Three Films I Should Have Reviewed Earlier
Three films: The Brothers Grimm, Broken Flowers, and 2046
BROTHERS GRIMM: 7/10
Let me tell you something about American children. They don’t really like fairy tales. Oh yes, they love the idea of them and they will gleefully crowd around a reader as long as they feel safe enough in knowing that there’s always a happy ending. Here’s a little secret for you though…the original un-Americanized fairy tales don’t have happy endings. Grimm’s Fairy Tales frankly have an extra m.
I have a story that goes along with this. In college, I was part of a literature group that decided to volunteer to do some reading to children on Saturday. Not really sure of what to bring that was short (I mean, babysitting kids I’d always have reading time with them and rather frequently it was Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle In Time that I would choose to read but this is obviously too long for one Sat. morning) So what did I choose? Well, of course, nothing but a Grimm fairy tale book.
And let me tell you about the sheer look of horror I vividly recall on a little girl’s face when I finished the original Little Red Riding Hood fairy tale. I’ll give you a hint…the original tale doesn’t end happy.
Oh, as much as I’d like to think I have literary convictions to original texts and hate the super unreal happy Disney endings…well, you wouldn’t let a little girl cry either now, would you? Yes, life is painful and acute but that’s all the more reason why we crave, nay, need happy endings.
I think I finished the fairy tale in my own way, reacting quickly enough to say something like, “And then Little Red Riding Hood realized it was all just a dream. She laughed at the little wolf doll she had and her real grandmother came to tuck her back in. From that moment on, Little Red Riding Hood never walked through the forest alone again.”
I think what I’m trying to get at here is the fact that you shouldn’t really be expecting something with an overall happy go lucky tone from this film. (It’s not to be confused with say, the Brothers Gibb, which I’m sure would be an entirely different film altogether if made.)It combines several fairy tales and I’m not going to ruin it for everyone who hasn’t seen it by telling you whether it ends happy or not but let’s just say any typical american seven year old girl would have cried herself to a nightmarish sleep before getting to the ending point anyways. Heck, within the first few opening scenes, I was hiding under my seat and feigning excuses to go to the facilities as it was just too intense and scary for me. And yes, this was even after I found out the witch in the beginning wasn’t real. It’s okay for me to reveal this all to you, though, because you’ll likely just dismiss it as an exaggeration (it isn’t) and think I’m trying to be funny (I’m not).
That said, it’s wildly dark and creative and even though Terry Gilliam will probably never do anything as brilliant as Brazil, this has a few gems to make the movie going experience worthwhile. I really wish I had seen it in Britain though so I wasn’t the only one laughing at the jokes he threw in (tough crowd!). I can also see this film being a cult hit amongst Bruce Campbell-Sam Raimi Army of Darkness fans. It can be very silly at the same time that it’s gruesome and bizarre. I dare say it had a much higher budget though and the cinematography was somewhat captivating.
It wasn’t completely without flaws, unfortunately, but the movie eventually won me over because the real brave one of the story was a woman. (This also made up for the fact that the other female protagonist was an evil narcissistic queen) and I thought the acting was also very good (I didn’t even recognize Matt Damon-seriously) Now, I know I’m really supposed to be concerned with whether the curse is lifted, if the townspeople survive, etc. etc. but forgive me, for I really just want to know who gets the girl. I know I’m supposed to be rooting for handsome blonde Matt Damon but there’s really an inner part of me that hopes the somewhat geeky dark haired man who believes in fairy tales ends up with her. What? THAT was Heath Ledger????
BROKEN FLOWERS: 9/10
This film is subtly affecting…I keep thinking how I need to see it again…you can develop several theories as the ending is rather open ended. The acting is overall understated in the way that it usually is in some of the other films I like (think Wes Anderson’s Royal Tennenbaums) and it is a much different film for Jarmusch. It seems the more films I see of his, the more I realize no two are really the same.
Let’s get the major flaw of the film out of the way right now. It’s a huge suspension of disbelief to actually think Bill Murray’s character can attract young and beautiful women. Now, I know he’s rich and some women love that for reasons unbeknownst to me but the man’s a mess and he’s a computer programmer, not some great artist or writer or musician. Yeah, I think what I’m really trying to say here is that Bill Murray’s character is no Neil Young.
So when the first scene occurs and you sit in the way too over air conditioned theater thinking..is Julie Delpy supposed to be his daughter or his lover? Well….it kind of gives you the creeps a bit. Like…what exactly does Julie Delpy see in him anyways? The audience is supposed to believe somehow that Bill Murray’s character “understands” women. That he somehow “gets them” and that he leaves an indelible mark on them. Again, I don’t buy it. He doesn’t say anything particularly prophetic or moving. He even needs advice on bringing flowers. I’m not sure if we’re supposed to believe his empty stares alone at nothing in his affluent household are indicative of depth…maybe…but I was just sort of thinking he had forgotten how to feel and live.
The film is ultimately saved by the relationship between Bill Murray and his next door neighbor Winston, played by Jeffrey Wright who truly brings something sentimental and touching to the film. The contrast in acting styles is also an interesting one to observe. Jeffrey is not only the film’s saving grace but also Murray’s. It’s a peculiar friendship that suggests hopefully we are not so divided by race and class as media suggests…or at least we should not let our differences be a barrier. It is entirely possible that Murray’s relationship with Winston (Jeffrey Wright) is the only thing that keeps him together. It is Wright who is the strong and wise one while Murray delays falling apart.
Aside from that, what this film is also about are the inevitable mysteries inherent in past relationships. Initially, what we see is a pink letter with its color as the main clue. The letter has no return address and simply states that approximately 20 years before, unbeknownst to Murray (even though he’s of course, oh so perceptive when it comes to women, right?), this woman in question conceived and gave birth to a boy who is now persistently looking for him. We have to somehow figure out which woman it could be or if it was made up by Julie Delpy’s character to try to teach him a lesson. Some might even suggest Winston/Wright may have made it up in order to help Murray understand how tragic his string of romantic relationships have really been in terms of preventing him from enjoying a long lasting relationship with perhaps a family like he has. I wouldn’t go with the last explanation myself because I don’t think it is in Winston’s nature to resort to this tactic. I’d probably (and listen, I’m really not giving anything away because the ending is open ended) go with the explanation that this child really does exist and choosing one of the women that he goes back to who is persistently angry (Tilda Swinton never looked so mean!) as the mother and author of the letter. You can decide that for yourself, though.
2046: 9/10
This film is just captivating. It’s like a really long dream that continually weaves a somewhat difficult but entrancing storyline that wavers between fiction and reality. There’s a continuing metaphor that runs through the film and connects both realities that has to do with the nature of having and relieving oneself of a secret.
The flaw I found with this film is that I felt that the main character, played by Tony Leung, really is in some ways downright misogynistic. It’s not as obvious as other characters but there is almost this Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire sense of isolation and insensitivity towards a particular woman who I have no idea how he could not fall madly in love with. Now, let me be clear: this film isn’t even close to A Streetcar Named Desire in plot or style but Tony definitely plays the handsome protagonist that women fall all over much to their own disadvantage. But I guess I can’t really count that as a flaw…just that I didn’t like one of the main characters….so I’ll just say I found it a bit too long in length and a challenge to clearly follow at some points.
And I think the misogyny is quite a bit more subtle…because, I think the audience wants to like Mr. Chow because he’s a writer and because we feel sympathetic towards the idea that he needs to immerse himself in his writing. I think we sense that if he gives himself completely up to a woman, his writing may really suffer. It should come as no surprise then that Mr. Chow/Leung only seems to fall in love with women who are completely unavailable.
To be honest, I didn’t really think Tony Leung had as much of a magnetism in the silver screen as one of the actresses, Ziyi Zhang. She’s absolutely riveting…more so than any actress I can recall in all of film history. I was sitting there watching the film wracking my brain about it…she’s more perfect and innately beautiful with a powerful sense of depth and grace in the smallest of moments than Marilyn Monroe or Grace Kelly, for instance. You can’t help but to follow her every slight movement and fall in love with the sadness and beauty of her. I could watch four hours of this woman just eating an orange. I’m completely serious.
There’s also an underlying political context to the film. Much of the film is a look back on Hong Kong in the 60s but also depicts some cultural tension. For example, a main character in Hong Kong who, much to her father’s grave disappointment, falls in love with her Japanese boyfriend.
This film speaks alot about the nature of stasis and even homeostasis and makes the audience question if change may not be such a bad thing in some aspects. Leung’s Mr. Chow continues to drift and perhaps he should be seen as a metaphor or a microcasm of an entire country caught in a dreamlike reflective state. It’s really an individual question up to each person to decide if he ever really changes or if a country such as Hong Kong could possibly stay the same for so many years.
I found this segment of the interview with the film’s director interesting:
Because of the extended filming of In The Mood For Love and contractual obligations to 2046, WKW ended up filming parts of each film concurrently. Shots made for 2046 ended up in In The Mood For Love and vice versa, with WKW commenting, “Working on both films at the same time is like falling in love with two women… I became almost schizophrenic… These two films have connections and should be treated as one film.” 2046 is set 50 years after the 1997 CCP promise that Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years. The premise is to explore whether or not any aspect of life would stay the same after 50 years, and harkens back to the question associated with the pineapple can found in Chungking Express, as well as the question of partners in Fallen Angels, as well as… well, just about every question asked in every film made by Wong Kar Wai. Especially with In The Mood For Love, the answers, are entirely up to you.