Sexta-feira, 18 de Fevereiro de 2011

Black Swan (2010)


It took 62 years but finally there is another ballet masterpiece in the halls of cinema perfection. The last one was “The Red Shoes” in 1949, directed by the Archers, and “Black Swan” is so good, but really so god damn good, that rivals it all the way. Off course that director Darren Aronofsky has used us to simple yet profound features, where his handycam style probed deep into a whirlwind of emotions that slowly descended into tragedy, not so much physical, but intensely psychological. In this regard “Black Swan” exceeds all expectations. Like in the 40s classic, the ballet world is a very prone environment to tragedy and exploration of the limits to which a character can go. Ballet dancers seek perfection and make various sacrifices to achieve that perfection. The beauty of their performances hides physical pain, endless hours of training, slimming tactics, etc, etc. Natalie Portman plays a young dancer that is chosen as the new leading lady of the Company, which is about to produce Swan Lake. From the beginning we know that something isn’t right with her, that she has a sort of double personality, a disturbance, that she tries to hide. Outside, she is like the white swan, pure, timid, fragile. Alone she has inklings of the black swan, eager to explode in sexuality and desire and violence. Yet she always restrains herself, hiding in her “white” qualities. As she tackles the role, perfect as the “white”, but lacking the energy as the “black”, and as she is pushed harder and harder by her choreographer, she begins to snap, and her black personality slowly takes over, to tragic consequences, as the opening day of the play approaches. It’s a slowly descent into madness, or rather, a slow conquest of one personality over another, which is shown against the relationship of Portman with her controlling-failed-ballerina-mother (Barbara Hershey), her choreographer eager to explore her “dark side” for the purposes of the dance (Vincent Cassel), her understudy who may be leading her astray, be plotting to get her part, or just be her friend (voluptuous Mila Kunis), and the former prima ballerina, whom Portman worships (Winona Ryder in a fabulous performance). Above all, the battle inside Portman’s mind is the most important aspect of the picture. Suddenly events unfold that seem out of control. Are they real or not? The only thing that’s certain and immutable is the ballet, the dance, it’s Swan Lake, and in the end, only that remains… “Black Swan” is a cinematic milestone, it’s a masterpiece, and the best film to hit theatres in a long long time. 5 out of 5. It baffles me completely how can anyone choose “King’s Speech” over this one for an award. “Black Swan” is miles ahead, thousands and thousands ahead, of Speech. And Portman deserves the Oscar for sure, and so does Aronofsky. Usually a whole picture in handycam-shaking style bores me, but here, from scene 1, he puts it as if it was just another ballet dancer in the middle of the stage. It flows with the dancers, the actors, it becomes one with them. A profound study on a disturbed mind, set in the magic, mysterious and mesmerizing world of ballet.

Quinta-feira, 17 de Fevereiro de 2011

Hereafter (2010)


Jean-Luc Godard had the amazing quality of producing gripping masterpieces which no-one understood. You didn’t know what was going on, but you saw it with mesmerizing attention. Clint Eastwood, a great master in his old age, has produced a gripping movie which is actually an utter bore, and that is quite an achievement. If you probe deeper, you see a very sensitive humane story, delicately handled, about three characters, with more than perfect character development, but which seems to go on forever and forever. You think that the character development will finish and the story of the movie will eventually start, until you realize that that development is precisely the story of the movie. It is a weird feeling, and brings back memories of movies of yore, of a sort of neo-realism, where everyday scenes constitute the action of the movie, and depth and emotion is given through the ordinary, where seldom anything happens, and what does is treated just like another piece of life, that eventually passes and you move on. When rumors hit that the next Eastwood film will be the third or fourth remake of “A Star is Born” (one loses count), staring none other than Beyonce, one believes that he can basically do what he wants in his old age, and do it well. “Gran Torino” was a masterpiece, “Invictus” had lesser value, but still it was highly watchable. “Hereafter”, unlike how it’s publicized, is not about death, nor psychics, nor talking to the dead. It’s about three people, and what their lives become after touching death in several ways. And we see their lives, scene after scene after scene. We see Matt Damon, a man who has the gift of talking to the dead, and who once made a fortune out of it, but who now works in construction because he couldn’t cope with it, and who constantly rejects his brother’s appeals to go back to that way of life. We see Cécile De France, a French journalist who had a near-death experience in the Tsunami, and so who now tries to write a book about the “other side”. We see little George (or Frankie) McLaren, a boy with a drug-addicted mother, whose twin brother died run over by a car, and so desperately seeks psychics to help him talk to his brother. Each of these scenarios are presented in turn, in as lengthy fashion as it is humanly possible to bare. Any slower and the movie would stall completely. As it is, it’s barely enough to be extremely captivating, which is a weird paradox. An entire movie could have (and has) been made out of a single segment. Slowly, the three characters converge to the same spot, where the movie will end, in the same tone as the rest of the picture. There are a few exaggerations (what is the point of Bryce Dallas character?, and what’s with that stylized ending?), but the strength of the movie is in its grasp of everyday reality. Death is just a catalyst for life, the life of these characters. If this screenplay is ever novelized, it will make a brilliant book. As a film, however, you really fail to understand why all the little details are shown, if the story, movie-wise, isn’t getting anywhere. It has a flavor of those mosaic movies, such as “Babel”, yet with less movie-cliché-things and more depth. At the end I was screaming for a “Hereafter 2”, because when you feel that you are getting somewhere the movie ends. The plus side is that I know everything about these characters. I feel them and I understand them, and they have touched me. The down side is that I spend two hours seeing them, the characters, and not a movie.

Terça-feira, 15 de Fevereiro de 2011

João loves Maria – Uma estória de parvoíce

Sejamos sinceros, a maior parte das coisas que se escrevem são uma parvoíce. Nos tempos que correm, qualquer indivíduo com meia dúzia de palmos de testa, que é como quem diz, um cabeçudo, acha que se consegue desembraçar na arte da palavra. Ora eu sei de boa autoridade que o Shakespeare tinha a cabeça bem pequenina, porque na realidade vi o tal filme, e o Camões tinha um olho a menos, o que certamente já retira algum volume àquela cabecinha marota. Não desfazendo outros escritores mais abonados, a minha cabeça até tem um tamanho razoável – o que também poderá ser consequência de ter cabelo a mais – mas não suficientemente grande para que seja excessivamente parvo naquilo que estou a escrever.

Mas a parvoíce não é o meu prato forte. Enveredo mais pelo embelezamento. Por exemplo, consigo transformar a épica frase de “o João gosta da Maria”, em “o João está apaixonado pela Maria”, o que não só aumenta consideravelmente o nível de eloquência do material, como aumenta também em um o número de palavras, o que dá sempre jeito em várias circunstâncias, a saber; quando se recebe à palavra, quando se tem um limite de palavras a atingir, quando se quer impressionar uma miúda e, bem sabido, quando não se tem mais nada para fazer. Contudo, a minha capacidade literária vai um pouco mais além, mas só um pouco (que eu não quero ser de maneira nenhuma apelidado de convencido ou até, quem sabe, de pedante). Talvez seja por ter um pai escritor. Talvez seja por ter visto muitos episódios do “Santo”. Talvez seja por ter estado fechado duas horas num controlo de gripe A aquando da minha visita a Macau. Ou então não fui amamentado em criança. Sinceramente não sei. Independentemente da razão, a verdade é que consigo transformar a frase supracitada em “o João acha que a Maria é o seu mais que tudo”, ou também, utilizando um estrangeirismo, “João loves Maria”. Podemos igualmente recorrer aos recursos de estilo, como o pleonasmo, “o João ama a Maria porque gosta dela” (creio que não sou o primeiro a escrever esta frase – ver Fátima Lopes), a perífrase, “o João nutre pela Maria o sentimento mais puro e mais belo que pode existir entre os descendentes de Adão, e se fosse uma beterraba seria docinho docinho”, a ironia “o João não gosta da Maria não, queres ver?”, a comparação “o João gosta da Maria como o Ruben gosta da Ana Francisca”, e a apóstrofe “Ó João, Ó Maria, Ó Cupido, estais todos numa rambóia a três que é uma loucura”. Poderia eventualmente tentar a cacofonia, mas à primeira vista parece-me um bocado complicado, e eu sou uma pessoa simples.

E estes dois belos parágrafos acima constituem o chamado “enquadramento inicial da história”. Neste momento o leitor já está ciente que existe um João, que existe uma Maria, e que estão enamorados. Vai o sábio crítico acusar-me de quebrar as regras da linguagem, da escrita, de Matusalém e assim por diante. Acuse à vontade a ver se me importo. Se há uma coisa que me apetece constantemente é escrever como me apetece. O estilo aparece depois, ou não. A maior parte das vezes é inventado a posteriori, e nem sequer é por mim. Alguém diz “eh pá caro jovem, estás a escrever com o estilo da escola pós-modernista de Figueiró dos Vinhos”. E eu abano a cabeça e digo que sim, que eu não gosto de ofender as pessoas.

Bem, o meu nome já todos o sabem, e não nos interessa minimamente repetir, porque é assim a modos que um bocado feioso. A minha idade é entre o jovem e o já não assim tão jovem. Gosto tanto de cortar a unha do dedo mindinho como dos restantes dedos, o que prova que sou altruísta e bom rapaz, e se me coçarem as costas quando tenho comichão fico eternamente agradecido a essa pessoa. Num dia bom, posso ir jogar futebol. Curiosamente, num dia mau também. Para uma ilha deserta levava um leitor de DVDs e um telemóvel, para poder encomendar os DVDs, porque como toda a gente sabe um leitor vazio não serve para nada, a não ser claro, se se é assaltado, pois aí pode ser devidamente utilizado como uma boa arma de arremesso. Mas claro, não creio que ninguém me assalte numa ilha deserta. Se alguma vez me perguntarem na televisão o que quero para o Mundo não hesitarei em dizer “world peace” (ou “piece”, não sei, confundo sempre). As minhas cores são as que existem, e se tiver de escolher um número peço antes que me dêem uma calculadora que resolva integrais de segunda ordem. Claro que a frase anterior foi uma rebuscada tentativa de insinuar que até sei o que é um integral de segunda ordem, e se o leitor está impressionado, curioso, ou ambos, então sugiro que recorra à internet, que eu tenho que avançar com a minha história e não posso perder tempo com trivialidades e parvoíces, tal como comecei por enunciar.

E este magnífico parágrafo acima constitui o chamado “enquadramento do narrador”. Os leitores mais perspicazes já se aperceberam que o narrador é um homem ciente da sua condição de narrador, o que é sempre bom nestes casos, (se é presente ou ausente ainda não se sabe, o que incute também uma nota de mistério à estória), que possui unhas e que sabe soletrar a palavra “arremesso”. Parecem-me triviais quaisquer tentativas de dar mais profundidade a esta personagem.

Estávamos num belo dia do mês de Fevereiro. A isto chama-se “enquadramento temporal da história”. E de notar a destreza do narrador, não só a referir que se estava num dia, mas que esse dia era “belo”. Estiquemos um pouco pela imaginação. A subtil brisa matinal aninhava-se em redor dos corpos que pontilhavam a rua. Nas primeiras horas da manhã os passeios ainda ostentavam pequenos espelhos de água que aqui e ali se haviam enroscado, vindos do céu, para passar a noite. Mas com o desabrochar do dia, o calor sorvera estes oásis do pavimento, e as poucas gotas que restavam eram chutadas pelos ávidos sapatos que conquistavam apressadamente a calçada. “Eh pá”, gritou de súbito uma voz do céu, “está aqui um carapau de corrida armado em Saramago. E que tal, a modos que choveu durante a noite mas agora já não chove, e diz que já há pessoas a andar na rua a esta hora da manhã? É assim tão difícil? Porque é que é preciso amaricar?”. Bem, confesso, em relação à escrita amarico um bocado. Chama-se a isto “amaricar um bocado em relação à escrita”.

Uma carrinha de mudanças contornava uma esquina sem se importar muito com o pavimento molhado nem os peões que aguardavam para atravessar. Após uma brusca travagem (daquelas que faz mal às cruzes, aos terços, e a outros artefactos), dois Zebedeus apeavam-se e polvilhavam o passeio com a imensidão nada subtil do seu escarro. “Consegues transportar a caixa?” vociferou um deles, mal contendo a pastilha elástica no interior da boca áspera. “A modos que sim, ó sócio indivíduo!” replicou o seu encorpado comparsa. “Para adonde?” concluiu. “Se não sabes para adonde, como tens a afronta de palrar que consegues?”. “Porque sei que consigo, adonde for”. “E se adonde for o 25º andar com o elebador abariado?”. “O meu tio Quim-Tó trabalha na construção civil e orienta-me uma daquelas maquinetas de tamanho familiar”. “Chama aqui o teu Tio Quim-Tó então, que eu chamo o namorado do meu cunhado Antunes Daniel, e aí vais tu ver quem é que tem o tamanho familiar…”

E assim por diante seguiu esta animada altercação, duas almas inocentes perdidas na demagogia do seu inteligente palavreado, enquanto mergiam esforços para transportar a caixa até ao seu destino.

Na realidade o “elabador” estava “abariado” naquela manhã, cedo descobriu a companhia, que só não chegava a ser um glorioso triunvirato porque o Fagundes da Silva tinha ficado na cama de ressaca, após uma noite de excessos na companhia de três perdizes e uma jovem das margens do Ipiranga. Tudo o que sobe um dia tem de descer, disse um dia o estimado Isaac. Mas os dois Zebedeus da nossa história nunca ouviram falar do estimado Isaac. Ouviram falar da Lyonce Viiktórya, mas nunca do Isaac. Pelo que se dignaram a subir, arrastando consigo o malfadado embrulho que, alheio a todas estas circunstâncias, era maltratado em cada degrau, em cada patamar e em cada aresta. E, tal como outrora as escadas de Babel eram escaladas e escaladas como se não houvesse amanhã, numa tentativa de tocar no divino, tal como Ícaro ascendeu e ascendeu, numa tentativa de beijar o calor nas faces, assim estes dois Zebedeus conquistavam degrau após degrau, andar após andar, numa tentativa de ficar cada vez mais suadinhos, e arfar o suficiente para merecerem a cerveja que certamente os esperaria no intervalo da manhã.

De súbito, uma última curva. De súbito, um último patamar. De súbito, um número, e uma porta. De súbito um estrondo que fez acordar a senhora de idade do 2º esquerdo. De súbito duas panças recostavam-se no chão, recuperando do esforço físico que já serviria para o ano todo. “Repetimos a dose em dois mil vinte sete?”, disse uma vozinha sufocada proveniente de uma face mais vermelha que uma lata de tomates do SLB. “Desde que possa repetir a dose logo à noite no Tasco do Picapau Amarelo…”, retorquiu o seu comparsa, sem se dignar a acabar a frase, por respeito aos seus pulmões. “Antes de picarmos o pau, temos que picar o ponto” retorquiu o primeiro, num raro rasgo de sagacidade. Teve um assentimento de uma cabecinha como resposta.

No minuto seguinte duas almas penadas levantaram-se, o normal equilíbrio do seu corpo restaurado, e seriamente confirmando o número da porta (porque fazer mudanças é uma profissão séria, seriamente confirmada), tocaram à campainha. O toque cristalino ressoou e apaziguou os ouvidos rudes destes dois intrépidos viajantes. A fechadura estremeceu levemente e depois cedeu. A porta abriu-se.

“Senhora Menina?”. “Sim, é a própria”. “Assim a modos que temos aqui uma encomenda para a Senhora Menina”. “Mas eu não encomendei nada!”. “Se não encomendou alguém encomendou por si, e olhe que parece valer a pena, é bem pesada, aqui o Gervásio quase que nem podia com ela, se não fosse eu e a minha musculatura…”. “Hey!” indignou-se Gervásio. “Mas que queres?” indignou-se ainda mais o outro. “Eu não quero nada”. “Então tá bem!”. Verdade seja dita, se algum deles se soubesse indignar mais ainda, o faria, mas assim sendo por aqui ficaram. Uma tossesinha levou-os de novo a concentrar-se na tarefa em mãos, e a jovem rapariga lá ficou com o embrulho, que foi audivelmente arrastado para dentro da divisão. As costumeiras despedidas formais foram efectuadas, e as duas criaturas desapareceram quer da sala, quer da nossa história, sem antes desfilarem a pança com que vieram ao mundo, seguido, quando se voltaram, da roupa interior que a calça descaída deixava antever, perante os belos olhos da incrédula rapariga.

Enfim sós. Só ela e o caixote. Mas que poderia conter tão rude embrulho, tão audivelmente arrastado, tão irritantemente pesado? Esta era uma miúda despachada que não estava para meias medidas e que não gostava de engonhar. Para além do mais, o narrador está ciente que depressa tem de chegar a algum lado, antes que perca clientes. A soma destes engenhos leva-nos aos parágrafos seguinte, onde o embrulho é aberto, a história concluída e a moral obtida.

Enfim sós. Lá fora rugia a selva urbana. Cá dentro batia o coração curioso da rapariga. Aproximou-se do caixote, escolhendo o melhor ângulo de aproximação. Alguma coisa não estava bem. O embrulho era suficientemente vulgar, mas os seus sentidos apurados reconheciam alguma falha no equilíbrio da situação. Talvez lá fora, com a azáfama da rua, aquele sopro indistinto seria inaudível aos dois Zebedeus. Talvez lá fora, com toda a mestria verbal que demonstraram e a aventurosa escalada, aquele pequeno oscilar das faces da caixa passassem despercebidas. Mas não para a bela rapariga. “Por favor abre-me com jeitinho, que sou fofinho” dizia o rótulo. Ela levantou ligeiramente uma sobranceira e aproximou-se. Inclinou-se sobre a caixa. Os seus dedos esticaram-se. Tocou no cartão…

Um movimento brusco fê-la sobressaltar-se e retrair-se. A caixa abriu-se, as suas quatro faces caíram simultaneamente e a tampa saltou sem se importar com a sua trajectória. Ela gritou, levou as mãos à boca e ficou, dois ou três passos recuada, a olhar espantada para o que se deparava à sua frente.

A sua incredulidade demorou apenas meio segundo. Quase instantaneamente, as mãos que cobriram a boca descaíram e o ar de espanto converteu-se num sorriso cada vez maior, até que explodiu em risota e todo o seu rosto se iluminou com o canto da felicidade. “Parvo”, sussurrou de mansinho, o olhar tentando reprovar mas não escondendo o brilho translúcido de emoção, de emoção apaixonada.

“Não sei se já mencionei hoje o quão gira és!” disse o rapaz que se erguia à frente dela.

“Parvo…” voltou a sussurrar, rendida àquela surpresa, enquanto se aproximavam um do outro, os seus braços suplicavam pelo toque, e os lábios ardiam com o sopro que havia de ser, em breves momentos.

“Esta é a minha prenda, ofereço-me a ti” disse ele, olhando-a, entrando no seu círculo de luz…

Chama-se a isto “clímax da história”, mas também “censura”, pois o que se passou a seguir pertence ao segredo dos deuses, ou mais provavelmente Afrodite, visto ser ela a deusa do amor. E portanto o narrador aproveita esta oportunidade para não só se despedir, como para salientar uma série de pontos, a saber, (i) o amor é a maior parvoíce de todas; (ii) o narrador é o maior especialista em parvoíce que anda por aí; (iii) seguindo o silogismo de Aristóteles então o narrador está parvo de amores. Quem pode argumentar com Aristóteles? A solução? Capitular. Chama-se a isto “diluir o egocentrismo da escrita e sufocar em parvoíce”. Não é de admirar que metade da população mundial ande aí pelos cantos completamente abananada. E é a abananar que a gente se entende, como este texto abertamente o prova.

O meu conselho? Crescei, abananai e multiplicai-vos. Neste momento estão nas bocas de todo o país as palavras “Mundo parvo” e “geração parva”. Encontrem outro termo, que a parvoíce é um sublime estado de ser e recomenda-se. Sou parvo, quero ser parvo e vou continuar a ser parvo. Contudo, nunca se esqueçam que não só toda a parvoíce está injectada de verdade, como até o maior talento empalidece perante perfeita beleza. Sou prova viva. O meu maior talento deixou de ser só meu. Posso ser parvo, mas acima de tudo sou pálido. O espectro do amor eriçou-me os cabelos… and I feel fine.

Taken (2008)


"Taken" has a story which has been seen a million times in action movies of the likes of Van Damme, Norris or Seagal. A man's daughter is abducted and he, who coincidence, coincidence, is an ex-spy, kills every living thing in its path until he gets to her. But "Taken" has something that these action movies seldom have, a heart, and good deliverance of the material. This is no ordinary action movie, it's a father in the quest of his girl, and the action derives from there. It's not a mere excuse to present action, as is custom, it's the necessities of the movie and of the story that introduce the action. There is a revenge movie with similar plot which is called "Edge of Darkness" (2010), a masterpiece, but there the psychology of it all slowly unfolded piece by piece until the action finally outbursted in the last act. In "Taken" there is no unfolding, right from square one you know what you are going to get, so maybe the movie fails a little there. Liam Neeson is at the beggining quickly established as an ex-spy who quit his job in order to try to bond with teenage daughter Maggie Grace, who he had "lost" for being always absent. She now lives with his ex-wife Famke Janssen and her new rich husband. An early sequence both shows his fighting skills and his love for the daughter, who really doesn't seem to notice him much, unless to get what she wants. She then goes to Paris on a trip, and Neeson is almost paranoid that something will happen. Maybe this paranoia is too much, and seems forced, but the truth is that really something happens, and she and her friend are kidnapped by a prostitution eastern-european network. So Neeson, with his CSI-martial-arts-gun-fighting-car-driving-furious-rage-skills tracks down and kills all who stand between him and his daughter. The story is simple, but is incredibly gripping, action sequence after action sequence gluing you to the screen. The bad guys are bad guys and treated mercilessly, and Neeson keeps hard and cold, with little flickers of emotion when he gets a new clue that will bring him closer to his goal. Director Pierre Morel presents an action piece with one or two nice little escapades (like the singer Sheerah - although not consistent enough to make a really deep movie), but which is focused in only one goal. The other kidnapped girls don't seem to matter, Neeson leaves them behind. Dismantling the network also doesn't seem to matter. Only his daughter does, and having achieved that home he goes, where strangely he doesn't seem to get that much credit, neither form the wife nor from the daughter. Anyway, not for the award season, but a very very good action flick, with a profound Neeson in an unusual role.

Domingo, 13 de Fevereiro de 2011

The King’s Speech (2010)


“The King’s Speech” arrives at cinemas heralded as the greatest movie of the year, and a strong candidate for this year’s Oscars. How these rumors get started I don’t know, but once again, having just watched the film, I am somewhat disappointed. Not that the movie is bad in itself, it isn’t, it has a good screenplay, strong performances and is well handled by the director, who constantly chooses moving flowing shots. But it isn’t that good, even if in current Cinema our standards are lowered. It has been seen before (even more so with Geoffrey Rush in a “mentor” role), and has a lot of difficulty in discerning exactly what it is supposed to be about. Is it about a person with a speech problem? Is it about a controversial time in a nation’s history and the man at the centre of it? Or is it about the speech itself, given at the outburst of the Second World War, and the story that leads up to it? Any of these three topics could have given a consistent movie, but the film dangles between the three, each in turn, and ends up having no actual story thread that is gripping. The film starts by showing that Colin Firth, the second son of King George V, future King George VI, stammers, and can’t speak to a public audience. For one, you know that by the end of the film he will deliver the all important speech, so there is no surprise, no drama, nor climax. The movie also shows the scenes as matter of fact, and taking aside the music, nothing in it gives it that lifting quality that everybody is hailing about. So the first third of the movie sees Helena Bonham Carter seek the help of Rush, always perfect as the mentor, to help her husband to overcome his problem. Rush, off course, will be much more than a speech therapist, he will guide Firth a la Obi-Wan Kenobi in the paths to be a just and good ruler of the nation. But, unlike Henry Higgins, we seldom see their exercises. All scenes end in the same, Firth turning his back on Rush by some discussion or other, saying “the sessions are over”, but eventually capitulating and coming back. Then the movie switches, and the political instability comes forward, as the king dies, the eldest son (Guy Pierce) abdicates out of love (a plot that takes a long time), and Firth finds himself, almost unwillingly, in the throne, at the outbreak of the war, and during all this time the fact that he has a problem is almost forgotten. And then, he has to deliver the enter-the-war-speech, and so back again comes his problem, and back again comes Rush. No surprise in what happens. The critics call the movie uplifting. But uplifting for whom? England, the World, or the King himself? By the end, the film tries to give the feeling that everything is a-ok. The Second World War is about to star? Hitler is about to kill 6 million Jews? Not to worry, the King has delivered his speech without stammering. Everything will be ok. Let’s give him three cheers. The best of the movie is not its story, but the lines, the screenplay, especially the scenes between Rush and Firth, where the dialogue flows and funny moments occur. Character development of Rush’s character is also very good, as is his performance, but yet again, he is just being himself. Firth will probably get the Oscar for his stammering, and justly so I think, and Carter should also get it, although her chances are slimmer. For Best Film however, this is not the one and can’t be. It’s period piece, a “British” production, with excellent cast (including a very amusing Timothy Spall as Churchill), but one that by trying to focus on one detail but also in the context at the same time losses its coherence, and ends up being rather dull and predictable. It’s not by making an heroic speech at the end and add it good music that makes a movie uplifting. It’s not by inserting funny moments in speech lessons that makes it interesting. The movie follows a step-by-step-screenwriting-class-screenplay in the relation between Firth and Rush, which is the centre of the film. They break-up, they make up, they break-up for stupid reasons that a single word would solve but none give it so that 10 more minutes of film can pass. And then all is lost amidst the political drama, and the simplicity fades. A more simple straight approach would be, in my opinion, more effective. The end result may be more pleasing to the british critic, but ends leaving the world audience with the taste that this is a “seen it-done that” kind of movie. And what is with the constant focus on young Elizabeth? Firth has off course two daughters, who appear by brief moments on two or three scenes. But each time they do the camera focus on one of them and everyone around stipulates that she is Elizabeth a thousand times. A low and poor trick to make the audiences smile and say “ah, there is the young Queen”...

Terça-feira, 8 de Fevereiro de 2011

Love and Other Drugs (2010)


I have been a fan of Edward Zwick ever since his early days when he directed "Glory" (1989) and "Legends of the Fall" (1994). But for the man who in the last 10 years directed "The Last Samurai" (2003), "Blood Diamond" (2006) and "Defiance" (2008), a romantic-sort-of-comedy, a movie about relationships, seems a little bit out of tune. But in the previous examples, despite the epic scope, Zwick could always get at the human, the individual, and work the story from there and not the other way around. Here there is no epic scope, and even the back story is almost just an excuse. This is a movie about 2 persons, 2 individuals, and their love. It may not be the most interesting of such movies (you enjoy it while you see it, almost forget it when you leave, there are not very distinguishable features), but it's solid enough, with good performances (especially by Anne Hathaway and Oliver Platt), with a few comic momments, that fails for being victim of a few "rules" of the romantic-comic genre, but nails it when describing the pangs and wants of love. Jake Gyllenhaal is very well cast as a young man very skillful in sales and very skillful with woman, who becomes a pharmaceutical sales rep for a big company, and gets sent to a new town. There he works his skills in trying to convince doctors (through the courting of nurses and secretaries, etc, etc) to prescribe the medicines of his company in favor of others. A lot goes on with Gyllenhaal's wash out brother (the comic relief), Oliver Platt (the mentor), Hank Azaria (the main doctor he needs to "grab") and Gabriel Macht (the competition) until he finally meets Hathaway, a girl who suffers from Parkinson and receives her treatment in the same hospital. She is as free spirited as he is, and what starts as casual sex ends in a relationship and eventually love. In between her illness is a problem, she shuts the outside world from it, and pushes him back because she is afraid to show weakness and commit. His independence and want for money and promotion is also a problem, a person who never needed anyone but sees himself get more and more drawn into this affair. Eventually they will have a fall out (because all romantic comedies have a fall out), and eventually they will get back together in a major romantic scene (this is the one I think doesn't fit, it's too Hollywwod in an otherwise very real and down-to-earth-film). In the middle, Viagra gets invented by the Farmaceutical and Gyllenhaal becomes it's main seller. More than just another story point, it servs as a cathalist for Gyllenhaal's personality to come forward, and also to give some humorous (albeit forced) moments. In the end, this movies is about two people, one hot-shot and another with a major illness, who learn to live with each other despite all odds. Zwick's camera is delicate, Hathaway's performance breathtaking, and her beauty astonishing. I just didn't understand, yet again, why she had to show her breasts so often. Some shots where just plain show off. All in all, this is a film about love that seldom leaves it's established rythm, but that conveys, yet in simple terms, what it really is all about, something that those Valentine's day movies never really understood, despite the supposed "romantic" moments and "romantic" lines. True love is not about these. True love is about life, and "Love and Other Drugs" hits, if not the mark, at least darn close.

Quarta-feira, 2 de Fevereiro de 2011

Hot Fuzz (2007)


After you see "Shaun of the Dead" (2004), a fabulous product of English comedy/action/movie homage, with such an insightful knowledge of the genre, incredible humorous tone (without resorting to cheap or forced laughs, although without major laughing moments), and kick-ass action like the best, you wouldn't think that the team made by director Edgar Wright, writers Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, and actors Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, could do something better. Well, they did. It's called "Hot Fuzz"! "Shaun of the Dead" blended your average English comedy situation and stereotyped characters with the best spoof of a zombie film ever made. "Hot Fuzz" nods at the blockbuster action and serial killer genre, in an English countryside setting. Simon Pegg is once again the lead character, as the perfect cop who cleans the streets of London like no other. Jealousy from colleagues and superiors (some cameos by Bill Nighy, Martin Freeman), make him be transfered to a small English town, where supposedly nothing happens, and he, the perfect cop, is bound to sort out stupid things like a missing goose, with new partner Nick Frost, who gives him a friendship he never had and a new taste for blockbuster movies. All seems quite enough until a serial killers starts to strike. Or at least so Pegg thinks, unlike all other police officers and Police Chief Jim Broadbent, who discard it as accidents. As events unfold and deaths multiply, suspicion falls on always suave Timothy Dalton. In an MTV-style of editing, and a lot of amusing situations and clever scenes that experts of this genre of films will immediately identify, a suposed climax is achieved 30 minutes before the film ends, and the truth is unveiled. Although interesting and flowing with irony, the movie has more pace due to its editing than by its story. But in the last half hour, all hell breaks loose, as Pegg and Frost take matters on their own hands, and like Smith and Lawrence in "Bad Boys", just kick the shit of everybody in their paths, with lots of gunfights, explosions and great lines, in once again a magnificent humorous homage to this particular genre. Fully aware of themselves, this elevates the movie to a new level, a universe of its own, where the "normal" is transformed to a stereotyped illusion that we are used to see because of the media, and that becomes the reality that the characters themselves, despite living it, constantly mock by what they choose to do. This movie may not be for all hearts, because its humor is too clever and, shall I say, too British. Don't expect to laugh you head off. Expect to smile a lot, to enjoy every scene, and to nod favorably at the little moments that make it worthwhile. I much prefer this to be so, because the whole movie exists at a level of fun that never stalls, unlike an american comedy which exists at a low status, but has peaks of laughter that burst life into it. This way the movie is much more coherent. This is the British way, and as comedy films of the new generation, "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" are unmissable, although they are, as someone said quite rightly, no Monty-Python. This will not give any sort of moral, nor any sort of higher emotion, so its not a movie to last the ages. It's just to seat back, and yeah.. enjoy!