Anthony Head, who was obviously enjoying himself enormously as Sir Walter Elliott. However there was too much hanging around what looked like the Cobb at Lyme Regis, though, and wet shirts, bringing back memories The French Lieutenant's Woman and Pride and Prejudice. Anne racing around Bath at the end was just silly. None of the passers by seemed remotely perturbed. In the end it looked just what it was, a 21st century girl dressed up in Regency clothes running round Bath.
I have no idea whether the adaptation was any good as I haven't read the book, but it did at least make me want to, but I also wanted to see the BBC's production again and promptly put it on my Amazon DVD list. Why are the BBC's period adaptations so much better? They aren't always, but when they really try they are peerless. Last year's Bleak House for example, fresh, imaginative, yet capturing the spirit of Dickens and the period. The past was different for heaven's sake, and that difference should be captured, not 'updated' and given a spurious modernity.

300

Today I went to see 300, accompanied by 2 of my sons, both of whom had been looking forward to the film with great anticipation. I'd read extremely mixed reviews last week - some despised it, some found it ridiculous and silly, and a few thoroughly enjoyed it. Well, I have to say I found it great fun, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, it was preposterous on many levels, and it is without doubt, one of the campest films I've seen for a long time. I suspect the homoeroticism might have been intentional and I'm sure the gay audience will love it - all those torsos, all that male bonding, and the costumes.
Yes, it was a triumph of style over content, but what style! It looked marvellous, beautifully composed, with Frank Miller's comic strip successfully visualised.
It'd be easy to ridicule the Spartans self-image, but the male bonding was an expression of a world-view which did not recognise the individual, a concept alien to us now and difficult to portray. Our sensibilities cannot encompass such a mentality. Nevertheless, they were like that and their commitment to the group at the expense of the individual is something to admire, marvel at, and make us think a bit while we're enjoying the ride.
My sons did a fair bit of ancient history at school and were far more knowledgeable than me about the events portrayed in the film. It's historical authenticity was fairly minimal, they said, but they felt it didn't really matter. The Spartans' feat at Thermopolyae was worth celebrating, and their mad courage was brilliantly conveyed, they felt.
I can see that some would find the film pretty worthless, but I didn't; and Gerard Miller's primal shout of 'SPARTANS' as he led them into battle was pretty thrilling. I thought Cosmo Landesman's review in the Sunday Times was spot-on; he found it 'fantastic, voluptuous, bloody, ferocious, and, dare I say it, sublime'. He's absolutely right when he calls it 'a romantic celebration of the Spartan view of war, heroism and self-sacrifice...a film that dares to say that war can be noble'. He comments on the irony-free quality of the film and how refreshing this is - I totally agree; sometimes one gets a little tired of subversion, and he praises its 'dedication to detail' and 'determination to present something the viewer hasn't seen before'. The critics who sneered, and several looked down on the film from a very great height, missed the point almost wilfully. But I know that many people, probably mostly male, will throughly enjoy it. Traditional male values are unfashionable, sometimes for good reason, but there are some qualities that should be celebrated and 300 does that brilliantly.