ON FILM:
THE OTHER SISTER: When the ending credits were rolling after The Other Sister, I heard one of the other theater-goers comment that this was a "chick flick". What does that really mean, though? What are the distinguishing features of a "chick flick," as opposed to a "guy movie"? Is it really just a matter of the latter having car chases and explosions?
The Washington Post review of this film called it "didactic" and "cutesy", and the film does live up to those criticisms... from a certain perspective. In fact, it seems to me that one can watch this film from two very distinct positions: from the heart or from the mind. The criticisms of "didactic", "cutesy", "fluffy," or others like them, originate from the perspective of the mind. The heart's-eye-view shows tenderness, joy, and fulfillment in the characters of this movie. In this case, the heart is most responsible for a willful suspension of disbelief.
There are a double handful of elements which must be accepted before you can enter into the world of The Other Sister, but if you do (on the heart's terms), you may find a story as pleasing and touching as a Pinocchio (**** 1/2) or a Mr. Holland's Opus (**** 1/2). Unfortunately, the reason why it cannot be as good a film as those two is because it fails to successfully engage the mind as well as the heart.
The main character is Carla Tate, a mildly retarded young woman who grew up in a group home and has now returned to her wealthy family, thirsting for independence. She is largely supported in her quest by her two sisters and her father, though not by her mother, who is portrayed as an overbearing control-freak. In due course, Carla meets and quickly falls in love with a mildly retarded young man (apparently the only one in San Francisco). The course of their romance is highly predictable and only slightly comedic--far less interesting than, say, the similar relationship in The Truth About Cats And Dogs (*****).
The major problem is that there is no real debate of the issues. Carla's mother is portrayed as the villain... the oppressor... the tyrant. But a moment's thought reveals that in another movie, her voice of practicality over blind optimism could have been the heroic one. As I watched the closing credits roll, I found myself wondering how Carla was planning to support herself financially. Of course, the answer is that she hasn't thought that far ahead... and neither had the scriptwriters. (131 minutes. *** out of 5 stars)
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE: Back in 1989, some of you may have seen a film called Dead Poets Society (*** 1/2). I thought it did a passable job a showing the ennobling qualities of literature; there are some out there who disagree strongly. So now, I am forced to wonder if those who disliked Dead Poets Society will also dislike Shakespeare in Love.
The intersection of Robin Williams and William Shakespeare brings another memory up from the murky depths. I recall a Saturday Night Live sketch in which Williams played an actor whose soliloquy from Hamlet began, "Is this a dagger I see before me... or are you just happy to see me?" His live performances always seem to have a strong sense of whimsy, a sense that anything can and will happen. That is something that DPS lacked, even with the presence of Williams, but Shakespeare in Love preserves it without him.
A brief synopsis: It is 1593, and William Shakespeare is having a bout of writer’s block while working on a comedy to be called "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter". The movie is the story of how that (fictional) concept evolves into "The Lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet". Along the way, there is comedy, pathos, romance, and a trunkful of nods to both the Bard and to Christopher Marlowe.
Those who go to historical films to pick out anachronisms and inaccuracies will have a field day, of course. This is not meant to be a history of Shakespeare, and treats its topic with the same loose hand and poetic license that the Bard used with historical subjects himself in Richard II and King Lear. It is a glowing tribute to the works of Elizabethan literature, and I was unsurprised to find Tom Stoppard listed as a co-writer. Shakespeare in Love is about as good as his other masterwork, Rosencranz and Guildenstern are Dead (****). 113 minutes, **** out of 5 stars.
ON TAPE:
MA VIE EN ROSE: The Fabre family’s perfect suburban existence is complete, but for one thing: their youngest son, seven-year-old Ludovic, is heavily under the influence of fantasies inspired by a Barbie-like doll, and is absolutely sure that he will grow up to be a girl. This has much more effect on said perfect suburban existence than anyone, including the guileless Ludovic, can imagine. While basically comic, even mock-comic, in tone, this film’s question is a serious one: seven years is (in any country or culture) well before the age at which children are allowed to make their own way in life, yet Ludovic’s innocence is so thorough that it requires a truly hard heart not to have sympathy for him. All this would have been nigh impossible without believable childhood acting; fortunately, Georges Dufresne is well up to the task, with huge eyes and a face almost as emotive as that of the young girl from Scent of Green Papaya. Not all the child actors ring so true, but the adult actors all do, including those playing Ludovic’s bewildered parents (sorry I didn’t get any of these names). Ludovic’s relatively indulgent grandmother is truly wonderful and the most likable of the adults. The other major technical achievements are the jarring, almost hallucinatory transitions between child fantasy and bitter reality, done so much more creatively than in cliche-ridden Hollywood movies on similar subjects (to the extent that any movie’s subject could be similar to this one!) This one is well worth seeing.
U.S. MARSHALS. 1998, 3 stars (of 5). This sequel to 1993's The Fugitive tries to give its audience more of the same. Sadly, this film, in hewing too close to the formula of the original, falters in exactly the facet that made the TV show of the 60's so popular and successful: We simply don't care about the characters. Tommy Lee Jones does a fine job with the role he's given, and for that matter, so do Wesley Snipes and Robert Downey Jr. Unfortunately, the script is so convoluted (because it tries too hard to be a mystery) that there is no room for the characters to be revealed. If you don't mind the shallow, distant characters, then U.S. Marshals is only a little below the quality of your average James Bond film. Running time: 133 minutes.
GUELWAAR: A Senegalese Christian and anti-foreign-aid activist with an interesting personal life, Guelwaar dies a violent and mysterious death one day at uncertain hands. His distraught wife and adult children are still adjusting to the idea of such a larger-than-life figure being gone when his corpse mysteriously disappears... Director Ousmane Sembene seems kind of like an African John Sayles--his political views are never terribly far from the plate, and he seems to be ready to pontificate at any turn, but the preachiness is (mostly) compensated for by a convoluted, involving plot. No character is completely as he or she seems at first, or is totally good or bad; the local police chief may have been the one who carried out a government order to eliminate Guelwaar, but he also seems earnestly determined to recover his corpse. Guelwaar’s oldest son, now a French citizen, seems lost in the country of his heritage and can’t speak any native tongues (inspiring some of the film’s more comic and insightful moments, largely due to believable acting), but nevertheless catches on quickly to what is happening. Subtleties abound, and they really are subtleties (although the director’s opinions are hardly opaque!), and I can imagine watching this film many more times to pick them up--not something I often have an opportunity to say about a movie these days!