There are so many things that appeal to me in The Dark Crystal. The puppets, puppetry, décor and set design is masterfully done for one. What I liked especially is that the film does not remotely rely on special effects. It is unashamedly and authentically a film with muppets, and one is contently conscious of this fact throughout. The film succeeds, however, in transposing the viewer to another magical realm where the muppets vanish and become characters. The struggle between good and evil is addressed and thus also serves as a great instructional inspiration to young, growing minds. The film might seem like child’s play, but there is much philosophy that underlie it. The urSkeks splits into the Mystics and the Skeksis, which ultimately have to combine to become one again, and thus denotes a triune harmony in the world which might be interpreted as religious or spiritual in nature. The idea of two opposing forces that transpose their dichotomy and dissolve into a unity of balance, originates from Chinese philosophy and is quite prevalent in Zen-Buddhism. The trinity doctrine is also very prevalent in Christian religions.

SPOILER WARNING: Jen and Kira, the last man and woman left of the Gelflings, reminds one of Adam and Eve, or even of Greek mythology where original humans were split into two by Zeus for fear of their power. Kira offers herself at the end of the film (reminiscent of Jesus in Christian religion), but is resurrected when order has been restored to the earth. She and Jen can now come together in union to give rise to a new population of Gelflings. SPOILERS END HERE.

If you do not have a child inside you, you might not be able to appreciate the contradictory simplicity and mastery of this film. This film is not for everyone, even though it was the highest grossing box-office release in France and Japan in 1983. If you are a fan, though, it is interesting to note the following: A sequel to the film entitled The Power of the Dark Crystal is set for production in 2008 and directed by Genndy Tartakovsky. If you want to read more about this, feel free. According to the Wikipedia, a manga prequel by the name Legends of the Dark Crystal, is also planned for publication by TokyoPop on November 13 of 2007. Together with The World of the Dark Crystal, the book created by Brian Froud during the release of the film, these works complete a pretty attractive package for the collector cult member of The Dark Crystal. And International Movies Database contends that Brian Froud and puppet designer Wendy Midener met on the set of the film and later married. All in all, fantasy turns to reality it seems.

Genre: Animation / Fantasy / Family / Adventure
Running time: 93 min
Country: USA / UK
Language: English
Directors: Jim Henson
Frank Oz
Gary Kurtz
Writing credits: Jim Henson (story)
David Odell (screenplay)
Producers: Jim Henson
David Lazer
Cinematographer: Oswarld Morris
Editor: Ralph Kemplen
Music: Trevor Jones
Distributed by Universal Pictures
Main Cast:
Jen, Gelfling – Jim Henson
Kira, Gelfling – Kathryn Mullen
Aughra, Keeper of Secrets – Frank Oz
For a complete list of puppeteers and voices, vist this address

The film takes one on a roller coaster of emotions, from laughing out loud to worrying empathy, from becoming enraged to shedding some tears. McMurphy might be a convicted felon, but his charismatic personality quickly wins over the audience as well as the inmates. Even though he does many irresponsible and questionable things, he reveals attributes which are quite endearing. One finds oneself rooting for him when he breaks the rules. He breaks the rigid and oppressive monotony of the inmates’ lives and becomes the object of their entertainment and amusement. But as in all dictatorships, this is short-lived.

Louise Fletcher gives a wonderful performance as the head nurse, who is very clinical, cold, unbending, rational and disconcertingly calm – quite the antithesis of McMurphy. It is quite disturbing how patients are subdued through medication and treatment methods such as shock therapy. The film gives a voice to those who are oppressed through any system or establishment of power.

The author of the novel, Ken Kesey, reportedly did not want to watch the film seeing that his novel is told through the eyes of Chief Bromden, while the film is told through McMurphy’s eyes. It would indeed have been quite a different film if the movie had been closer to Kesey’s book. I have not read the book yet, and, therefore, cannot say whether I would have preferred one or the other and why. But what I can concede, is that the film is poignant exactly for the fact that Murphy is the protagonist; it shows just how powerful tyranny can be in destroying the mightiest spirits.

SPOILER WARNING! The word “cuckoo” is slang for a crazy or foolish person. But its main meaning is that of a bird who lays its eggs in the nests of other species. This might refer to McMurphy who laid an egg of revolution in the asylum, which hatch out in the form of Chief Bromden breaking out of the asylum after he has been subjugated to the staff’s will. The Wikipedia contends that

…the origin of the title is often disputed, however, it is believed to come from a poem by Louis Untermeyer called “Rainbow in the Sky.”

“Wire, briar, limber-lock
Three gees in a flock
One flew east, one flew west
And one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.”

The “one [that] flew east” is McMurphy, and the “one [that] flew west” is Nurse Ratched, illustrating their opposite directions and rivalry. “And one flew over the cuckoo’s nest” describes Chief who was able to escape the institute of mentally ill patients. It loses the significance it had in the novel, in which the line is a part of a rhyme Chief Bromden remembers from his childhood. This detail was not included in the film.

[Web]

Puritan Nurse Ratched very sadistically vows to tell Billy’s mother of his wild night with one of McMurphy’s girlfriends. There does not seem to be as much rehabilitation as oppression and suppression in the mental hospital. Chief suffocates McMurphy in the end; it is a mercy killing to rescue him from the vegetable-like state the mental hospital has put him in. SPOILERS END HERE.

Genre: Comedy / Drama
Running time: 133 min
Country: USA
Language: English
Director: Milos Forman
Writing credits: Ken Kesey (novel)
Bo Goldman (screenplay)
Lawrence Hauben (screenplay)
Producers: Michael Douglas
Martin Fink
Saul Zaentz
Cinematographer: Haskell Wexler
Bill Butler
Editor: Sheldon Kahn
Lynzee Klingman
Music: Jack Nitzsche Distributed by: United Artists Main Cast:
Randle Patrick McMurphy – Jack Nicholson
Nurse Mildred Ratched – Louise Fletcher
Dale Harding – William Redfield
Dr. John Spivey – Dean R. Brooks
Martini – Danny DeVito
Jim Sefelt – William Duell
Billy Bibbit – Brad Dourif
Max Taber – Christopher Lloyd
Chief Bromden – Will Sampson
Frederickson – Vincent Schiavelli
Attendant Washington – Nathan George
Attendant Warren – Mwako Cumbuka
Orderly Turkle – Scatman Crothers

It is easy to see why Il Postino is so well-known and why it has endured as an artwork. The film deals with universal issues and themes which are timeless and everlasting: the need to belong and be accepted; friendship; the beauty and truth in words; romantic love; and love for the simple things in life. Il Postino as well as Neruda’s poetry appeal to both young and old, rich and poor, erudite and uneducated, because it is plain and simple whilst conjuring up magical moments in life.

Nothing is superfluous in this film. The dialogue is stripped and economical, yet succeeds in capturing the tenderness between Neruda, an intellectual, and Mario, a simple man who happens to appreciate the power of words. It makes one laugh and cry, think and feel, be content with where one is and dream of achieving more. The film made me forget about all of life’s sorrows, and filled me up with the greatest appreciation for being alive, being able to love, and being loved in return. This film affirms the hope that nothing and nobody in life is insignificant.

The acting is heartfelt and unpretentious, restrained and subtle. I was shocked to find out that the actor who plays Mario, Massimo Troisi, died a day after filming ended. He needed a heart transplant and postponed surgery to finish the film. Well, what a legacy to leave behind in the form of this everlasting film.

SPOILER WARNING! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FILM! How ironic that Mario dies in the film and Massimo dies in real life. And how heartbreaking as well. Mario’s death can indirectly be attributed to his friendship with Neruda. One can argue that if he had never met Neruda, he never would have gone to that communist rally and never would have died. But one can also argue that if he had never met Neruda, he would never have achieved such self-realisation and he would never have had the courage to win over Beatrice or to try his hand at poetry. If it had been his time to leave this earth, he would never have been able to leave it with such a sense of self-worth and self-satisfaction if he had not met Neruda. His poem is lost in the film, and this is all well and good. It doesn’t matter whether the poem was any good or not, for Mario finally found his own voice. Mario lives on in his son, Pablito. And Massimo lives on through Il Postino. And the real Neruda lives on through his poetry. People perish, but legacies last.

Genre: Comedy / Drama / Romance
Running time: 108 min
Country: Italy / France / Belgium
Language: Italian / Spanish
Director: Michael Radford
Writing credits: Pablo Neruda (poems)
Antonio Skármeta (novel)
Anna Pavignano (screenplay)
Michael Radford (screenplay)
Furio Scarpelli (screenplay)
Giacomo Scarpelli (screenplay)
Massimo Troisi (screenplay)
Producers: Mario Cecchi Gori
Vittorio Cecchi Gori
Gaetano Daniele
Alberto Passone
Cinematographer: Franco Di Giacomo
Editor: Roberto Perpignani
Music: Luis Enríquez Bacalov (original)
Francisco Canaro (non-original) Main Cast:
Mario Ruoppolo – Massimo Troisi
Pablo Neruda – Pilippe Noiret
Beatrice Russo – Maria Grazia Cucinotta

The film is scattered with self-reflexive references which constantly remind the viewer that he/she is indeed watching a film, a fictional piece of art. Yet the director succeeds to breathe so much life into the protagonist, just like novelists often do with their main characters, that the viewer cannot help but regard Harold as more than just a fictional character. Harold becomes a real person to the viewer who empathises with him and secretly hopes that he will not be killed off. Forster ingeniously blurs the boundaries between reality and fiction, literature and film, tragedy and comedy. Even though Harold’s life seems to be a tragedy from his own viewpoint, the viewer regards the film as a comedy – therefore the dramatic irony.

Harold is the typical sad and weak anti-hero (like Winston Smith in Nineteen-Eighty-Four or Lester Burnham in American Beauty). Will Ferrel gives a somewhat unexpectedly impressive and subtle performance as the serious Harold Crick.

SPOILER WARNING: The viewer knows and expects that Harold has to die for the sake of art and for the sake of staying true to what would make the story more literary and powerful. But director Marc Forster goes against these principles, as does novelist Kay Eiffel, and Harold also breaks the mold of being an anti-hero. The act of surrendering his life into the hands of his makers, which ironically is his maker Forster’s choice anyway and might be construed as the ultimate example of weakness, makes him a hero in the eyes of the viewers and his makers. His life is spared, and even though the end is not as literary or as powerful as it could have been, the viewer is not bothered for he/she rejoices in Harold’s new lease on (a more exciting) life. SPOILERS END HERE.

The film makes one think about the issues regarding the creation of art: Do these characters, created by novelists or filmmakers, have a life apart from the artwork they are a part of? Do they only exist when the novel is read or the film is watched? Or do they exist as a separate entity within the artwork as soon as they are created by a writer, even though no one has ever set eyes on the artwork? I believe they exist from the moment they are read about or viewed, when the world of the characters and the world of the viewer collide, and that they then live on in the memories of the readers or viewers. But still, if no one hears or sees a tree falling, does that indeed mean that the tree does not fall? Something can exist apart from being observed, can it not?

Genre: Comedy-Drama / Romance
Running time: 113 min
Country: USA
Language: English
Director: Marc Forster
Writing credits: Zach Helm
Producers: Lindsay Doran
Cinematographer: Roberto Schaeffer
Editor: Matt Chessé
Editor:
Britt Daniel
Brian Reitzell
Distributed by: Columbia Pictures
Main Cast:
Harold Crick – Will Ferrell
Prof. Jules Herbert – Dustin Hoffman
Kay Eiffel – Emma Thompson
Ana Pascal – Maggie Gyllenhaal
Penny Escher – Queen Latifah

It is clear that Frank prefers his mother to his father while Walt sides with his dad, even though, ironically, Frank has his father’s features, whilst Walt looks like his mother. Walt looks up to Bernard and wishes to be as talented, successful and erudite as he is. At the beginning of the film he appears to be an avid literary reader and scholar, but the viewer later comes to learn that he merely hides behind a pseudo-intellectual facade. He even goes as far as to plagiarise a song by Pink Floyd at his school’s talent competition. The opening scene reveals a lot of the absurd competitiveness Bernard has with his wife, and even with his youngest son, which becomes evident during their table tennis matches. But Joan has been no angel either. She has had many affairs and does not seem to be apologetic about it. Both parents are so unplugged from their children, that they do not even realise what is happening to them. Frank is often left alone at home and he starts to drink as a means to escape. He is pre-puberty and does not understand everything about sex his parents talk so liberally about. He is confused and starved for attention, and starts to act out; his smearing of bodily fluids is a clear cry for help.

During divorce parents often lose sight of their children’s well-being. They are so hell-bent on winning or being right, that their children pick up the bill for their competitive egos. They want to mold their children into screwed-up replicas of themselves, rather than allowing them to become more and more of their true selves. Like Bernard does with Walt. Kahlil Gibran’s words seem so appropriate: “Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, and though they are with you yet they belong not to you”.

SPOILER WARNING: But at least there is a ray of hope. The closing of the film sees Walt going back to the museum to look at the diorama of a giant squid and sperm whale at the American Museum of Natural History. He has finally conjured up the courage to confront the diorama which filled him with so much fear as a child. When he disobeys his father at the hospital and does not aim to please him by calling the blond nurse his father asks for, he finally comes into his own. There is hope that he might find himself again and not just aim to please or become his father. His confrontation with the diorama has a multitude of possible meanings. After having seen his mother and father fight, he has lost his childhood innocence, and that is why he is now old and brave enough to face the squid and the whale head-on by himself. When one sees two loved-ones going at it, other things pale in comparison. It might also imply that he once again discovers that there was indeed a time that he and his mother had a good relationship. And that she was there for him at times his father wasn’t. Hopefully he rediscovers his latent love for her. SPOILERS END HERE.

I must admit that I was somehow disappointed by the film. I had much higher expectations of it having read so many favourable reviews by critics and it having won or been nominated for so many awards. The acting seems quite shallow and frivolous; as if the actors hadn’t delved deep enough into their characters emotionally or psychologically. I’d say Owen Kline, who plays the young Frank, gives the best performance of all. The dialogue is also very hollow, and even though I am a fan of stripped dialogue that insinuates rather than tells all, the dialogue in this film seems full of hot air. There does not seem to be much character development, except for Walt coming to his senses of course. Things do not have to necessarily have a happy ending, for real life does not work that way, but at least it must leave the viewer with something meaningful. Requiem for a Dream ends despairingly for example, but it leaves the reader with enough to chew on, think on, do on. But in The Squid and Whale neither Bernard nor Joan come to profound realisations. One can only hope that Walt’s turnaround serves as impetus for a healthier family dynamic.

Genre: Comedy-Drama
Running time: 81 min
Country: USA
Language: English
Director: Noah Baumbach
Writing credits: Noah Baumbach
Producers: Wes Anderson
Peter Newman
Charles Corwin
Clara Marcowicz
Music: Dean Wareham
Britta Phillips
Randall Posterl
Distributed by: Samuel Goldwyn Films
Main Cast:
Bernard Berkman – Jeff Daniels
Joan Berkman – Laura Linney
Walt Berkman – Jesse Eisenberg
Frank Berkman – Owen Kline
Lili – Anna Paquin
Ivan – William Baldwin

This film is quite off-beat and quirky. The film really succeeds in capturing how uncomfortable it can be to meet one’s parents-in-law for the first time with great wit and more integrity than Meet the Parents, which is of course, rather a full-on slapstick. And it touches on some real human truths, which makes one ponder what unconditional love really means. People often say they love someone unconditionally, but do they really have the foresight to know what that really entails? No matter how hard one wants to deny it, it is true that certain taboos in society are, if not unforgivable, unforgettable.

SPOILER WARNING: Amy is represented as such a nice girl with so many endearing qualities, that one resents John for not being able to forgive or rather forget that she performed oral sex on a dog. It was after all a foolish thing fuelled by teenage curiosity. And who does not have any dark secret in their past? But the truth is, no matter how much the viewer wants to, he/she cannot get the idea of performing oral sex on a dog out of one’s mind. And even though one wants to deny it, it is a hurdle one just cannot get past. It makes one feel guilty, and that makes us as much as a hypocrite as John. He is a hypocrite in that he finds the idea of women making love sexy and a turn-on even though it is unorthodox for most heterosexuals, but then condemns Amy for the unorthodox sexual act she performed in high school. But really, I have to admit, bestiality is gross and a line one cannot cross, and if that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. Yet, I understand what the film is trying to say. And even though I am a crusader for absolute honesty in a relationship, this film does make one think that maybe some sleeping dogs are better left undisturbed.

Amy made the right choice in not telling her father about her mother’s sexual encounters before him. It would only have destroyed so many years filled with fond memories and trust. On the other hand, if Amy would never have told John about her dark secret she would never have realised what a prick he really is. I believe that Ed loves her enough for her to be totally honest with him. But one never knows how someone might react, and therefore, it might be better that she decides not to tell him. Some things are better left unsaid, and some things better left unknown, even though I do not propagate dishonesty at all. SPOILERS END HERE.

The film builds up great momentum, but wanes near the end. There is too much comedy in the first half, and too much drama in the second half, and thus appears quite unbalanced in the end. And at times the film feels like an unlikely mixture of Bridget Jones’ Diary and The Piano Teacher. But it is quite enjoyable and entertaining and a bit more daring than most romantic comedy-dramas and thus worth the watch.

Genre: Comedy-Drama /Romance
Running time: 87 min
Country: USA
Director: Bob Goldthwait
Writing credits: Bob Goldthwait
Producers: Martin Pasetta
Michael Malone
Sarah de Sa Rego
Cinematographer: Ian S. Takahashi
Editor: Jason Stewart
Music: Gerald Brunskill
Distributed by: Roadside Attractions
Samuel Goldwyn Films
LLC
Main Cast:
Amy – Melinda Page Hamilton
John – Bryce Johnson
Dad – Geoff Pierson
Mom – Bonita Friedericy
Dougie – Jack Plotnick
Ed – Colby French
Randy – Brian Posehn

The film starts out innocently enough, but the viewer soon realises that this is not just any ordinary movie. There is a scene in the film in which Stéphane explains his project entitled “Disastrology” to his new boss. The project encapsulates a calender made up of

well-known historic disasters for each month accompanied by colourful illustrations of the tragic events. The calender seems quite absurd and Stéphane acknowledges that his target audience would need to have a sense of black humour to appreciate the concept. Likewise, the viewer of The Science of Sleep needs to have an open mind and an off-beat sense of humour to appreciate the genius of the film.

The Science of Sleep is filled with surrealistic dream-like sequences in which reality is distorted. The props and sets in these sequences are all hand-made out of everyday materials, cars and cameras are made out of cardboard boxes for example. This emphasises the idea of creativity and creating something with one’s hands, as Stéphane and Stéphanie do. And this aids the viewer to distinguish between Stéphane’s dreams and his reality. Yet later on, it gets more difficult for Stéphane to assess what is dream and what is reality, and as the clues get fewer as to which is which, so too does it complicate assessment for the viewer. The viewer is confused and can, therefore, empathise with Stéphane’s nightmarish sense of frustration and paranoia.

SPOILER WARNING! The viewer even later questions whether Stéphanie is the one that toys with his mind. Was it in fact she that danced so seductively with another man at the opening of his calender? Or was it just a dream? Or was it actually Zoé who he mistook for Stéphanie in reality. I even felt credulous about whether he finds trouble distinguishing between dreams and reality, or whether he is just schizophrenic. In the end scene where he speaks to Stéphanie quite vulgarly, I wondered whether Guy is truly the pig he is made out to be, or whether this is actually a projected characteristic of one of Stéphane’s other personalities. Stéphanie falls in love with him in the beginning, but his intensity and psychosis hamper that initial bud to blossom. He needs help, and one can only hope that she will be the one to rescue him. And this is possible, that is – if the final scene is not just another dream… SPOILERS END HERE.

It is interesting to note that Jean-Michel Bernard, who is responsible for the soundtrack of the film, played the role of the piano-playing policeman.

One’s subconscious is a melting pot for all sorts of ingredients from one’s life. And the subconscious often ascribes individual meaning to certain things/people/events which is very personal to the conscious mind. That is what I believe anyway. And that is why dreams do not seem to make much sense, even to the dreamer. Absurd things are possible and make sense within the dream. No wonder that the dream sequences in the film are described by Gondry as “something that was more personal to me”. I, therefore, do not feel too bad about not understanding everything in the film, for I do not feel the audience is supposed to. There is a quote from the film Waking Life (2001) by Richard Linklater which describes the whole feel and theme of the movie very well: “Are we sleep-walking through our waking state or wake-walking through our dreams?” Something to ponder, isn’t it?

Genre: Comedy / Drama / Romance / Fantasy
Running time: 105 min
Country: France / Italy
Language: French / English / Spanish
Director: Michel Gondry
Writing credits: Michel Gondry
Music: Jean-Michel Bernard
Main Cast:
Stéphane Miroux – Gael García Bernal
Stéphanie – Charlotte Gainsbourg
Guy – Alain Chabat
Martine – Aurélia Petit
Serge – Sacha Bourdo
Christine Miroux – Miou-Miou
Zoé – Emma de Caunes

What was most striking to me, was the fact that Del Toro blended fantasy and reality with such credibility and conviction. In the past, I have often watched films wherein the director tries to marry fantasy and reality, but fails miserably, and rather emphasises the seemingly “irreconcilable” differences between the two worlds. Pan’s Labyrinth flows effortlessly from fact to fiction and vice versa, whilst many other filmic attempts at magic-realism unconvincingly fragment a film and break its natural flow.

I have to admit though, that the explicit violence of the film was quite unexpected and shocking, and at times even, what I felt, unnecessary. Believe you me, Pan’s Labyrinth is not described as a fairy-tale for grown-ups without good reason. I do not believe that Del Toro uses violence as a vehicle for sensationalism in this film. I believe he uses it for a definite purpose – to emphasise the stark contrast between the imaginative world of childhood innocence and the atrocities committed by adults in reality. Sometimes fact seems stranger and more incomprehensible than fiction, especially with cruel atrocities like the Holocaust of the 1930s and 1940s or the Rwandan genocide of 1994 that plague our history.

SPOILER WARNING: DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVE NOT YET WATCHED THE FILM! Ofelia’s magical quest becomes an allegory for the timeless universal value: do not fight hate with hate, or evil with evil. Dissolve hate with love and evil with goodness. In this film, self-sacrifice is the key to Ofelia’s redemption and the redemption of the whole community. Ofelia becomes the “Fisher King” who is sacrificed as scapegoat to make healing possible for the nation and the land, a new history can now be written and continued through the blood she has spilled, the blood that is tied to and now lives on in her half-brother. Pan’s Labyrinth is deeply rich in imagery and symbolism – a prospect for a fruitful analytical article, thesis or study.

Genre: Fantasy / Drama / Thriller
Running time: 119 min
Country: Spain / Mexico / USA
Language: Spanish with English subtitles
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Writing credits: Guillermo del Toro
Producers:
Alfonso Cuarón
Guillermo del Toro
Cinematographer: Guillermo Navarro
Music: Javier Navarrete
Distributed by: Picturehouse
Main Cast:
Ofelia – Havana Baquero
Carmen Vidal – Ariadna Gil
Captain Vidal – Sergi López
Mercedes – Maribel Verdú
Pan – Doug Jones
Dr. Ferreiro – Alex Angulo

Although I found the film to be a big disappointment, I must admit that the cinematography and camera techniques were absolutely excellent. Too bad they do not save the film from its downfall. The trailer, which enthralled me, is quite deceiving. It creates the impression of a conspiracy-theory film about the significance of the number twenty-three. When viewed in totality, however, the film lapses into another stereotype thriller. It tries to be too clever for its own good and relies on far-fetched twists and turns to create several incredulous elements of surprise.

I believe that the numerology topic has a lot of potential, but that it did not reach its full potential in this film. SPOILER WARNING! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVE NOT YET WATCHED THE FILM: The idea of destiny finding its way to Walter and making him pay for his sins is spread too thick. It is quite unbelievable that such a loving father and husband could also be a callous murderer. And his wife and son’s reactions to his previous life is quite unconvincing as well. Where is the outraged confusion? The heartache? The resentment? The film ends with such hopeful closure which would upstage The Brady Bunch. And Walter’s repentance at the end seems too good to be true – like a superficial, pretentious sermon. But who am I to judge? My sins are bound to find me out as well. Hopefully my skeletons aren’t as dark as Walter’s though… SPOILERS END HERE.

Genre: Thriller / Mystery / Suspense-Drama
Running time: 95 min
Country: USA
Language: English
Director: Joel Schumacher
Writing credits: Fernley Phillips
Producers: Fernley Phillips
Beau Flynn
Tripp Vinson
Distributed by: New Line Cinema
Main Cast:
Walter Sparrow – Jim Carrey
Fingerling – Jim Carrey
Agatha Sparrow – Virginia Madsen
Fabrizia – Virginia Madsen
Robin Sparrow – Logan Lerman
Isaac French – Danny Huston
Dr. Miles Phoenix – Danny Huston
Suicide blonde – Lynn Collins
Laura Tollins – Rhona Mitra

Although this is not a life-changing film, it is a very well-produced one. Even though I have not yet read the novel, I think that Richard Eyre captures the intensity of the two women’s unraveling psychoses very well. The adapted screenplay and editing manage well to drop subtle hints about Barbara’s obsessive, lesbian inclinations. Sheba’s strand of hair that Barbara treasures, and her infantile writing in her diary about the gold star day Barbara spent with her, send alarm bells ringing. And as the film progresses, more is revealed about the dark depths of her psyche. It is evident to see why Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett have received so many nominations for best actress and best supporting actress respectively. They give powerful, theatrical performances and it is refreshing to see a film that is dominated and driven by females. What bothers me is that Steven Connolly remains somewhat of a flat and underdeveloped character, but this might have been an intentional choice by the director or writer, as not to detract from the real focus of the film, which is of course Barbara and Sheba. It is Sheba’s naivety that allows her to be manipulated, misled and taken advantage of.

SPOILER WARNING: Barbara preys on her good nature and manipulates her to spend more and more time with her. And Steven Connolly lies about his home life to gain pity from her. He also preys on her insecurities about herself as a middle-aged wife and mother. The viewer does not, however, really get whether Sheba has remorse for what she has done, or whether she only regrets being caught. She has several chances to end the sexual affair with the under-aged boy, but never does. He is the one that eventually stops the affair because he just wants to have fun and does not want or need to be her emotional keeper.

What is most disturbing is the end of the film, which affirms that Barbara is still a deeply troubled woman. Even after everything that has happened – receiving a restraining order from a former colleague, losing her job, and spreading the rumours that would ultimately lead to Sheba’s downfall and her family’s breakdown, she displays the same psychopathic tendencies as before. When she sees a young woman reading a newspaper article about Sheba Hart, Barbara says that she used to work with her. She uses the woman’s interest in Sheba to her advantage, and leads her to believe that Sheba was cold and distant. When she invites the woman to accompany her to a show, the viewer is cued – the potential exists for events to repeat themselves. SPOILERS END HERE.

Genre: Drama / Psychological thriller
Running time: 92 min
Country: UK
Language: English
Director: Richard Eyre
Writing credits:
Zoë Heller (novel)
Patrick Marber (screenplay)
Producers:
Robert Fox
Redmond Morris
Scott Rudin
Cinematographer: Chris Menges
Editor: John Bloom
Music: Philip Glass
Distributed by: Fox Searchlight Pictures
Main Cast:
Barbara Covett – Judi Dench
Sheba Hart – Cate Blanchett
Richard Hart – Bill Nighy
Ben Hart – Max Lewis
Polly Hart – Juno Temple