skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Film: Balibo
Year of production: 2009
UK Release date: 25th April 2011
Distributor: High Fliers
Certificate: 15
Running time: 107 mins
Director: Robert Connolly
Starring: Oscar Isaac, Anthony LaPaglia, Bea Viegas
Genre: Drama/Mystery/Thriller
Format: DVD
Country of Production: Australia
Language: English
Review by: Katy Stewart
Anthony LaPaglia worked with politically-conscious director Robert Connolly in the 2001 thriller The Bank. Here, they join forces again, along with rising star Oscar Isaac (Che: Part One) for this hard-hitting portrayal of real events in terrorized East Timor.
Balibo is based on the true story of the Balibo 5, a group Australian journalists who went to East Timor in 1975 to report on the imminent Indonesian invasion and disappeared. With both the Australian government and the wider international community turning a blind eye to events in the tiny Portuguese territory, Jose Ramos-Horta, the Foreign Minister (Isaac) asks veteran Australian journalist Roger East (LaPaglia) to head up the national news agency to bring the crisis in East Timor to wider attention. Reluctantly, he agrees, although his initial motivation is simply to find out what happened to his fellow countrymen.
His early interest in the case quickly turns to obsession and he doggedly traces the steps of the Balibo 5 against the implorations of Jose. His story is intertwined with that of the Balibo 5, scenes alternating between the two. However, as his search progresses, Roger cannot help becoming deeply involved in the national crisis, the impending invasion and the story that the missing journalists were trying to tell…
This is a story which director Robert Connolly felt needed to be told and from the opening scene, the testimony of Juliana (Viegas) about the horror she witnessed as a child in 1975, it is clear that is not necessarily going to be an easy watch. However, Connolly does not let the raw politics of the real events overpower the film. It is a well-crafted thriller, which racks up the tension as it progresses towards the climax. At the same time, he does justice to the East Timorean people and does not hide his own political leanings.
Roger East is brilliantly portrayed by LaPaglia as a flawed hero; he does not have particularly noble or ideological aims, he is easily persuaded to give up under gunfire and he is very reluctant to tell the story of the troubled nation. This makes him incredibly human, someone we can relate to and perhaps ultimately admire. It is Isaac, as impassioned leader Jose Ramos-Horta, who provides the fire; the passion and rage of an idealist trying to protect his people and his country. However, it is East who shows a dogged resilience to his cause, covering miles on foot through jungles, destroyed villages and deserted towns, in his search for the journalists.
The interwoven story of the journalists is a concept which in some ways works brilliantly, but which also jars slightly. The constant switching of stories is sometimes disruptive to the flow and to the tension which Connolly otherwise builds up so well. At the same time, it feels as though more time should be given to the journalists and their journey, which is only lightly sketched - the viewer does not really get to know these key characters. However, these are minor points; this dual plot is almost poetic in its powerful symmetry and contrast between the two geographically identical journeys. The village, where the journalists stayed, answering questions and listening to stories, is littered with corpses and ruins when Roger passes through. The pool where they laughed and splashed around with locals is still and silent. Connolly’s research and attention to detail also pays off in the subplot; the locations and speeches of the journalists’ broadcasts are faithfully based on the little surviving footage, giving a real authenticity and chilling power to these scenes. They are also shot with the slightly washed-out colours of ‘70s footage and the telltale wobbles of handheld cameras, which also creates a slightly ghostly feeling.
As the film draws us towards the end, we feel like we have been on every step of the journey with East. At this point, Connolly creates almost unbearable tension and it is impossible to look away, however much we might want to, from the barrage of pure horror that he releases. If we did, it would make us just as bad as the Western governments and organisations that Connolly so forcefully indicts. He implicitly asks some very difficult questions, provided by the contrasting characters of East and Ramos-Horta. Why should the deaths of five white Australians get more press coverage than 180,000 East Timoreans? Why were all outside observers so reluctant to step in or even comment on the Indonesian invasion of a powerless nation?
Not just a well-crafted thriller, then, nor simply a political statement. This is a complex and haunting film about a country many people will never have even heard of. The lead performances are understated but stunning, and though it is not an easy film to watch, it burns with a kind of fury which palpably conveys the feelings of the director and writers and the fact that they care about the story they are telling. Because of this, it has great integrity and a real power. It is not a film that you can dismiss after watching; it demands action, even if that is just acknowledging what happened in East Timor in 1975. Above all, it offers a new generation the chance not to turn a blind eye.
Balibo is a triumph of Australian cinema. It is unapologetic in its brutality and has a few minor flaws, but it is a powerful and important story exceptionally well-told. KS
Film: On Tour
Year of production: 2010
UK Release date: 25th April 2011
Distributor: Artificial Eye
Certificate: 15
Running time: 111 mins
Director: Mathieu Amalric
Starring: Miranda Colclasure, Suzanne Ramsey, Dirty Martini, Julie Atlas Muz, Angela de Lorenzo
Genre: Comedy/Drama
Format: DVD
Country of Production: France
Language: French/English
Review by: Katy Stewart
Mathieu Amalric, best-known as an actor, has earned both critical acclaim and box office success (The Diving Bell And The Butterfly, The Quantum Of Solace). Adding directing and writing to his talents, On Tour is the quirky result of his collaboration with a troupe of New Burlesque performers.
Joachim (Amalric) is a failed Parisian TV producer who abandons his former life and takes off to America, where he meets a group of Burlesque dancers. Seeing a new opportunity, he brings them back to France and arranges for them to tour the country, introducing a French audience to their bold ‘New Burlesque’ routine.
The girls are supremely confident, cutting through language and cultural barriers in a flurry of feather boas and titillating performances. They are proud of their show – Mimi le Meaux (Miranda Colclasure) describes it as “Burlesque by women, for women” – and they refuse to let Joachim suggest changes.
He puts up with the girls’ wilful nature, the crummy hotels and the endless time on the road in the hope that a big show in Paris will bring him the success he deserves. However, when he is let down by a friend and unable to get a venue in Paris, his hopes begin to unravel. The girls continue to perform, undaunted, in ever-more provincial and dreary towns, but Joachim is often elsewhere as he tries to sort out his own messy personal life…
If there’s one thing this film lacks, it’s a definite plot. It is a pretty accurate representation of what one imagines life must be like on a low-budget tour, but noteworthy events are extremely sparse. Some critics have praised this realistic approach, but it does leave the viewer wondering when something is going to happen. Of course, the greatest storytellers are able to create powerful significance out of the most subtle moments and it seems that is what Amalric is trying to do here. But whether he is pleading with a hotel receptionist to turn off the awful piped music, confronting people from his past, or engaging in a moment of flirting with a gas-station attendant, we are never led to a greater underlying meaning. The viewer simply gets the sense that this man’s life is depressingly empty and meaningless, but it does not make for riveting viewing.
The film is given some life by the performances and by the fact that the girls are real-life burlesque dancers. They are unafraid to bear their voluptuous figures on stage or swear at Joachim in their gritty New York accents, meaning that they bring a delightful authenticity to the film. They are a breath of fresh air – colourful, energetic and bright against the grey backdrop of industrial France. This works very well for the actual performance sequences, but these are sadly fleeting. For the majority of the film, they are off-stage, kind of inverse caricatures of their on-stage personas. Nevertheless, they do provide optimism and positivity; delighting in the modest attractions of the towns they visit in the way only foreigners can.
Unfortunately, as the film progresses, more and more time is given over to Joachim’s parallel storyline, as he catches up with people he used to know and just as quickly moves on again, resolving nothing and revealing very little. Possibly in an attempt to make him a more sympathetic figure, his young sons come into the picture rather randomly and he drags them around on the tour for a bit before packing them back off to their mother. The effect, however, is to render all these encounters more or less pointless. The film may well be trying to present the futility of life, or some other similar philosophical sentiment, but it does not express it eloquently - and it does not keep the viewer interested. Amalric cuts a pitiful figure as the beleaguered producer, but not one that is easy to empathise with.
One aspect of the film that is admirable is the cinematography, which gives the a documentary-style feel, echoing the low-budget tour premise. The theme of incidental, fleeting moments, which does not work in the plot, is actually successful in the visual creation of the film. For example, we see many of the burlesque performances as if watching from the wings, making it even more teasing and tantalizing. Likewise, Amalric focuses upon personal, individual encounters even in regard to the relationship between the performers and the public, which is a much more effective way of showing the reaction of average working people to a risqué new show in town. In this sense, Amalric’s direction is assured and strong, it is just a shame this does not translate to the content.
This is a film which offers a quirky, dynamic cast and a creative take on the burlesque genre. However, it leaves the unsatisfactory feeling that this is a film which could have been so much more, if greater consideration had been given to the plot, or at least providing some point to the many insignificant moments. There is much to admire in individual scenes, but no strong thread holding them together. It almost feels like so much time was spent illustrating one man’s disappointing life and the unglamorous reality of life on tour that any sense of story was forgotten about.
On Tour promises a lot but does not completely deliver. It is worth watching for individually admirable performances and a pleasing lack of cliché, but don’t expect a gripping plot. KS
Film: Two In The Wave
Release date: 11th April 2011
Certificate: 12
Running time: 91 mins
Director: Emmanuel Laurent
Starring: Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard
Genre: Documentary
Studio: New Wave
Format: DVD
Country: France
The pioneering figures of French New Wave cinema, Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut are nothing short of legends in the world of film. Their idealistic, youthful cinema inspired generations of filmmakers, both in Europe and Hollywood. Now, director Emmanuel Laurent, once the editor of Cahiers du Cinema, brings together film archives and documents to reveal the turbulent relationship between the two men.
Grainy archive footage shows Truffaut’s seminal film, The 400 Blows, triumphing at the Cannes Film Festival. A present-day, nameless girl studies newspaper cuttings. Narrator Antoine de Baecque (also the writer) introduces, in a roundabout way, New Wave cinema and its protagonists, Truffaut and Godard. Told almost exclusively through the use of archive footage, both of the men and of their films, the documentary charts their family backgrounds, their work as critics for the Cahiers du Cinema and the relationship forged between them.
Interview clips reveal a typically French, philosophical approach to filmmaking – Godard explains how cinema blurs the lines between art and reality – and excerpts from their films, particularly The 400 Blows and Godard’s Breathless, show how their philosophy developed in their work. At this point, the two were great friends and worked closely together, often with the young actor Jean-Pierre Leaud as their muse, but de Baecque hints at the differences between them. While Godard sees cinema in a social sense, reconciling it with reality and all that goes with it, Truffaut is intent on producing a poetic narrative, a great piece of cinema, a work of art. More footage then introduces the riots which paralysed France in May 1968 and which reached to the heart of cinema, and reveals the events which led to that dramatic rupture in the New Wave movement...
The documentary aims to show the personal story behind one of the most interesting and exciting periods of French cinema. It is clear that Laurent and de Baecque (a film historian) know their subject intimately and have done their research. The sheer wealth of archive footage and the way it is woven together demonstrates this. However, the story is told so dispassionately that the viewer never feels like they get any real insight into Truffaut and Godard.
One of the problems is that the New Wave has been so well-documented, with so many books and films about it, that in order to add anything new to the subject, a documentary would have to be innovative and extraordinary. This is neither. The delivery is in a very straightforward, history-channel manner and it continues in that vein for the entire ninety minutes. This style might work in some contexts, but here, given the fact that it is discussing two non-conformist, pioneering, creative individuals, it is unintentionally ironic.
The inescapable fact is that this is a French film about French film, so has a slightly desperate air of nostalgia about it, rather than looking to be creative. Not all retrospectives feel like this, but here, although the story is about Truffaut and Godard, there is a real sense that it is looking wistfully back at the glory days of French cinema. To understand Godard’s philosophy or Truffaut’s narrative, how they worked together and what could have caused them to fall out, it would be far more powerful to watch one of their films. Their own work gives a far greater insight into them than this collection of archive footage does.
One completely baffling element of the film is the mute girl that the film cuts to every so often, with an arty close-up of her face, then of her hands turning over pages of newspaper cuttings about Truffaut and Godard. She then goes for a wander around Paris, pausing outside a cinema we later see in the archive footage. At first, her presence in the film looks like it’s taking us in a different direction, but actually she has no real purpose at all. Perhaps she is supposed to connect the viewer with the archives, therefore making them more immediate, as if her interest in the story will rub off on us. In fact, these scenes merely provoke puzzlement as to their inclusion, leaving the viewer more removed than ever.
The documentary gets some things right. The interview clips, particularly of Godard, are interesting and hook the viewer in momentarily. Equally, for viewers looking for an introduction to New Wave Cinema, the social background and its key figures, there is a lot of clearly presented, accurate information here. It just does not go that step further and add anything new or any perceptive ideas, and it lacks the lustre to make it really incisive and enjoyable. There are books which bring this movement and its personalities to life with more passion and zeal. Films about film are difficult to pull off and sadly this one does not manage it particularly well.
New Wave aficionados and die-hard fans of Truffaut and Godard will find delight in the wealth of archive footage, but as a film and a contribution to French cinema, Two In The Wave leaves a lot to be desired. KS
Human Rights Watch is a leading organisation for the protection of human rights around the world. This film festival constitutes an important part of its work, as it provides an insight into human rights violations, brings them to the attention of a wider audience and encourages the filmmakers, subjects and audience to fight against these injustices.
On the 23rd March, the 15th edition of the festival opened in London, bringing sixteen documentaries and five dramas to a UK audience. This ambitious and wide-ranging festival took place in three different cinemas over ten days, offering a packed schedule of high-impact films. Most of the films included a Q&A with the directors, film subjects or producers, giving the audience a chance to interact with the story they had just seen.
Due to the subject matter, many of the films are hard-hitting, powerful and disturbing, but above all, they aim to promote change in the world. For many of the films, the festival screening was their UK premiere and often the first high-profile exposure of a particular human rights violation. There was great geopolitical scope, with the films collectively covering a wide and varied range of countries and situations. The following four summaries give just a taste of what the festival had to offer…
Incendies
One of the few dramas in the festival, Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation of an original play by Wajdi Mouawad was the official Opening Night Film. Based on the theme of a Greek Tragedy, it combines dark mythic elements with the more modern setting of a destructive Middle Eastern war. Past and present converge as twins Jeanne and Simon go in search of their family history, uncovering deeply disturbing truths about their mother’s life and their own heritage.
Lubna Azabal is brilliant and intense in the role of Nawal - the twins’ mother - and it is Nawal’s story which emerges as the main thread of the film, although it is presented only in flashbacks. The film becomes more harrowing with each new revelation that the twins uncover, and there was an audible, collective gasp from the audience as the different strands of the story collided to reveal a shocking complete picture. Villeneuve handles his complex subject with mastery and finds ways of introducing unconditional love in the midst of horror.
After the credits rolled, actress Lubna Azabal was joined on the stage by Nadim Houry, the Beirut Director for Human Rights Watch. Many of the questions were directed at him and, although the film is deliberately ambiguous regarding its Middle East setting, he was able to draw clear parallels between the themes dealt with in the film and the ongoing suffering of many Lebanese people who are searching for their missing relatives. For those people, as for the characters in the film, the truth may be painful, but not knowing is far worse.
Granito
Almost thirty years ago a young filmmaker, Pamela Yates, managed to get into Guatemala in the midst of its bloody civil war and make a documentary about it: When The Mountains Tremble. By building up trust with both the guerrilla soldiers and the army generals, she was able to capture unique footage of both sides of the war. Now, in an incredible demonstration of the power of documentary filmmaking, Granito shows how that first film is key evidence in the international trial of the army leader, Rios Montt, for crimes against humanity.
Granito is a film in three parts: the first gives contextual background and is a memoir of sorts as Yates explains how she made When The Mountains Tremble. We are introduced to some of the people she is meeting again some twenty-five years later as they come together to try and build a case against Rios Montt. The second part focuses on the judicial proceedings as witnesses come forward before a Spanish judge to give testimonies of the horror they suffered. In the final section, the emphasis takes us back to Guatemala and on the continuing fight of individuals for their own justice.
Yates is well-aware of how intertwined her two films are – Granito is not a straightforward sequel by any stretch of the imagination. The first section of the film suffers a little for this; explaining the context of When The Mountains Tremble takes time and the memoir nature of it is quite in-depth – it is easy to wonder where the film is going. However, in the second and third sections, Granito really comes into its own and finds its voice. Yates combines the story of the trial, in which she has a major part to play, with the personal stories of individuals in a very effective way. It is compelling viewing, if difficult, at times, which shows starkly that the passage of time has not relieved the grief of so many Mayan people who still do not know what happened to their loved ones and who are still being threatened by the leaders of Guatemala.
Granito does not leave the audience feeling pessimistic, however. Rigoberta Menchú, one of the key figures of the film, and the Mayan woman now running for presidency in Guatemala, explains that no one person can change everything, but everyone can contribute their granite (or ‘little grain of sand’). If nothing else, this film sums up the message of the festival; that film has a unique ability – maybe even responsibility – to bear witness to atrocities and violations of human rights and to contribute its own granito to change a situation.
Impunity
With a theme which quickly became familiar within this festival, Impunity is a documentary which takes us to another country with a legacy of a brutal war – Colombia. Here, paramilitary groups had been quick to quash guerrilla uprisings by torturing and massacring the people of rural villages, making an example of anyone who could be vaguely linked to a guerrilla. Impunity begins in 2005, when a controversial law was introduced, allowing paramilitaries virtual amnesty in return for giving up their weapons and answering the questions of the victims.
Although many are evasive and non-committal in their answers, one senior paramilitary figure, ‘HH’, provides key information which begins to reveal the reality atrocities carried out by these groups and the extent to which their actions were linked to the very highest echelons of Colombian politics. As the files begin to pile up and mass graves are found, the testimonies strike close to the presidency and the little justice that there was in this trial begins to falter.
This is a hard-hitting documentary which confronts the viewer head-on; the first scene is of a woman describing the decapitation of her 12-year-old brother and this sets the tone for the rest of the film. With none of the hope which Granito and other films have, this is not an easy film to watch, but it is a story which needs to be told. It shows with stark reality the exchange of justice for peace which politicians will happily make – peace, that is, for them, not for the victims.
Within the festival, Impunity was the film which perhaps most blurred the lines between film and audience – it presented the situation in a very real way, and many of the audience members who were there had their own interests in Colombia, leading to a vehement expression of views in the Q&A. It is that kind of film – it causes shock, encourages questions and aims to get audiences around the world to take a stand against corruption of justice.
The First Grader
The festival closed with The First Grader, a drama based on real events, from director Justin Chadwick (The Other Boleyn Girl). It is the story of Maruge (Oliver Litondo), an 84-year-old man who turns up at a primary school on the day the Kenyan government announces free education for all. Headteacher Jane Obinchu (Naomie Harris) takes pity on him and squeezes him into her already packed classroom. As she gets to know him, she discovers that he is an ex-Mau Mau who fought the British to liberate Kenya. He never had a chance at education and even now, politicians, parents and other teachers are trying to stop him.
This triumphant film was a great way to end the festival on a high after some of the heavy documentaries. It by no means trivialised the events – Chadwick did not ignore the darker elements of Maruge’s story, working in haunting snippets of flashback and undertones of a brutality that left the audience uneasy in their seats. However, the luminous performances of Litondo and Harris and the warm relationship between their characters perfectly demonstrated that humanity is capable of good, as well as evil. The cast of children were completely believable as Maruge’s classmates, probably because they were rural Kenyan schoolchildren who had never acted before.
While the film is optimistic, this does ring a note of implausibility when you realise that the real story of Maruge did not have a happy ending. For many of the Mau Mau who suffered unspeakable torture at the hands of the British, their fight is only just beginning. However, producer David Thompson explained afterwards that Maruge had inspired an entire generation of Kenyans to get an education and that they hoped the Mau Mau would soon have the justice they deserved.
In another example of the blurred lines between film and reality, he was joined for the Q&A by Dan Leader, a barrister who is bringing a case against the British government on behalf of four elderly ex-Mau Mau fighters in order to try and get the government to take the responsibility for its actions that it has so long denied. This is set to be a dramatic moment in history and The First Grader is a film standing on the brink of it, imagining an outcome in which justice prevails.
Overall, the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival was a showcase not only of current human rights issues, but also of the power of film and the determination of filmmakers to put themselves in dangerous situations in order to bear witness to such issues around the world. It takes real talent to make heavy and often complex subjects into good film and that talent abounded. Furthermore, the festival unites audiences, filmmakers and human rights workers in a celebration of their collective power to uphold human rights and to bring about justice in situations where they are violated. Above all, it reaffirms the real ability we all have to promote change in the world. KS
Film: A Small Act
Release date: 15th April 2011
Certificate: TBC
Running time: 88 mins
Director: Jennifer Arnold
Starring: N/a
Genre: Documentary
Studio: Dogwoof
Format: Cinema
Country: USA
This is a multiple, including English, language release.
A small act of kindness can ripple throughout the world. That is the guiding idea behind this documentary, directed by independent filmmaker Jennifer Arnold, which follows the incredible story of Chris Mburu.
Chris Mburu is a Human Rights lawyer who works for the United Nations and is a Harvard graduate. However, his journey to this point was not straightforward; he was born into poverty in a small Kenyan village and, as he explains at the start of the film, his parents did not have enough money to send him to secondary school, despite him being the brightest student in his class. He would probably still be living in that same village, uneducated, were it not for Hilde Back. Hilde sponsored Chris as part of a Swedish sponsorship system, enabling Chris to get through secondary school and continue onto the University of Nairobi and Harvard.
Chris is now in a position to help others, and decides to set up a similar system to sponsor children from his village so that they can have the same opportunities he did. Although he knows nothing about Hilde Back apart from her name, and that she was a Swedish teacher, he creates the foundation in her name. Doing this motivates Chris to try and find Hilde if he can, to say thank you. When he finally meets her, he realises that there is a lot more to this quiet, retired teacher than meets the eye, and an extraordinary bond develops between them.
Back in the Kenyan village where Chris grew up, there are three children, all desperate for the scholarship which will change their lives. However, as violence breaks out in the country following the elections, it demonstrates starkly that without education, it is not just the fate of the individual children which is at stake, but that of an entire nation…
This documentary is deceptively simple, given the scope of what it portrays – several countries, many individual lives, different times and generations – yet Arnold weaves them all seamlessly into one coherent story. What is perhaps even more astonishing is that while she is clearly a talented filmmaker, she did not invent any of this; she found an incredible true story which spans the globe whilst being personal. It does take a little time for the film to get going, as the viewer is introduced to the different settings - Sweden, Kenya and Switzerland - but that groundwork soon pays off, and you cannot help but be drawn into this powerful tale of humanity.
Chris Mburu is the cornerstone of this film; he is the link which holds the other stories together, and there is something very poetic about the way the search for his benefactor takes place as he fulfils the same role for other children, who he hopes will go on to do the same so that the one small act grows and grows.
Kimani, Ruth and Caroline, the three children we are introduced to, are warm and engaging, with drive and determination to do well. They are under no illusions about how important the scholarship is, not just for them but for their whole families - they feel that the responsibility for providing their loved ones with a better life rests on their shoulders.
On the other side of the world, Hilde Back represents all that this film is about. She is an ordinary yet extraordinary lady, a retired schoolteacher, a German-Jewish refugee, a woman of 85 who is still full of spirit and vigour. She has seen humanity’s power to do both good and evil. She is not sentimental and takes everything in her stride, including a trip to Kenya, but is truly amazed when Chris finds her and ends up forging a strong relationship with him. Her uncomplicated words of wisdom provide much of the narration in the film.
The less obvious hero in this story is Chris’s cousin, Jane Wanjiru. She too had a Swedish benefactor, and she followed Chris to Nairobi, Harvard and the United Nations, where she works as a lawyer, specialising in refugee crises. She is on the board of the scholarship foundation, where she not only argues to get children accepted who have not made the required grade, but is also the voice for women’s rights, proposing that there should be an equal number of boys and girls on the programme. She knows all too well what a lack of education means for women in that situation, and is determined that the girls should also have the opportunity of a good education.
What makes this documentary special is the fact that, above all, it has a positive message. It does not shy away from harsh realities, or portray the situation in a falsely optimistic way, but it is ultimately uplifting. In an increasingly cynical and pessimistic world, where the individual can often feel that nothing they do will make the slightest bit of difference, this film offers a message of hope. Hilde Back did not know for years what happened to the child she sponsored in faraway Kenya, she had no idea that her small donation had created so much good.
At an hour-and-a-half, the film does not labour its points, and the viewer never feels like it is preaching; it is simply telling a story and showing the exponential ripple effect that a small act can have. While it does tie up enough loose ends to give it a satisfying conclusion, it is a real-life documentary; these people’s lives are still continuing and that is also clear. In this way, it creates a very interactive experience with the audience. There is never any kind of appeal for money, but you cannot fail to be moved by the story and frustrated that more children cannot be helped. This explains why so many people have donated money to the Hilde Back Education Fund after seeing this film. The story is not yet finished, and it offers the chance for everyone to be a part of it.
An inspiring and powerful documentary which empowers the viewer to make a difference. A Small Act really can change the world. KS
Film: Operation Valkyrie
Release date: 28th March 2011
Certificate: 15
Running time: 92 mins
Director: Jo Baier
Starring: Sebastian Koch, Ulrich Tukur, Hardy Krüger Jr., Christopher Buchholz, Nina Kunzendorf
Genre: Drama/History/War
Studio: High Fliers
Format: DVD
Country: Germany
The story of the Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler has long been a source of fascination and discussion for historians and filmmakers. Following the Hollywood release of Valkyrie, Germany’s own version of the story has now been released in the UK.
This short film follows the story of Claus von Stauffenberg, the German officer who began as an idealistic young soldier, rising quickly through the ranks under Hitler’s rule. However, as his career progresses so too do his doubts about Hitler’s regime and his brutal acts of genocide. A few brave and foolhardy whispers start speaking against the Fuhrer and Stauffenberg finds himself in a dilemma: unwilling to follow orders in Germany, but unable to bring himself to act against his superiors.
As a way out of this quandary, he accepts a posting to North Africa, where he is badly wounded. On his recovery, he makes the decision that something must be done about Hitler and, with a select few compatriots, orchestrates a plan to kill him. It is a plan fraught with danger, but Stauffenberg becomes increasingly obsessed with his aims at the expense of his relationship with his family and, ultimately, his own life…
This made-for-TV German film may be seriously overshadowed in box-office terms by the Hollywood version, but it shows an attention to detail and historical fact that gives it real integrity. Baier deftly racks up the tension towards the climax of the film until the viewer is paying the utmost attention to every ring of the phone and every knock on the door. He also portrays a side of the war against Hitler that is less known – the secret, internal one being waged by his own officers. As a film made in Germany for a German audience, it is perhaps not a surprising choice of story to tell, but for the wider world it represents a reality that we rarely allow for: that even within Germany there were many people fighting against Hitler’s tyranny and cruelty.
Sebastian Koch gives a dynamic and powerful performance as Stauffenberg which carries the film. The story and action focuses around him but he is supported by a strong cast. Nina Kunzendorf gives a restrained and believable portrayal of his long-suffering wife while Ulrich Tukur offers a steadfast and quietly courageous image of General von Tresckow, the leading voice of dissent in the early part of the film.
The film was originally part of a larger TV documentary about Operation Valkyrie, which may explain its condensed nature and short running time. It offers only a cursory view of the events leading up to the assassination attempt. The first part of the film covers an entire decade at breakneck speed with almost every scene taking us forward by a year. While this might have worked well alongside plenty of other background information, as a standalone film, it leaves the viewer feeling a bit short-changed. There are a lot of themes and characters ripe for development, which we see very little of, particularly some of the other officers involved in the plot and Stauffenberg’s wife. We only see her twice, briefly, in the first half of the film, then suddenly there are four children in the picture and we are expected to accept Stauffenberg as a family man. Similarly, as noted above, there are some tantalizingly good performances from many of the actors in this film, but we only get to glimpse their potential rather than seeing it realized.
Having said that, it is a masterful film which remains true to the story it is telling. Some performances are actually notable for their briefness and understated impact, such as Udo Schenk in the role of Hitler. It would have been tempting to give the infamous figure more screen time, but in fact, the one scene which he appears in, without even speaking, comes at a moment of high tension and the performance is absolutely chilling – it sends shivers down the spine.
The catalogue of atrocities is also not laboured over as it might have been. Because the drama centres around Stauffenberg and not Hitler, we hear reports of the mass murders just enough to remind us of the horror of it all, but not so much that it devalues the impact of it or takes away from the main story.
Baier has a very clear vision and keeps focus throughout the film. The mix of high-action wide-view shots and close-ups with more subtle action is just right. The short length of the film means that no moment is wasted and the quieter moments are all the more intense because of that. No scene in this film is there just to pad it out. Although we already know the story, Baier changes the pace with a fluency which carries the viewer along. We lean in for a better look as the scene with the figure on the stretcher is slowed down and replayed, and we feel the sense of despair mixed with blind and desperate hope that it might still work out as everything begins to unravel.
This is a picture of Nazi Germany from the inside at a unique moment of an indelible section of history. It is only right that there should be a German production of this story and this film does it real justice. KS
Film: Che: Part Two
Release date: 29th June 2009
Certificate: 15
Running time: 129 mins
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Demián Bichir, Rodrigo Santoro, Benicio Del Toro, Catalina Sandino Moreno, María D. Sosa
Genre: Biography/Drama/History/War
Studio: Optimum
Format: DVD
Country: Spain/France/USA
Together with Che: Part One, this completes the epic two-film drama about the life of Che Guevara from Ocean’s Eleven director Steven Soderbergh, and starring Benicio Del Toro.
This was the film Soderbergh originally intended to make; a war drama about Che’s final revolutionary struggle before his death. Whilst it is better to watch it after seeing Che: Part One, it functions as a standalone film because it does not simply pick up the story depicted in the first film. It begins several years later with an announcement from Che that he has done all he can in Cuba, so he is resigning from his position as a military and political leader in the country in order to lead revolutions wherever else needs him.
He travels to Bolivia in disguise and quickly sets up base deep within the jungle, using a false name even with his supporters so that nobody knows where he is. The country is in the same situation Cuba was several years ago, with impoverished, powerless peasants under the repressive control of a military dictatorship.
Once again, Che recruits local people into his guerrilla army, and makes contacts with the local populations to explain the fight which will soon take place. This time, however, things do not go so smoothly - the people do not seem to be completely on his side. Furthermore, with the events in Cuba so well-known throughout the world, the Bolivian dictator is taking no chances, and enlists the help of the US military. Things only get worse when Che’s own troops split up and disaster ensues. We know from the outset that this is a doomed mission for Che, but he does not go without a fight...
In many ways, this is more of the same that we got in Part One, with the same sequence of events; gathering an army, endless treks through the forests, problems amongst the troops, meetings with the locals, and Che battling his own health problems whilst being a doctor, leader and revolutionary for everybody else. We still do not get a great insight into his private life, apart from the smallest glimpse into his family life at the start of the film. However, in this film, the story that Soderbergh and Del Toro are trying to tell becomes clearer. There is a stronger sense of identity for Che here - he is not first and foremost a family man; he is a revolutionary, and he will pursue revolution almost blindly.
While the situation seems familiar at first, and can leave the viewer wondering exactly what the point is of telling the same story in a different country, it soon becomes clear that this is different. In Cuba, in Part One, there was a feeling of a general struggle; the people wanted to overthrow the government and Che was leading the country to a better future. Here, however, the people seem more concerned about whether there will be any fighting in their town than whether the revolution will succeed. This does not deter Che; he believes he knows what is good for the country. In addition, there is a greater sense of menace from the government’s milita than there was in Part One, so there is a definite sense from the beginning that this mission is ill-fated. While in Part One, Soderbergh built a feeling of optimism, here it is the reverse; there is a sense of pessimism that is compounded as the film goes on. This subtle contrast means that there is a well-constructed symmetry between the two films, which together form a more complex whole.
The structure of the film is again similar to Part One, but it is less choppy and hangs together better. There are no flash-forwards this time, which means that the viewer can really become involved with the story. This also means that it feels like less is happening, but there is far more invested in feelings and tensions between various characters, which actually leaves the viewer with more to think about. Similarly, the greatest drama in this film does not come from the loud action sequences of bombs and gunfire, though this, of course, adds to it, but from the long periods of silence, where all that can be heard is the swish of a branch or a rustle of leaves as the soldiers trek wordlessly through the jungle. This is incredibly powerful for transporting the viewer into the film, and heightens the senses to make it a completely absorbing experience.
Soderbergh has not compromised on the elements which made Part One good; this film is a visual triumph, and while the style is similar so that it flows well from the first film, it reflects the subtle differences of the story itself. The forest scenes are darker and gloomier, with less open spaces, and there are far less scenes of bright, sunlit towns. In the same way, Del Toro gives a masterful performance as Che; one which is slightly darker, with a hint of desperation which did not feature in the interpretation previously.
It would have been easy for this film to simply be a continuation of the first without giving anything new. What makes this powerful is that it flows seamlessly from Part One but gives so much more, and actually enriches the first film because of the contrasts. Not only does it provide subtle but significant contrasts with Part One, it also offers a deeper understanding of the main character. It requires some work on the part of the viewer, but if that is invested, Che: Part Two does not fail to reward.
Engaging and powerful, this film is a feast for the senses. It provides a perceptive and complex portrayal of one man’s last stand. KS
Film: Waste Land
Release date: 28th February 2011
Certificate: PG
Running time: 99 mins
Director: Lucy Walker, Karen Harley & Joao Jardim
Starring: Vik Muniz
Genre: Documentary
Studio: E1
Format: DVD
Country: Brazil/UK
Lucy Walker is an established director, with documentaries including Countdown To Zero already under her belt. Waste Land is her latest project and has made waves around the world. It was nominated for an Oscar this year and has won several other awards, including the 2010 Sundance Audience Award for a World Cinema Documentary.
Brazilian-born Vik Muniz is a highly successful artist in his adopted home of New York. Having reached a period in his life where he has all the material goods he has ever wanted, he decides to return to his native country and give something back to society. His initial idea is to use garbage in his art, so he seeks out the largest garbage dump in the world; the Jardim Gramacho in Rio de Janeiro. He is not at all sure what sort of people he will find working there – he is prepared for drug addicts and questionable people living on the edges of society. However, when he meets the pickers, or catadores, he is surprised to find a well-organised syndicate of 2,500 workers who make an honest living and carry themselves with dignity, even whilst picking through the rubbish to find recyclable materials. He meets amateur philosophers, mothers earning money in order to provide for their children, and leaders who ensure fair payments and keep the peace in this vast group. They are more than happy for Muniz to create artworks, the profits of which will go to the Association.
Instead of simply remaining as his subjects, as Muniz originally intended, the catadores become fully involved with the art project. Six are chosen to have their portraits turned into art, each one representing a famous work. They include Tiao, the leader of the Association and fan of Machiavelli, Zumbi, the ‘librarian’, who set up a community library from the discarded books he collects, and Irma, the resident cook who conjures up stews, salads and pasta dishes for the workers. From photos that Muniz takes, the group gets to work transforming these into giant images made from items collected from the Jardim Gramacho. The experience changes everything for the catadores involved, but it leaves Muniz with some difficult moral decisions: is it beneficial for these people to have a glimpse of another world if they have to go back to picking through a rubbish dump at the end of it?
The film unfolds as organically as the experience does for Muniz and the catadores. Walker is a sensitive director who slowly reveals her film subjects layer by layer. We are introduced to the six catadores in turn early on, and then we slowly learn more about each one. In this sense, we share Muniz’s perspective. As he builds relationships with the catadores, they open up to him and share their stories. Walker employs the same tactics with Muniz himself – we know that he came from a poor background in Brazil, but we do not see evidence of this until the end of the film. The way Walker has done this echoes the connection Muniz feels with the catadores, but for a chance event, he could have ended up as one of them.
Walker selects footage that feels natural to what Muniz and his team experience – the first sight we get of the Jardim Gramacho is a wide, sweeping view of the rubbish tips, with people moving about like ants. Only do we get close-ups of individual catadores, which starts to give some sense of humanity to the area, a feeling which Muniz expresses. Walker inserts overhead views of the dumps throughout to remind the viewer of how it is seen from outside – it becomes very easy to forget that this is a deliberately ignored corner of Rio once we begin engaging with the people who work and live there.
As Muniz finds, it is the human element which makes this a story worth telling. It is not really about garbage, or even art, but about the people. There are moments of quiet heartbreak, as individuals are able to find a voice for stories which have so long been repressed due to the daily grind of their work. However, the overriding feeling is one of optimism and positivity. Each picker we meet is dignified, eloquent and tenacious. They demonstrate a remarkable strength of mind which enables them to get through each day with a smile and a few words of wisdom. They welcome Muniz with great warmth and throw themselves into the project, spending days working on the portraits. When they finally get to see the finished works at auction and in a gallery, they make no attempts to hide their joy, and these expressions of raw and unbridled emotion have a real impact on the viewer – you cannot help but connect with the catadores on some level.
The object of any documentary is surely to give us an insight into the lives of other people and Waste Land does that poetically and assuredly. By following Muniz on this project, Walker has uncovered the potential of the human spirit in the most unlikely of places, literally in the rubbish dump. Executed with the same quiet determination and restraint shown by the catadores, the film never slips into melodrama but simply provides a faithful portrait of these people, and allows them to speak for themselves. The feeling that comes across above all is that the catadores do not need pity or charity; they are proud to earn an honest wage and they support each other. They are grateful for the opportunities and additional income that Muniz has brought to the Association, but it seems that Muniz learnt as much from the project as they did. The end result is a film which engages the soul as much as the mind and which cannot help but charm its viewers.
An uplifting, surprising story of an artist who has catapulted into the spotlight people who are usually ignored. This film will lift your spirits and remind you what it means to be human. KS
Film: Turn The Beat Around
Release date: 21st February 2011
Certificate: 12
Running time: 85 mins
Director: Bradley Walsh
Starring: Romina D'Ugo, David Giuntoli , Adam T. Brooks, Brooklyn Sudano, Shauna MacDonald
Genre: Drama
Studio: Anchor Bay
Format: DVD
Country: Canada
This is an English-language release.
An established commercials director and music video director and producer, Bradley Walsh has enjoyed a long partnership with MTV. This is his first feature-length film, made for MTV in Canada and now available in the UK.
Zoe (Romina D’Ugo) is a dancer trying to make the big-time in LA. Like many of her dancer friends, she is currently working a ‘survival job’ in her stepfather’s shop, and going to every audition that comes up without much success. She is constantly battling against Malika, a choreographer with the power to make or break dancers, and who seems to have a vendetta against Zoe. She cannot even count on support from her mother, herself a failed dancer who wants Zoe to make something of her life, rather than wasting away the years dreaming of being a dancer while never breaking out of a dead-end job.
A way out of this situation comes in the form of Michael (David Guintoli), a young, successful club owner. When Zoe and her boyfriend, Chris (Adam T. Brooks), go out one night, she meets Michael and they get talking about the success of the club. Zoe boldly proposes that he should revive the 1970s by starting a new disco.
After initial reservations, Michael agrees to find a venue and test out the idea with a disco party, employing Zoe as ‘disco expert’. She sets to work hiring dancers and devising choreography. However, Zoe’s dream life is short-lived when tensions between Michael and her boyfriend begin to emerge. As if that wasn’t enough, Malika is also threatening to sabotage Zoe’s life in more ways than one…
This is a made-for-TV melodrama about the LA dance world and one girl trying to revolutionise it by bringing back disco. It is about as good as it sounds. The plot is entirely predictable to the point where the viewer could almost feed the characters their lines, and it is so contrived as to make it totally unbelievable.
Zoe is a character we can sympathise with for approximately fifteen minutes, if she’s lucky, before she becomes unbearable. It is clear from the moment that they meet in the club that Zoe and Michael are destined to be together, so Chris is quite right to be wary of this man that his girlfriend seems to be spending all her time with. However, Zoe is apparently unaware of the fact that she is on dangerous ground with her boss and is outraged when she finds that Chris has been cheating on her. This leaves the path conveniently clear for romance between Zoe and Michael - and Chris takes all the blame. Zoe also employs sob-stories about her parents’ divorce and wanting to make her mother proud at the strangest of moments, such as when breaking up with Chris or trying to win her job back. Because of all of this, it is very hard for the viewer to care about the characters or what happens to them, and so it does not make for a very engaging film.
Not content with one genre of dance movie, namely the revival of disco, the writers of this film also chuck in a good lot of hip hop at the beginning before changing tack. They would perhaps be able to pull this off – a hip hop dancer can surely learn all the disco moves she needs in twenty minutes of tuition from her mother – but they also throw in the obligatory ballet-dancer who hates ballet and wants to do hip-hop, disco or pretty much any other style of dance as a side-story. This girl, who patently cannot dance anything other than ballet, is nevertheless signed up by the plucky Zoe for her disco troupe.
Perhaps all of this could be forgiven if the main focus of the film was the dance sequences. Romina D’Ugo is an undeniably talented dancer and there are some genuinely good moments of dance in the film. However, these are too few and far between to make any real impact on the jaded viewer. If the dancing had been the driving force with the plot as a support, then it would have been more enjoyable and could have been judged appropriately on its merits as a dance film. As it is, the dance is very much in the background, leaving the ridiculous plot in the spotlight.
One small positive is that the film’s soundtrack is bearable and fits the genre. Disco classics such as Disco Inferno and, of course, Turn The Beat Around are cover versions by current artists rather than the originals, and it does shamelessly promote Jason Derulo’s single of the moment, but it is the least offensive thing about the film. Walsh is clearly in his comfort zone with music videos and there is an incongruously long sequence about a music video which has little bearing on the main story, but the music is at least upbeat and sets the atmosphere. It’s just that all the other elements of the film are severely deficient.
The fact is that this is a harmless enough movie which teenage girls will probably adore, with its love story, dance and music. Romina d’Ugo is a good dancer and a passable actor, and it is probably asking too much to expect anything more than a one-dimensional story from a director best known for music videos and commercials. But for anyone who cares about film in any meaningful way, this is painful viewing. Although made in Canada, it represents all that is stereotypical about its Los Angeles setting – it is self absorbed and lacks any kind of intelligent discourse.
There is a reason this film never saw a cinema screen; it is distinctly below average, even in comparison with other teen dance dramas. Unless Step Up 2 is your all-time favourite film, in which case this might just be watchable, it is one to steer clear of. KS
Film: The Team
Running time: 80 mins
Director: Patrick Reed
Starring: N/a
Genre: Documentary
Country: Canada
This English-language film will be screened at the Human Rights Watch Film Festival, which takes place in London between 23rd March and 1st April, 2011. Find out more about this event by clicking here.
Can a TV show solve the problems of ethnic violence? The scriptwriter of The Team, a new Kenyan soap opera, certainly hopes so. Filmmaker Patrick Reed follows the cast and crew of this unique project.
Imagine the excitement of the average youngster with big dreams when there is a nationwide call for actors to star in a new soap about a football team.
In the opening scenes of this documentary, eager Kenyan youths line up to audition for a part. Some are already working actors, looking for their next job; others are complete novices with stars in their eyes, and hoping for a fast-track to Hollywood. However, it soon becomes clear that this is not the average casting call for the average show.
The directors and writers have bigger aspirations than just to make good TV; they hope that it will get all Kenyans thinking about ethnic conflict and inter-tribal relations. With the memories of the 2007 post-election violence still fresh in the national memory, and the 2012 elections looming ever closer, there is a real need for Kenyans to act and promote positive change.
The young actors selected are deliberately from a range of backgrounds – there are both men and women, Kikuyu and Luo, rich and poor. We learn a little about each main cast member and soon it is clear that political tensions bubble not far from the surface. However, they are all concerned about tribal relations and begin to share the hope of the directors that the show can promote change.
As the filming begins in earnest, the actors are stretched to their limits and sometimes it is dangerously uncertain as to where the acting ends and real life begins…
It is clear that with the documentary taking the same name as the TV show, Patrick Reed wanted to share the message and vision of the show’s makers, and to follow the story of a local production as it began to take shape. However, the film struggles to find any clear focus, which leaves it feeling slightly surreal. There are interviews with numerous members of the cast and crew, footage of the actors in their home lives and occasional glimpses of The Team on-set, but the aim of it all remains rather elusive. While it is interesting to get to know the actors, and see a bit of life on the other side of the lens, it becomes a bit like one long press release for the TV series, and one cannot help feeling that it would be more beneficial to see the actual show, which is, after all, the original creative project with its own clearly defined goal of promoting change.
One of the main problems is that there is not really a central theme or person to drive this documentary. It is hard to get more than a cursory overview of individual situations. It offers plenty of information about the situation in Kenya, but it struggles to make a deeper impact – it can feel, at times, like a list of facts. This leaves the viewer somewhat disengaged. We can appreciate that the situation in Kenya is a difficult one, and we can applaud what the TV show is attempting to do, but it is difficult to really feel involved with what is going on.
Even the actors seem to be lacking the understanding to empathise; one explains how he is finding it difficult because his character is not really much like him, which leaves the viewer wondering if he gets the point of what his chosen career involves. Most of the young people involved have only a limited notion of how to make a difference to their country. They just want the chance to be an actor and to improve their own lives. Of course, they are all conscious of the problems and the tribal divides within Kenya, but how to apply this knowledge to the wider social situation somewhat eludes them. This is not a criticism of the actors – they cannot be expected to have this kind of vision – but it does mean that the documentary fails to hit its stride, as the message it is trying to promote is not really being demonstrated.
However, in the closing minutes, the documentary does seem to find a rhythm and a purpose. When The Team begins showing on TV and attracts a huge audience, the cast and crew find a reason to reunite and begin to understand the show’s true potential as a catalyst for change. As they go around the country, interacting with local communities and encouraging people to consider the issues, the documentary also comes into its own as a way to show the role of the TV show as a starting point for real discussion and understanding. Frustratingly, in these final scenes, this feels like what the documentary was supposed to be about, and the previous seventy minutes should have been condensed into an introduction. The potential for this to have been a really meaningful film becomes clear, but sadly, at this point, it is all over.
The Team is a documentary worth seeing to understand the Kenyan situation, but it fails to really hit the mark until the final minutes. KS
Book: The Faber Book Of French Cinema
Release date: 17th March 2011
Author: Charles Drazin
Publisher: Faber & Faber
Last year, The Faber Book Of New South American Cinema was published to great critical acclaim. Now this series of world cinema titles turns its attentions to France, a country with a rich and varied film legacy, and where cinema is tied to the national identity. In this book, Charles Drazin, a prolific film historian, covers the major directors and films throughout the ages, and charts France's turbulent cinematic history to discover what it is that makes it so unique.
The book moves in a largely chronological order, beginning at the start of cinema history with figures such as the Lumière brothers and Georges Méliès. It progresses through to the ‘Golden Age’ of cinema in the 1930s, where the focus is on some of the most famous French directors, such as Vigo, Renoir and Duvivier. Here, a few chapters reflect different perspectives on the same films and time period. A similar approach is taken slightly further on in the book with the next major movement: the New Wave, with directors such as Truffaut, Godard and Bresson discussed. Finally, we hit the current era and Drazin discusses the place of French cinema within a global context today.
This is a broad history of the major events in French cinema, intended as a reference text. There is a comprehensive index to help the reader find the information they need quickly and there is an extensive bibliography for each chapter for further reading on a particular area of interest…
A book covering such a broad scope could be very dry and difficult to read, but Drazin manages to inject life and enthusiasm into a subject he is clearly passionate about. He includes many contemporary quotes which break up the text and make it an interesting read. There are also relevant pictures to give visual examples of the films he discusses. He covers the key directors, films and movements of each era and puts this into the wider historical context. While it may be largely aimed at students, teachers and those with a keen interest or specialism for the topic, it is written in a way which is accessible to anyone and is best to dip in and out of. The index makes it easy to look up a specific topic, while the chapter headings also provide appropriate signposts.
Drazin writes knowledgeably about his subject but does not patronise the reader. He clearly outlines the various relationships and connections in the world of cinema; between people, eras and countries, making it easy to understand. The book does presume some prior knowledge of French cinema, but it is by no means obscure, so it is well-suited to its target audience. He explains the various ideals and values which have driven the development of French cinema at various stages, as well as that most elusive of notions: that certain je ne sais quoi which makes French cinema unique.
However, this book does have a very strong bias towards the 1930s and ‘40s. Admittedly, this is an important era of French cinema: the Avant-Garde era and so-called ‘Golden Age’, but Drazin dedicates a total of nine chapters – approximately half the book – to these two decades. In comparison, there are only two fairly short chapters covering the entire cinema history between 1970 and the present day. This makes it a bit frustrating because the reader can feel stuck reading about the same directors and films.
At the other end of the scale, the more recent cinema history feels very rushed, almost list-like. This gives the impression that it is not as important, which is an injustice to some of the groundbreaking work which has taken place in the last few decades. This is not to say that directors such as Duvivier, Carne and Renoir do not deserve to be recognised as key figures in the history of French cinema, but in this book, the picture is rather unbalanced.
It is particularly noticeable that Drazin has given almost no time whatsoever for the cinema of the last decade, save for passing mentions of a few films at the end of the book. This seems like a major oversight which would suggest to the reader that it is less important than in previous decades, when actually the popularity of French cinema has been more far-reaching than ever in recent years. Given the amount of time Drazin has dedicated to the relationship between France and the USA, it is strange that the phenomenal success of films such as La Vie En Rose, for which Marion Cotillard won an Oscar, is not even mentioned, neither is actor/director Guillaume Canet who has achieved international acclaim for his award-winning films, including Tell No One. These are just examples, of course, and Drazin does not have the scope to include everything, but it does show that this is heavily biased towards one time period at the expense of others.
Nevertheless, there is enough on each time period to function as a basis for further research if the reader is interested, aided by the chapter-by-chapter bibliography. Drazin clearly had to make some choices about what to focus on in a book of this scope and overall it is useful. It is very readable, which is an achievement for this type of book, although the sheer length of it makes it better to look up certain things or leave or have as a coffee-table read, rather than to read from cover-to-cover. If the early days of pre-war cinema are not of great appeal, then this particular text will not be of much interest; however, for a reader looking for a general overview with plenty of information on the ‘Golden Age’ of cinema, then it fits the bill very well.
A good introductory text for any Francophile with a love of cinema, as well as those with a more specialist interest. The Faber Book Of French Cinema is an informative and enjoyable read. KS
