The Cardamom Pod

Bronson – 2009
Director: Nicolas Winding
Starring: Tom Hardy

So who’s been on my radar for the past month? One Tom Hardy. I’m still trying to teach myself how to say his name without letting my jaw fall slack accidently, allowing drool to come blubbering out. Yes, that’s how phenomenal he is at nearly everything he’s been up to in the past decade. Though, over the past two months I’ve seen him play some amazing roles, each time asking myself who the f is this guy? First he played the IT know-it-all impersonator in Inception and then I came home one night to indulge in a little Guy Richie film Rock N’ Rolla and saw Mr. Hardy get his crush on with Gerard Butler. If you haven’t seen either, they’re both worth the watch. If you’re not into Guy Richie films, though, I don’t know if I would start with Rock N’ Rolla.

One movie that NO ONE should miss, however, is Bronson, the 2009 film about Charley Bronson (aka Michael Gordon Peterson), an ex-bare-knuckle boxer with his own special talent for unleashing his animosity on prison guards and, well, anyone else who crosses his path.  This is a based-on-true-events film and the real Bronson still dwells in one of Great Britain’s high security prisons for crimes of severe violence that he has periodically committed. As the real Bronson puts it, the issue lies in the fact that other genuinely awful criminals (rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc.) are set free year after year, while he sits in prison, quiet as a mouse for the last decade.

After reading a bit on the boxer, the film seems like the best light that can be shed on such a complicated man. For one, the guy is seriously lovable in a macabre way. Similarly how one was able to sympathize with characters like Leonard from Memento, Bronson makes it possible for us to understand the master of Looniology through being told the story straight from his mouth – or rather, Hardy’s mouth – through artistic monologued segments. And Hardy is just as impressive as the real deal.

You might question my aesthetic when I say this; you might say I’m blaspheming the law of the actor’s studio or something, but Tom Hardy gives a better performance in Bronson than Heath Ledger or Johnny Depp in any of their acclaimed roles. Ok, really, Ledger only killed it in Dark Knight partially because (a) there wasn’t enough Maggie Gyllenhaal and (b) there will never be a better Batman than Keaton. In Bronson Hardy’s facial expressions were stretched to their limits and his brutal stares gave me chills. Hardy didn’t even have to hide behind makeup (most of the time) and his ability to tackle schizophrenic monologues was magnified by his powerful, dominating body. The actor had to bulk up like a madman for this role, so screw that Christian Bale character; here’s a man with actual talent save the ego trip.

Due to the amazing ingenuity of live streaming from Netflix (thank you) I’ve been able to watch this one instantly. If you’re hooked up, go give it a try. Otherwise seek it out at the library or video store. Chances are it will be waiting for you because, as I’ve said, it has somehow gone under our state-side radar for the last year.

So, grab your cell mate and cuddle up with a little Bronson.

Coming soon…my take on the words straight from the man, Charles Bronson, in one of his many books, The Good Prison Guide.

Director: Blake Edwards
Starring: Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard

As I unpacked my boxes, moving into our new one-bedroom apartment, I heard a sophisticated, cheery voice in my head. He asks her if she’s just moved in and she says in reply to her darling neighbor “Fred”, “Oh, I’ve been here about a year.” It was only a matter of time before I reviewed my favorite film. It should have been the first. Yes, sometimes Miss Golightly’s words answer all the questions or offer all the advice a young woman needs to hear. When I can’t see or read something, I hear her say, “hand me my bag, darling, a girl can’t read without her lipstick,” or even when I’m choosing earrings for the day, she says “you can always tell what a man thinks of you by the earrings he gives you…I must say, the mind reels!” No one could say it like her – maybe that’s why I always hear her voice.

I had the opportunity to show this film to a class of 12th graders when I was a teacher. We were going through film theory, that is, how to treat a film as though it were a piece of literature. We dissected a few films (Psycho, Rear Window), but they were always inquiring about the B@T poster in my classroom. Some of the gents who were trying to get an A would ask casually, “oh, is that you, Ms. B?” “No,” I would reply, “That’s one of the greatest actresses of all time,” and then a young fashionista would yell out “It’s Audrey Hepburn!” Still, no one could name the movie, let alone any other Hepburn films.

So known for her wide-eyes and Givenchy-glazed fame, Hepburn seems to have captured the eyes of artists and creative-types, but her work in UNICEF and disciplined demeanor never seems to come up. Not only that, but her acting is never really spoken of. Well, according to my Hepburn Treasures encyclopedia, Marilyn was originally supposed to play Holly Golightly. Could you imagine how that would have changed the film? Since Golightly is a blonde city-dweller in the novella, Capote just assumed his best friend, Monroe, would be the quick pick. Talk about the marketing job in Hollywood, taking a beautiful piece of writing and totally making a Marilyn Monroe crash course out of it. But the director insisted that the role be given to Hepburn after a lot of “weeding out” the obvious bad-girl types. Who wouldn’t be taken by her charm? Her complexity? Her determined spirit? It was a role made for her – a role that did not require a bad-girl, but the first good-girl-gone-bad because of the harsh modern world. No one else could have done it.

The film is complex as well. I don’t really understand the part of Mr. Yunioshi and I’m just guessing that the hysterically albeit racist role was left in when the studio no longer had Marilyn Monroe’s breasts to rely on for attraction. In my opinion, it is the only imperfection to this painting. The symbolism is brilliant. First, the cat. Lonely living in the city can be unbearable, so her character needs a cat. But as the film progresses, you realize the cat is manifested in her. It’s a nimble creature filled with curiosity and impetuosity, yet cats will be the first to bolt when they are frightened by any outside force. They vanish into the alleyway (where she finds herself in the end) or up the fire escape (where she sings and runs for shelter in “Fred’s” apartment). She’s, as Paul makes her notice, a “free spirit, a wild thing…afraid someone’s gonna lock [her] in a cage.” Golighty is a character plagued by the unknown and lives in denial through using her socialite scheming to attempt to rid herself of that plague. Paul manifests himself as the dog, the alpha male, the loyal, reliable, honest, introspective being who just wants to be loved. It’s the dynamic of this dog and cat chase that fuels the amazing ending of the film; however, this contrasting symbolism brings readers of the book to a quiet uneasiness when no one gets what they want.

And that is the selling point that transformed this novella into a screen-worthy picture. The novella had to end with an escape because the novella is not an erotic romance, but a platonic friendship between a woman and her homosexual neighbor. The neighbor is hoping the best for her and when he finally hears that she’s escaped, he is sad for not seeing her, but happy that she is exploring the world. Because the screenwriter, Axelrod, was ordered to make this a romance and the censors were saying, “no gay characters allowed for leading roles,” this film had to end with a mutual epiphany between sexually-drawn friends. And no other film has ever topped this ending. Sorry, not Gone with the Wind, not Casablanca, but Breakfast at Tiffany’s is the one who takes this cake.

Not to mention, I cry every time.

See for yourself – go out, rent the movie, watch it alone, with friends, with a lover, it doesn’t matter. This film is appropriate for every moment. Five stars, no contest.

Director: Stephen Daldry
Starring: Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross

A new favorite of mine, The Reader explored more than just literature as life; it went into depths of horrors within history to question innocence.

The opening few shots of The Reader are stark, rigid in structure and neat. The white walls, white view from the broad windows, everything in order, everything just so – except for the bed, where adult Michael takes a long look at the rumpled bed covers. The next scene – a memory – is contrasted only by darkness and shadow, the lights on the faces of the actors depict a dark time full of secrecy. Of the past. It snows, an element that normally presents sickness and death, though there’s a curiosity evident between the two strangers. Hannah and Michael separate.

The next time we see Michael and Hannah together, the colors are warmed; it’s presumably spring, a time for fresh beginnings. Michael watches Hannah changing and for a while, the two stare at each other. In other films, the teen would have looked away, would have run away in an instant. But not here, the director has the character look long and hard, assessing the attraction before running. It’s evident from this long stare that he is no immature boy, nor is she a modest woman.

Naming is everything in film, in literature. Try it yourself: next time you’re watching a film or reading something you love, look up the meanings behind the names. If the character creation is worthwhile, as in The Reader, you’ll discover more than just what’s on the surface. Michael is named after the powerful arch angel who defeated all odds. Hannah means favor or grace. It is evident that Hannah is the one who shows favor to those in need, especially with Michael. At first Michael is the only one who she bestows grace upon; however, toward the ending, we see her grace come through at an odd time in history. Michael’s power only comes out of knowing Hannah. She shows him his own power in being able to read and through knowing her, he becomes a man; however, through knowing her he also develops a weakness in secrecy that haunts him into adulthood.

Water is also an important element in this film as a symbol for life and renewal. Hannah and Michael bathe repeatedly, whether together or separate, during their affair. While he’s involved with Hannah, Michael never bathes with his friends, who all bathe together at the beach. He’s just a voyeur during those times. On his birthday, Hannah washes Michael, like a servant and we know as an audience that now she is the one becoming distant. Through the changing scenes that involve water, we notice the characters drifting apart. Michael finally swims with his friends and Hannah merely uses water to wash her things before leaving. In the twenty years that follow their affair, no water is visible or evident, especially within the world at that time. Hope, renewal and life have run dry. It is not until the very end that rain releases all tension in the form of Michael’s story.

Other superficial aspects of this film were appealing as well. I loved the late sixties outfits presented during the trial and college scenes. As for the score, I might have to buy it and listen to it while writing or drawing. The main title is not a happy melody, but it does present a sense of desire lying under the surface of sadness and loss. Beautifully constructed, it set the tone for this film.

Through foreshadowing, we come to understand why the title is so important by the end. I’m not going to tell you, so I’m expecting you’ll go out to rent this one. Or Netflix, whichever you prefer. Still, don’t miss this film. It questions everything we know of the justice system, innocence and the limits of love.

I give The Reader 4.5 on a 5 point scale.

Julie & Julia (2009)
Director: Nora Ephron
Starring: Amy Adams, Meryl Streep

(WARNING: Spoiler Alert)

The Challenge: 524 recipes in 365 days. If there was ever a story that made me want to start blogging, this is it. As Julie (Amy Adams) says, “You’re not a writer unless someone publishes you”…well, why not publish yourself?

This film speaks to those do-it-yourselfers who, like me, are comforted by the thought that self-reliance in doing can achieve (even if only some) results. Obviously for Julie Powell, this kind of action achieved better-than-average results. Julie lives in Queens in the year 2002 and, after 9/11, she works as a phone operator/secretary for the city’s memorial plan (correct me on this if there’s a discrepency). Her entire day revolves around listening to hurt people vent their frustrations and sadness on her. The first lesson here is – find something to do, a hobby, something promising, that can give you a “daily regiment” of worthwhile activity so that, after the tough day is over, you can at least say you did something that brought you a release. For Julie, this activity is blogging.

For Julia Child, this activity is cooking. She says, upon arriving in France with her husband, “Wives don’t do anything – that’s not me.” Well, Julia, you’ve hit the nail on that patriarchal head and we’re thankful you did. The binary chapters that feature Julia Child’s biography on cooking are just as encouraging.  The only criticism I have here is that the chapters did feel uneven – I felt as though there were two separate films going on with little personal connection between the characters Julie and Julia. I appreciate the idea. It is a wonderful idea for a film and the DIY theme is obvious, but the dialogue was lacking the connection. As a writer, i wanted that to be prominent.

In terms of performance, Meryl Streep was almost a better Julia than the Julia we loved from The French Cook TV show. She opened the character up to us on a different level, even in her simple mannerisms and especially the way she held her mouth. I appreciated the added performance of Dan Ackroyd from SNL’s Julia Child skit. His take on Julia – the under-the-influence high-pitched boisterous cook – served as a false notion of what audiences took as fact (even though it was hysterical!). Streep’s portrayal was lovable and honest. Though the film showed little tribulation in her life, (a little unrealistic to me) Streep obviously understood Child on the deepest of levels and brought that out for us to finally see.

Amy Adams was her charming self, though I must say I really enjoyed the fact that the director honored the look of the everyday woman with Julie’s character. It made Adams’ performance easy to identify with during temper-tantrums and failure. The highest point of interest in her scenes lies in the reconciliation with Julia. She finds that her hero does not approve of her blogging, however, she puts aside her disappointment and realizes she’s grown past the point of pleasing others, even her hero.

Watch this film whenever you need some encouragement. I know I needed it – I watched it twice.

AntiChrist (2009)
Director: Lars VonTrier
Starring: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Willem DeFoe

To begin with, I am a huge Lars Von Trier fan. One of these days I’m going to revisit The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark, Dogville and yes, even my least favorite Breaking the Waves. Europa is on my instant queue, so I’ll tell you about it when I get there.

I was warned, multiple times NOT to watch AntiChrist by close friends and reviews online. I must admit with so many poor reviews aimed at an amazing director, I had to discover what was so terrible about AntiChrist for myself.

First word that comes to mind – Mesmerizing.
The opening, as well as subsequent dream sequences strategically placed within the film, is pure artwork in motion. The audience member realizes too quickly, however, that she needs to detach herself emotionally from the images on the screen and view them objectively as art. Some would say that this is NOT what makes film or a story, but I disagree. If we want to understand humanity, an objective view is necessary. From the beginning it is made clear that this story is not going to be easy to tell – but what stories are ever easy to tell? The horrific is just as valid as the glorious. The bare necessities of the plot are simple – a husband and wife lose their son tragically in the first five minutes of the film. Willem Defoe plays the therapist husband who insists on attempting to “cure” his wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) of her ailing depression after the death by taking her to the place she fears the most – namely a place called Eden (a remote location in the forest). We later discover that she attempted to work on her thesis on Gynicide within a cabin in Eden, where she abandoned all of her findings after growing too eerily close to her research.

At this point in the film, many viewers begin labeling Von Trier as a misogynist. Gainsbourg goes through a series of therapeutic sessions led by DeFoe, but she wavers drastically from resistance to severe violence. Her downward spiral includes some graphic scenes that would make William Peter Blatty blush. But many are avidly angry over the scenes painted in AntiChrist and labeling them misogynistic. Gainsbourg’s character – though she presents a hysterical nature is not the only one who gets a little kooked out. DeFoe’s character also possesses the capacity for delusions and madness. His encounter with leeches, the crow and the cannibalistic talking fox are enough to put him over the edge, too, though he never quite gets there. But enough of the defenses – Von Trier takes much from Biblical views on creation of the sexes as well as cultural symbolism from history. As I saw it, he utilizes the symbolism of the three fates (three women from greek mythology) which takes the shape of three animals (fox, crow and deer). They are not really a fixation for the plot, but they offer a structure that seems to outline the decay of Gainsbourg’s character as she spirals through her violent depression.

The end result? Well, I’ll leave that to you to watch for yourself, if you are able to watch objectively. I found it to be beautifully presented with a chaotic ending; one that left me wondering more about human nature and its origins. For these reasons, I keep AntiChrist in mind as another triumph for Von Trier, not to mention another flawless performance by Gainsbourg.

Clash of the Titans (1981)

Wow. I remember watching this film when I was younger…this along with Jason and the Argonauts (thanks, dad!). How detailed and fantastical this film is. Before we saw Legend this film was already using more advanced methods of make-up and cinematography. Hey, why don’t we just shake the entire camera vigorously to simulate an earth-shake? And why not use claymation and cartooning effects to enhance the authentic look of our characters? How difficult and laborious it must have been to not be able to use CGI? I mean, apparently the artist couldn’t create the three-headed dog from all the myths because it would have been next to impossible to do. I’ll never know the whys or hows to most of these intrigues, except I wish I was there to watch them do it. (Had I the DVD, I’m sure there are some special features I could look at to gain some insight…)

As for storytelling, it’s pretty classic as well. You really have to be willing to just go with all the twists and turns of this film. It’s like reading a book of mythology in the span of an hour and twenty – many stories, a few lessons, but really just an overall entertaining look at how to tell a heroic story. And though there’s the central, sexy Perseus, this isn’t just a masculine film. Goddesses get to have their way, too, and even Andromeda the damsel gets on her horse to help fight…well, at least to help support our hero’s endeavors.

…side note, I’ve been seeing some great owl tattoos inspired by Bubo and I just think they’re beautiful…

Anyway, if you’re curious about animation and have a love for mythological storytelling, this film is wonderful.