Last Train Home

Wow!

Lixin Fan, a young Chinese filmmaker now living in Montreal, has made an extraordinary documentary, one of those documentaries which feels like a scripted work of fiction, perhaps based on a true story, rather than a documentary about the changing way of life in China. Last Train Home is an incredibly powerful film providing a profound glimpse into a country which now manufactures most of our consumer goods.

More than 130 million migrant workers, living in China’s huge cities and working in factories that probably manufactured half (or all) of the clothes you are wearing at this moment, travel back to their rural homes every year for Chinese new year. For most of these workers, it is the only time of the year in which they will see their families.

Made in 2009 (released in 2010), Last Train Home tells the story of one of these families over a three-year period and shows the impact of this increasingly-common lifestyle on families and on the future of life in China. Changhua and Suqin left for the city when their oldest child, Qin, was only one year old. They left to raise the money required to provide schooling for their children, so that their children would have a chance at greater success in life. But the children, growing up under the care of grandparents, are neither grateful nor impressed. Their parents are basically strangers who nag them about their school accomplishments once a year.

Qin, now in high school, sees school as a cage and wants freedom. She thinks going out one her own and working in a factory like her parents will provide that freedom, but she quickly runs into a reality check.

I’ll leave the story there. You can already tell that this is not a typical documentary, where I would not be worried about giving away too much of the plot. 

Last Train Home is in every way a brilliant documentary, with superb cinematography, perfect editing and a haunting look at life in China today, life that we in the ‘north’ contribute to every time we go shopping for something other than groceries. Based on this film, most Chinese view their gorgeous countryside as a place of poverty and their ugly cities as the land of opportunity. But watching the factory workers hunched over their sewing machines and sleeping in dormitories does not make you think that life in China is headed in the right direction. 

I have heard much about how we in North America are falling behind China economically because the Chinese work and study ethic is so much stronger. Last Train Home reveals that Chinese children, no doubt influenced by American TV, may not be prepared to continue down that road. But what will happen then?

As you will have guessed from the first word of my review, Last Train Home gets an easy ****. This is a must-see documentary. My mug is up.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Yesterday, Kathy and I caught the Winnipeg opening of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, a delightful old-fashioned comedy drama featuring a wonderful cast of British veterans (who are largely responsible for the heartfelt charming nature of the film).

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel tells the story of seven British retirees who, for various reasons, want to escape the pressure and expense of their lives in the UK and are seduced by an advertisement for a free flight to Udaipur, India and a stay at The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. What they don’t know is that they are the hotel’s first guests in a very long time and that the hotel is not exactly as advertised.

For me, the first twenty minutes, summarized above, were the weakest part of the film. With one or two exceptions, I had no clear sense of what was motivating these people to take such a drastic step. I would have appreciated substantially more background story about their lives in the UK rather than the kind of brief glimpse you get into the lives of the survivors in a disaster flick. When, after a long and complicated journey to the hotel, our protagonists arrive to find the chaos that is The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and its well-meaning but incompetent young owner (Sonny, played well by Slumdog Millionaire’s Dev Patel), and realize that they have been deceived, there is almost no reaction. After some initial shock and mandatory complaints, they all end up settling in to the hotel with minimal fuss. That did not make sense to me, at least not as it was presented, and left me feeling frustrated and with the sense that I was watching a “lite” film which could have benefitted from the addition of a few more calories.

Once in India, however, the lives of our protagonists get much more interesting and I began to enjoy the film much more, aided by the remarkable (though hardly unexpected) outstanding performances by the likes of Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy and Maggie Smith, all of whom are an absolute joy to watch. Their power is matched, though, by the work of the cinematographer, who has created a masterpiece in the filming of life in India, balancing the rich colours of the hectic market with the soft pastels of the quiet and rundown parts of the city. With the help of a fine score by Thomas Newman, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel succeeds in feeling exotic (a requirement for such a film).

Directed by John Madden and written by Ol Parker (based on the novel These Foolish Things by Deborah Moggach, which Kathy had read), The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a gently humanizing if somewhat predictable story of the transforming power of community, relationships and new experiences. The ending, which I will not describe, may disappoint some, but if you are looking for a comedy drama which is a step above the usual Hollywood fare, this film is for you. I am even going to give it ***+. My mug is up.

And no, despite the fact that Kathy and I were the youngest people in the theatre, this is not just for those over sixty.

The Avengers - Walter's View

Flying mechanical reptiles? Really? Vic mentioned the mindless action and lack of imagination and the these reptiles symbolized this for me. Surely one might imagine a better alien attack than this. I mentioned this to someone who suggested the movie was simply being true to the comic books, but then my critique is towards the thin imagination of the comic book creators. The entire last half hour or more of the film is all kinds of silly (and utterly pointless). 

Apart from the humour and witty banter, the strength lies in the incredibly diverse mix of superheroes. I thought this would be a weakness. How could the Hulk and Thor and Iron Man etc. all work in the same movie? (I'll admit that I have little background in either the comic or movie versions of these kinds of gatherings.) But they did seem to work because there was just (barely) enough insightful character development for them all to represent interesting dynamics from passionate mythic responsibility (Thor) to self-centred scientific genius (Ironman) to anguished psychological dynamics (The Hulk) to old-fashioned, compassionate heroism (Captain America). I couldn't believe I liked Captain America, but I did. Go figure. This mixture of archetypes could make for a fascinating and rich movie if only they spent less time in silly fight scenes. 

The film also seemed to run out of time developing some characters. Whedon tried to develop the Black Widow but it didn't work for me - maybe because my lack of knowing the back story made me think her only super power was looking good (and she fights incredibly well while tied to a chair). I give Whedon points for mocking this element himself by having her arm herself with a little pistol when facing down the climactic arrival of the gigantic flying mechanical reptile.  

But as I said earlier, Whedon is at his best in adding a light touch and a witty energy to all the interactions. This clearly is what makes the movie worth watching. And if you like mindless action too - well, you're all set. *** from me too.

The Avengers

Walter was in town this week so of course we sought out some obscure indie film to watch together and found something called The Avengers. It being opening week and free popcorn and pop night, we had the theatre largely to ourselves (well, us and a few hundred others). Estimates suggest that over one billion people will watch The Avengers in the first few weeks of its release. That is mind-blowing to consider. 

What, exactly, is so special about this film? The answer is a combination of two factors: brilliant marketing strategy, in which previous films hint at the upcoming Avengers, and an almost insatiable demand for superhero films (Batman and Spiderman are coming back again this summer and will no doubt also be huge blockbusters). I am working on a presentation aimed at analyzing that demand. To hear more, join me at the Wild Goose Festival in North Carolina from June 21-24 (www.wildgoosefestival.org) or at the Mennonite Church Canada Assembly in Vancouver from July 12-15. 

In the meantime, was The Avengers worth all the hype? You know the answer: Not a chance. The Avengers was written and directed by Joss Whedon, who now must have more than enough cash in his pocket to bring back Firefly (as he has long desired to do). Whedon is a clever writer, especially good at creating characters who draw out humorous comments from each other on a regular basis. When The Avengers highlights the differences between its superheroes and allows them to talk to each other, it is a very funny and entertaining film. Unfortunately, far too much of the film is mindless action, highlighting special effects while apparently giving fans what they want. Well, you must know by now what I think about mindless action (yawn). 

The plot (such as it is) involves aliens taking over the earth. Our Avengers are all that stands in their way. I found nothing original in the story (apart from the strange collection of superheroes and their interaction with each other) and so the action was almost meaningless to me (and was frequently inconsistent, as in the behaviour of the Hulk). That The Avengers is full of redemptive violence goes without saying, but since the violence is all aimed at “evil” aliens, no one will notice and it’s hard to take the violence too seriously (which does not mean you should take children to see it, as some did).

The acting was more than acceptable and the cinematography and score were strong. In many ways, The Avengers was a well-made film. Because of the witty character interaction, I will give it a solid ***. My mug is up, but don’t expect great things unless you love action.

In Darkness

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that after spending almost two and a half hours watching In Darkness, I felt as if I had just spent fourteen months living in the sewers under Lvov, Poland, just like the Jews in the film, who were hiding from the Germans during WWII? It certainly points to the effective way sewer life was filmed: the claustrophobic feel, the darkness, the echoing sounds of squealing rats, the darkness. Did I mention the darkness? It also helps that above ground, the world is not much brighter. Throughout the ordeal faced by these eleven Jews, the world above is depicted as a colourless, cold, dangerous and violent place. Only when the Russians “liberate” Lvov does colour return. 

In Darkness, directed by Agnieszka Holland, is based on a true story, of course, which adds the necessary gravitas to the experience of watching these very real and flawed individuals suffer. And the actors playing the Jews are more than up to the task of conveying the horror of their situation. It’s almost beyond comprehension that people could survive such an ordeal. And yet, as real as it felt, the story of the Jews does not make the film stand out in any way. Fortunately, In Darkness is not so much the story of the Jews and their plight as it is the story of the Polish man who keeps them alive. In Darkness is really his story. 

Robert Wieckiewicz plays Socha, a man whose job it is to maintain the sewers. He seizes an opportunity to make some serious cash by offering to help the Jews (providing food and making sure they remain hidden). But as he gets to know the Jews he is protecting, they become not only human but like an extended family - they are his Jews. This leads him to take ever greater risks on their behalf, including the risk of losing not only his closest friend but also his wife and daughter. The transition is not made easily and Wieckiewicz does an incredible job of expressing all the complex emotions of his tortuous personal journey.

In Darkness takes great pains to make sure everyone understands that Jesus was a Jew, as if making a profound revelation: Jesus - a Jew? Never! I suppose it is a sad thing that Christians could ever forget such an obvious fact. The film also flags up Matthew 25’s “And all the people said, His blood shall be on us and our children,” as a key foundation for two millennia of anti-semitism. Far too little attention is paid to why Matthew is the only gospel writer who makes such a bizarre statement. I will leave it at that for now.

In Darkness does not compare favourably to a film like Schindler’s List, but the story of Socha lifts what would have been a standard *** film just into the ***+ range. My mug is up. 

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is directed by Lasse Hallstrom, who has made a couple of my favourite films (Chocolat, The Cider House Rules), the classic My Life as a Dog and a couple of films I believe to be hugely underrated (The Shipping News, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape). Since I tend to appreciate all of Hallstrom’s films more than the average critic, the mediocre critical response to Salmon Fishing did not deter me.

But by showtime, I had begun to reconsider. There were approximately 100 people in the theatre with me. I counted six men among them, all accompanied by a woman. Not since Bridesmaids have I felt so conspicuous and alone. So I revved up my “feminine side” and settled in for what I now assumed must be a “chick flick”.

Good thing, because Salmon Fishing works primarily as a quirky romance and not very well as a political satire. With my feminine side revved up, I found myself falling in love with both of the main charcters. I have, in the past, made some unflattering comments about Ewan McGregor’s acting ability, but it’s time to admit that I may have been mistaken. McGregor has starred in two of my top ten films of the past two years (The Ghost Writer, Beginners) and I thought his performance in Salmon Fishing was spot-on (as it was in those two films). As for Emily Blunt, whom I have always considered a fine actor, there is something about her that I find particularly appealing (I last saw her teamed up with another appealing actor, Matt Damon, in the underrated The Adjustment Bureau), making her one of those actors I will go out of my way to watch (she needs to be added to my list from February, 2010). I am even considering going to see The Five-Year Engagement when it comes out (whoa! time to get that feminine side under control).

The romance in Salmon Fishing works because the chemistry between these protagonists (and between the actors playing them) is so much stronger than the chemistry between each of them and their “partners”. It also works because they do not even kiss in the film, let alone have sex. That is remarkable for a 21st-century film and I found myself wondering whether the women surrounding me (in the theatre) were likewise impressed or whether they were disappointed.

As for the background plot of Salmon Fishing, which concerns a very wealthy Yemenese sheik and his attempt to introduce salmon to his country (with the help of our crazy protagonists), it fails at various levels. The quirky comedy (especially involving Kristen Scott Thomas’s character as the British press secretary) sometimes works and sometimes falls flat. That’s okay. What isn’t okay is the lost opportunities for insightful political commentary (even worse than in The Hunger Games) and for humanization. The Yemenese sheik keeps talking about the poor in his country, but we don’t get to see them (filming in Morocco instead of Yemen doesn’t help). The sheik is obsessed with salmon fishing but tells Dr. Jones (McGregor) that introducing salmon to Yemen is not really about fishing but about helping the poor and about helping the rich and poor in Yemen stop being afraid of each other. Laudable sentiments, but they never become anything more than words (perhaps, as in The Hunger Games, the book does more) and the sheik comes across as patronizing at best.

There is a subplot about faith which is likewise not developed enough to be profound, though I appreciated the effort (sometimes you need to do things on faith).

All in all, I did, as with other Hallstrom films, enjoy Salmon Fishing more than the average critic (primarily because of Blunt and McGregor) and I will give it a solid *** in spite of the disappointments. It’s a family-friendly film, so recommended to all, and I believe I enjoyed it more than War Horse (at least it didn’t grate on me quite as much). My mug is up.

War Horse

With War Horse now in the cheap theatre, I finally gave in and went to see it. I got my money’s worth.

Steven Spielberg is one of my all-time favourite directors (with more films in my top 150 than any other director). Even so, there is often a superficial simplicity to his films that usually disappoints me. War Horse is another example of this. It’s advertised as the story of a boy’s beloved horse that ends up in the front lines of WWI. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was much more the story of the people who, however briefly, found themselves in possession of the horse. These stories were often compelling, but they were generally too short, too sentimental, too simple and too superficial.

But let’s start with the good news. War Horse is an old-fashioned epic of the kind that are rarely made anymore. I appreciate that. It humanizes both sides of the war in a way that makes no one the “bad guy”. I very much appreciate that. It makes the war look pretty stupid. Also appreciated (especially the scene where a German soldier and an English soldier join forces to rescue the horse). It provides a fascinating frame for the heart of its story by showing how the boy loses the horse to a nice man and then gets it back from a nice man. Those two scenes are among my favourite in the film. The cinematography is stunning and John Williams’ music is appropriate. The acting is not particularly outstanding, but it’s solid.

Now for the bad news, which may refer more to the story or the play than to the film. Since I haven’t seen the play or read the book, I cannot say. The biggest flaw in War Horse is the many contrived melodramatic (and often far too coincidental) scenes that made me cringe. Just one example: A wounded horse is about to be shot. A young wounded soldier, with eyes bandaged, cups his hand to make a special sound. The horse looks up. The soldiers part in awe. The soldier claims the horse belongs to him. When he describes the horse as having white feet and a white mark on its head, he doesn’t realize that those parts of the horse have been conveniently covered with black mud. As a result, the officer doesn’t believe the horse is his. In an overly melodramatic way, another soldier sees the mud and washes it off. Ouch! And this kind of thing happens again and again. Sorry, whoever is responsible, but this kind of scene usually doesn’t work for me (the ‘frame’ scenes described above notwithstanding). I suppose I should forgive an old-fashioned family epic for including such scenes, but they really drained my enjoyment of the film.

In the end, War Horse was, for me, a would-be grand epic with numerous precious moments that ultimately failed to impress me. It gets *** for effort. My mug is up, but keep your expectations under control.