The unintentional critic

Well, there are some films that when you are a bit too pretentious, you always act as you have seen them (I am one of the few people in this planet to admit that I have yet to watch “The Godfather” trilogy. And I am too pretentious for my own good). In the past decade, Walter Salles’ “The Motorcycle Diaries” (Spanish: “Diarios de Motocicleta), came to be added in this list.

From pseudo-Marxist friends to my dad, everyone was looking me wide-eyed when I said that I haven’t seen this film (in my dad’s case, he even knew the director’s name- I thought his range was only Coppola and Scorsese. Wrong). It has been always one of this cases in the back of my mind. Always thinking of watching but never actually do. Thankfully, around London there are some very pretty charity shops, and one of them happened to sell the DVD for a reasonably low price.

Behind every big move, there is a significant reason. In this case, the movie examined the reasons that ignited the desire of Ernesto “Che” Guevara (then without the nickname) to free the lands South America. But this is far from a political movie. This is an ode to friendship, love, being young and full of life and ideas.

Watching the film was an overall kind of experience. First of all, it is visually arresting. The beautiful landscapes of South America make you stare at the screen mesmerised. They are not portrayed ideally beautiful, with blasts of colour here and there. On the contrary, they are bared to their true beauty, sometimes raw, sometimes softer. From the dry roads to the snow-filled mountain tops, you fall in love with this continent and realise one of the reasons why the future Che would go in the revolution. On the other hand, the cast of the movie, from the protagonists to the extras, are all realistic faces, people you would see in your everyday life, people you’d expect to live back in the day. People you can relate to and make your visual trip easier and enjoyable.

By mentioning the cast, it is unavoidable not to refer to the great talent Gael Garcia Bernal is. I had a crush on him for ages. It is because of his cute face for the most part, but this guy is an undeniable talent. His body oozes idealism, kindness and good motives. I have not studied Guevara thoroughly to know his moves, gestures and general way of moving. But what I could certainly tell from Gael Garcia Bernal’s approach is that he made his character come across as a person that would do evey single gesture that the character in the movie did.

The prominent well intentioned motives of Guevara were a very good ground for the contradiction that was built between him and his co-traveller Alberto Granado (Rodrigo de la Serna). Granado comes across as a less well-intentioned man, as someone that puts his survival above all. Maybe that was my main problem with the movie -the way that Guevara’s selflessness was thoroughly promoted by Granado’s more selfish ways. I believe that sometimes the whole comparison issue made the movie lose bits of its charm and was too obvious for the average viewer, making Granado quite unlikeable sometimes, even though at the end of the day he proves to be a loyal friend and a good human being.

Set aside this, the movie handles its themes in an excellent way. The last act of the film, that take place in the leprosy sanatorium, reveals Ernesto as a different person, if not ready to become the icon he later embodies, at least be someone with a fierce desire to make people’s lives better, sacrifice himself, because he honestly loves them. He honestly wants to provide all support possible -from medical to emotional.

The future Che sets an excellent example of how ideas can be incarnated and how we can change the world, little by little. His adamant position and opinion remained stable, despite all the difficulties he may have confronted. Even when he can use money for his own benefit (or, in this case, actual needs), he prefers to give it to people in need. His whole icon and what he generally represents make you root for the character, moving further from the historical figure he grows to become.

Salles’ first effort away from his homeland and native language (he is Brazilian) does not seem like a too hard one. He handles perfectly the landscapes of the rest of his home continent, and makes them home to you, yet something magical you would like to discover someday.

Another exceptional point of the film is its comic undertone, that adds to its realism and moves away from the self-seriousness a biopic of a figure as Che could have carried. On the contrary, makes the movie even more realistic and moves you away from the danger of becoming bored to death or feeling like you are taught a lesson by the movie -you are taught zillions of them, but you actually enjoy it.

The density and beauty of this movie come gently into your soul and after its two hours elapse leave you with a feeling of satisfaction, of a spiritual nutrition that makes you wanna change the world not because you want to cast your mark upon humanity, but because you love this goddamn world. In times like these, this is one desire we should embrace more, one that should be born in ourselves and take over.

So you are 11 and you are browsing the TV channels. And this very interesting thing about a girl running is on. And it’s in German, which is way more interesting because all you get till then is Hollywood. But then you have to go tou your friend’s birthday party and leave the movie in the middle. And you can’t find it anywhere! And then you become 15 and the movie is again on. And then you find a DVD of it. And this is awesome.

That’s my little story about how I discovered “Run, Lola, Run” (German: “Lola rennt -1998). From the beginning, this movie is inventing, the least: The old-school telephone dropping down in slow motion, the cartoon of Lola going down the stairs. Getting offended by a dog, tripping over. Losing time, gaining time depends on the flow of the story each time.

The movie is relentless. How couldn’t be, with a woman running like crazy for almost the whole 90 minutes of its duration, to save her boyfriend’s (Moritz Bleibtrau) ass. This is a message about love: How far do you go to save your loved one? How much can you run in order to achieve what seems impossible? Even though it’s their fault, and not yours, at the end of the day.

Tom Tykwer is a force of the nature: His camera follows Lola along her crazy journey around Berlin, which becomes both physical an emotional. On her way, she will discover and do many things that will change her life forever.

And yet this movie gives you food for thought with its greatest invention: The plot doesn’t happen once, but three times. And each time it is altered. Sometimes the outcome is positive, sometimes negative. But every time, Lola learns different things. Others affect her in a good way, others in a bad. But through each time, she learns something different. She is being through something different.

There is not only her there, though. Manni (her boyfriend) is worried for his life. Very much. In the third of Lola’s run, he runs as well. He is after that damn hobo who got his money. That makes you think, is it that bad that the hobo got the money? It wasn’t money for a good cause, anyway. Is it because Manni is the protagonist that the money should be with him? Through these get to the simultaneous trip of two people fighting against time to achieve the impossible. And sometimes you see them succeed. Maybe temporarily, maybe for good.

The theme brings you to the point of thinking “What if this happened in real life?”; what if there was a chance that a crucial action could be repeated; what if we could change the outcome of one of our days; what if he had a time machine to change our past; what if Lola’s story happens in three different parallel universes; what if we have infinite alter egos, who life slightly or massively different lives than we do.

Weirdest thing about this film is, that even though it leaves you breathless with its pace, it allows you time to think about all of these stuff. It grabs your eye and your mind simultaneously.Your eye because of Lola’s extra-red hair. Because of the fast-changing background. Because of the beautiful Berlin. Because of the desperation, the hope, the stealth on the characters’ faces.And then your ear is captivated as well from the fast music, which creates even more feelings in you. Makes you feel anxious, look at the clock, beg that the time won’t run out. Makes you beg that number “20” is coming up on the roulette. Makes you be Lola and Manni.

Of course, nothing of these would be achieved without Potente and Bleibtreu’s masterful performances. Considering the fact they are two of the best German actors of their generation, their pairing in this movie is successful. The chemistry between them makes their connection believable and makes the story more engaging.

This film is kind of the butterfly effect: On each run, Lola doesn’t change only her life, it changes the lives of  the people she is passing by as well. Tomorrow, a woman might slightly hit you with her bag, or a little child might annoy you with its scream. Who knows? These can as well have saved you from a horrible death five years later of will lead you to the love of your life. The probabilities are unlimited, because this is real life.

“This is scary”, my dad told me one day we were watching “Up in the Air”, while I was at home for spring break. “Scary?” I replied. “His job is scary. You can’t imagine how terrifying is telling someone they are losing their job. And how much more terrifying is losing your job”. True words dad, even though I cannot fully realise them yet.

Jason Reitman’s third directorial effort (after “Thank you for Smoking” and my ever-favourite “Juno”) establishes him as one of Hollywood’s talents and also creates another nepotism case (his father is director Ivan Reitman , of “Ghostbusters” and “Dave” fame, who also serves as producer for this movie). He tells the story of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a successful corporate downizer and a motivational speaker- who motivates people to live their life independent from relationships, a lifestyle he enjoys to practice. Willingly alienated, Ryan’s biggest ambition is to reach his 10.000.000 air miles goal. In one of his stops he meets Alex (Vera Farmiga) an equally cynical and attractive woman, with whom he creates a “no strings attached” relationship, something -initally- ideal for him.

Ryan’s world starts to fall apart when the keen, freshly Ivy League graduate, Natalie (Anna Kendrick is a revelation here) is hired in the same company as him and with a breakthrough proposal she threatens to demolish Ryan’s lifestyle for good.

This is a kind of prophetical film - the screenplay is adapted by a 2001 novel by Walter Kim, and was written in the same year by Sheldon Turner and was purchased by DreamWorks in 2003. Then the Reitmans found out about it, which resulted to its 2009 release by Paramount, right in the feast of world financial crisis.

No one can deny that Clooney is one of the finest American actors -or, better, artists. His big range, combined with his dashing looks, allow him to portray his character honestly and gives us the whole emotional journey from a man who voluntarily isolates himself to one who is in need of human contact and back. Ryan is definitely an unlikable character, an yet we root for him. He makes scene where he reaches his initial goal is equally funny, thought-provoking and sad and at the end, he seems to be less than the douche I thought him to be.

Vera Farmiga, his female counterpart, does more that the job of keeping herself against a strong lead. She manages to deliver a performance that makes the audience both love and hate her, creates the essential anti-heroine who could be a man’s rising -and ends up becoming his demise.

The revelation of the film, though, is a certain Anna Kendrick. In the likes of Annette Bening, she brings a sassy and breezy Natalie, full of the -sometimes unreal- ambitions and insecurities of a girl of her age and education. You enjoy seeing her rising against her “mentor” (the scenes they share are some of the best of the movie) as well as falling apart.

Some of the best acting, though, occurs by the fired people. Reitman infamously used people that have been fired sometime in their life in order to deliver a more realistic result. The scenes where Natalie and Ryan fire Bob (J.K. Simmons) and where Natalie fires via videocall Mr. Samuels (Steve Eastin) are among the most powerful of the film.

The opening scene of the movie, combined with the song, is an ironic wink to what America portrays. It gets you to the point right before the actual movie begins. The irony of the song about a country that seemingly offers everything, and yet it failed its people so badly.

The choice of the colours of the movie for the most part -blue and greyish- reflect pretty much Ryan’s life and psychism. Only in few scenes, like Ryan and Alex’s meeting and at the family gathering, the atmosphere becomes warmer, and you suspect that the protagonist’s soul gets a similar effect.

As with “Juno”, the direction is yet again fresh and contemporary and the dialogue is natural and brisk and there’s where lies a lot of the movie’s charm. As mentioned above, Reitman does not only rely on his leads, but to the full cast (which includes the talents of Jason Bateman, Danny McBride, Zach Galifianakis -pre Hangover fame- and Melanie Lynskey among others) to deliver a strong result.

Finally, the image Reitman creates for America is far from idyllic. Even though Natalie is apparently chasing her piece of the American dream, only to realise that this is hardly doable, she does it through the non-ideal way. There are no pretty, lush valleys or beautiful, luxurious houses. There are cold hotel rooms, even colder, wintery towns and empty offices, ready to get rid of even more souls.

As the last two years pass by it becomes even more painful to watch this movie, in a way. At its first viewing, it was a movie about someone’s isolation. As our world progresses into a kind of demise, it becomes, as my dear dad said, “a scary movie”. Scary because people like Ryan Bingham exist and do the job he does. As someone in the movie said, it makes me wonder how such people can sleep at night. But every single time I watch the film the same question comes up: How the hell do you fire someone like Ryan Bingham?

There are some films that you are not supposed to consider as masterpieces, you know you shouldn’t, but you still do. Among these films is “A Single Man”. It is essentially a film made from a successful fashion designer. You consider it at first as a satisfaction of a man’s vanity. And it is also a gay man’s film about another gay man’s day in a life. His last day (?), pretty much.

When I read about the director of this film I did not know where to stand. And then I found out about the main lead and I wanted to give it a shot. Badly.

And I did. And I loved it.

This is George Falconer’s (Colin Firth in a performance of a career) day. And he is determined to make it his last. He is an Englishman in the LA of the 60’s, a college professor. After the death of his lover (Matthew Goode) nothing seems to be worth living anymore. Even though there is his -also English- best friend Charley (Julianne Moore), with whom they seem to share a warm, kind of father and child, relationship. While the day progresses, among other events, he attracts the attention of one of his students (Nicholas Hoult) and has a brief encounter with a male prostitute (Jon Kortajarena -to die for), things that progressively change him a bit inside.

My feelings for this film are the sum of most of its elements. And of course it starts with the performances. Colin Firth is stunning. His understated performance gives the grief of a gentleman, without overwhelming expressions of desperation and sadness. He mourns the way it suits to the image he created. Every single look he gives, every line he delivers reflect a well studied performance, as well as a heart-felt one. Because, above all, this is not a gay movie. Not at all. This is a movie about love and loss. And at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter who loved who. It’s all down to what’s felt.

Julianne Moore is once more worth it as George’s friend Charley, a woman who tries to live out of the debris of a former life, through her flamboyant ways and alcohol.

We meet Jim (Matthew Goode), George’s deceased lover of 16 years, through George’s flashbacks. Goode is, to me, an ever-reliable actor and in this case, he proves himself once more. He is indeed suitable for his role and makes the character likeable enough to make us sympathise with George. I believe that the way he presents the character is an essential component to Firth’s performance, as it makes us feel for the main character.

What I honestly didn’t expect was to see Jon Kortajarena act. To be fair, you can easily get distracted by his looks and pay no focus on the way he delivers his lines (which is the main problem of the film sometimes in general -focus on beauty rather than substance) but, when I managed, I found him to be rather comfortable and natural in front of Ford’s reel (the two share a long-time collaboration), much to my delight.

As I’ve mentioned, what makes the film suffer it’s is focus on perfection. It is so beautiful, it hurts.

The cinematography has this vintage essence, which travels you back to the 60’s, but still reminds you that it has to give the impression it’s set there, rather than it actually is.

The set is perfectly set to reflect the era, but simultaneously giving an out worldly class you know it cannot be the case. Come on, there has to be something ugly around there! 

The costumes are a whole different story, even though you have to admit that you could see that one coming, since it’s a film directed by Tom Ford. The man; the legend.

And of course, the cast itself. There is no ugly face to be seen in this film. From the bank clerk to George’e neighbour (Ginnifer Goodwin). As if everyone then was beautiful. And well dressed. And perfectly groomed. All these enchanted the film experience in a way. Especially the sessions where George (Colin Firth) found a reason to be in beauty and suddenly a colour explosion happened before my eyes.

All these, surrounded by Abel Korzeniowski’s (funnily enough, I know a Polish guy who has to do with music with an insanely similar name) graceful and hunting score, creates this fragile perfection that at times distracts you by the film itself. It is one of these times that you get distracted from the story because of the picture, rather the opposite that usually happens in a film-going experience. But I guess this is what you get from a guy whose main focus is making people look beautiful. 

And yet, surrounded by so much beauty, a man doesn’t think it’s worth living. Because the basic substance-love -is absent. And it’s not that he is not loved. Charley loves him. And he loves her as well. But this is not the same kind of love that human beings sometimes need to get going. Sometimes you just don’t care of who loves you. Sometimes you ignore how much you love them. All you want is to focus on this special person. The one you want to exchange everything. And unfortunately, in this case, this person is absent. For good.