elanor-3 Reviews

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

treatise about humanness and evolution visualised by a master director

[9/10 · 16 October 2014]

This film is for me the most perfect film I have seen and it is my second most favourite. Nevertheless, it is not a film I watched as many times as other easier films.

I don't watch the film as a science fiction action film. I watch 2001: A Space Odyssey as a philosophical, spiritual, enigmatic, and mystic treatise about humanness and evolution visualised by a master director.

For me the scenes with the apes are especially fascinating. And the bone-shattering scene "dawning of man" is for me the most iconic scene I have ever seen in film. The transition from bone to space-station is nearly as iconic. Both visualise human evolution, from vegetarian ape to tool-using meat-hunting human, from stone-age to space-faring modernity. It symbolises the rising abilities of mankind. And the final scenes even reach further than the current state of man-kind.

Moreover, in this film the selection of music for each scene is just perfect for me. I love the chorus music for the black "stone". The choice of the opening fanfare of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Strauss is goosebumps-rising perfect for me. Or the waltz "The Blue Danube" for the rotating space station and the space voyage.

Yes, there are some parts which need patience, but those just symbolise the slow life of earlier times and the vast land our few ancestors roamed. I'm reminded of Koyaanisqatsi (1982) there.

The Cremator (1969)

Czech New Wave Grotesque

[6/10 · 10 May 2013]

In contrast to most other reviewers the film worked not very well for me. Probably because I watched it only for educational reasons not because I have a liking for this kind of films. So anybody interested in this kind of film should take my reactions as one of the uninitiated.

I think "The Cremator (1968)" is a very black comedy with some weak horror elements (there are no shock elements but some genre situations generating a very slight nightmare feeling). The humour is of a kind about which I cannot laugh. Others obviously can. It is a grotesque more than anything else.

Acting is a lot more unconvincing for me than in "Man of Straw (1951)" or "Vital (2004)" {films I felt reminded of}; the film obviously plays in the late sixties (inferred from female make-up and the whole feeling) though it is meant to play in the 1930s. Also in this respect "Man of Straw" is far more convincing. I liked some of the visualisations and some script ideas of "The Cremator" (for instance the protagonist's love for the Tibetan Book of Dead and Tibetan Lamaism).

In comparison with the rather good "Vital (2004)" by Shin'ya Tsukamoto the Czech film feels much weaker to me (in atmosphere, characterisation, direction) and less well constructed. It's for certain not a bad film, but also nothing I would recommend with conviction. Thus it gets 6/10 from me.

Lang zai ji (2009)

art film about an artistic folk tale

[8/10 · 7 March 2013]

I watched now "The Warrior and the Wolf" two times and it worked rather well for me as an art film.

For me the film is structured in three parts: 1) war 2) warrior and woman 3) folk tale about humans shape-changed into wolves.

The time-structure of the first part "war" is not easy to follow at first viewing, but on the other hand not as hard as I feared from the reviews. The first part reminds me very much of the first part in Yasushi Inoue's novel "Tun-huang (1959)", where a scholar from central China is shaped into a warrior by a general in the western out-reaches of the Chinese empire soon to be overrun by tribal people. This part has the same feeling of following a whirling leaf in a storm.

The second part "warrior and woman" is still reminding me of the scholar's story in "Tun-huang", because the scholar-warrior finds a princess, hides her in a store-house, and finally forces intercourse, after which she considers herself his wife. I like the second part best, because it shows the strongest acting as the actors portray very conflicting emotions. Odagiri has convinced me now in three different eccentric roles: mad samurai, uninformed prince, peace-loving warrior. Some reviewers wrote about repeated rape and Stockholm syndrome. My impressions were more that here animalistic behaviour overruled humanist behaviour. The woman is very conflicted. Maggie Q. is somewhat less convincing than Jo Odagiri, but her character is the more difficult to portray. She is partly a wolf and partly human and thus her humanity leads her to moral behaviour while her wolf nature leads her to quite different expressions by which she lures the warrior to the wolf side.

The third part, the folk tale, is for me the weakest. Not in the sense of the director's vision but in the sense of handicraft. It uses cgi and trained animals, but nevertheless it's simply a bit less convincing because those "tricks" are still discernible and thus a bit irritating to me. I can infer what the director wanted to tell, and that works quite well for me, but since I feel irritated by the artefacts of make-belief I perceive the last part as the least perfect.

Overall for me the film has very good pictures, good direction, and great acting. I have not read the original short story, but by comparing Yasushi Inoue's novel "Tun-huang (1959)" and short-story "The Hunting Gun (1949)" with the film I think that the director captured Yasushi's style quite well.

In my view the film might be quite attractive for people who like modern poetry, in the sense of feeling comfortable with visualisations based on mental associations and produced by a disjunctive structure. The film "The Warrior and the Wolf (2009)" reminded me in style and nihilistic atmosphere of the films "Valhalla Rising (2009)" and "Dust (2001)", but worked decidedly better for me than these two.

Urumi: The Warriors Who Wanted to Kill Vasco Da Gama (2011)

Cinematographically brilliant Indian martial arts film

[8/10 · 7 August 2012]

I like the film very much, though it has many weaknesses. I do not like the contemporary framework story, because it feels very contrived. The Europeans felt not very convincing, especially the actor playing Vasco da Gama should have been better. Both Vasco and his son Estavio looked not very Portuguese, but at least the Estavio actor's performance was convincing for me. The Portuguese costumes of Vasco were sometimes jarringly colourful, looked like dyed in modern colours. All in all the film's message is far stronger than in Sivans "Before the Rains" but the film's quality is not as good. It feels like a rough diamond.

The Indian actors' performances were satisfying for me. I liked Prithviraj as Kelu and Prabhu Deva as his sidekick. Genela D'Souza was acting-wise not as convincing a warrior princess as Kareena Kapoor in "Asoka (2001)", but she had more martial arts performances, which made her more important for the story.

I call it an Indian martial arts film, because the fights use the Kalaripayattu martial arts of South India, which often has a dancelike appearance. The film is named after the whip-like sword urumi, an extremely dangerous weapon taught to only the most skillful Kalaripayattu students in the last stages of their education. The use of the urumi in this film thus denotes the expert warrior.

Though the film itself is not as good as "Asoka", there are probably more fight scenes in this film. The fights were a bit less convincing than in "Asoka", but I think the productions costs were lower, at least the film looked quite a bit cheaper than "Asoka".

Anyhow, the story (mix of historical events and fiction in Chirakkal Kelu Nayanar's story), especially the finale (Kelu's fight in Calicut), the soundtrack music, the well built-in dance-songs, all worked well for me.

The most important assets of the film, however, were again (as usual in Santosh Sivan films) the cinematography, how space is used by the actors, and the poetry of the pictures. These features remind me much of Terrence Malick films. In contrast to Malick films I deem the stories of Sivan films better developed and more appealing.

Water (I) (2005)

interesting subject, beautiful pictures, but only "l'art pour L'art"

[6/10 · 31 January 2008]

'Water (2005)' is a film enjoyable predominantly for western cineastes who are already deeply involved in feminist ideas. Conservative Hindus will not like to watch it as this film is certainly accusatory. It has a very beautiful cinematography, an interesting and moving story, and a very depressing end (in my view even a Bollywood flick like 'Deewana (1992)' could do more for Indian widows than 'Water' because it actually promotes the marriage of a widow). The music (Score Mychael Danna, Songs A.R. Rahman, no Bollywood dances) is good and is used in a restrained way only as background music.

At least to an article in Time magazine and some feature films I saw recently Indian widows in rural areas have still many problems and are shunned by society because they are seen to bring bad luck, this fate is especially life destroying for young widows. (spoiler alarm: I don't know if Brahman widows are still send away to Ashrams and have to earn their life through singing religious hymns or prostitution.) Therefore I think the film subject is certainly worth to be addressed in many films .

Sadly, the film itself works not well because both love story protagonists (Lisa Ray and John Abraham) fail to make a rapport with the viewer. In my view the fate of Indian widows would have merited the exertion of more competent actors because to me both figures seem to be as tame as lap doggies. They act weakly (spoiler alarm:) and with respect to the story line do not become a force of reform and advancement. Moreover, the story is told as if it would portray reality but feels so obviously constructed that I got the impression of being badly manipulated when viewing the film a second time. Thus for me Deepa Mehta's effort as director and writer were not sufficient.

The child widow (performed by Sarala) made the strongest impression on me followed by the long time widow Shakuntala (Seema Biswas) who tries to help the child widow. The film has an open ending and the viewer has to construct for himself a positive outcome out of the few pictures offered in the final scene.

I give this film 7 stars for the cinematography, the covered themes, and the ensemble of actresses portraying the widows (with exception of Lisa Ray though she won 2006 the "Vancouver Film Critics Circle"-Award for "Best Actress - Canadian Film").

Trimurti (1995)

modern folk tale about the battle of good against evil

[7/10 · 24 October 2007]

So why did I give 'Trimurti' 8 stars? In my view I've never seen the philosophy of Dharma better represented in an Indian film as in 'Trimurti' ('Guide (1965)' included). But this philosophical background and the fairy tale structure is probably something that repels young males who are the majority of voters here at IMDb.

For me 'Trimurti (1995)' is a modern fairy tale far better than the sugar-coated fairy tale 'Paheli (2005)'. It has the power, drama, and philosophical background of an old folk tale.

Fairy tale structure: 1) battle between good and evil (policewoman Satyadevi and gangster Kooka) 2) both adversaries see Satyadevi's three sons as the force of God which is symbolised in three faces (Trimurti): (Brahma as creator "Earth - Shakti", Vishnu as preserver "Water - Romi", Shiva as destroyer "Fire, here also Air - Anand"), 3) the life in virtuous poverty (the earnest simple Shakti) 4) the choice of the wrong way to wealth and esteem (the elegant leader of the pack Anand/Sikander) 5) the temptation of a young man by demonic adversaries, who seduce him to leave the thorny path of virtue, because he wants to win his love which reminds me of the pact between Faust and the devil Mephistopheles (the careless happy-go-lucky Romi), and 6) the acquittal (honour your mother, live virtuous, battle against the evil, try to draw near God in Its different representations, here Durga), that manages in the end to conquer the demons.

The philosophy of Dharma in folk tale style: The deviation from the way of Dharma leads into destruction. If you are doing evil because you lust for evil you are reborn as a demon (Kooka). If you are doing evil because you want love or riches you are sliding downwards (Sikander and Romi). Only if you keep to the way of Dharma and attach yourself to God (here in the representation of Durga) - even if this is a path without any public honour - you will garner good Karma (mother Satyadevi and eldest son Shakti) so that you can eventually reach Moksha.

And additionally to the very satisfying story line the film is well made: good production values, well looking settings (over the top support base for the villain Kooka, beautiful landscapes, real seeming but typified village scenes, the prison as a metaphor). The cinematography by Ashok Mehta is good, serene, and bounteous. The music by the duo Laxmikant-Pyarelal is well made and the choreographies by Saroj Khan appealing.

The characters are very well personified by the actors. In my view the casting is superb for the main characters. The demonic Kooka is played brilliantly in comic-style over-the-top by Mohan Agashe. The honourable police woman Satyadevi is very well personified by Priya Tendulkar. Jackie Shroff works well in his usual restrained and benevolent acting style as oldest brother Shakti, Anil Kapoor gives one of his best performances as the doubting 28 year old second brother Anand, and the 30 year old Shah Rukh Khan portrays the happy-go-lucky 17 year old youngster Romi very convincingly with verve, for me one of his best over-the-top performances. Mukul Anand seems to me to be a very good director.

All in all, a film to be savoured again and again.

People who like 'Koyla', 'Zamaana Deewana', 'English Babu Desi Mem', or 'Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman' should be able to like also 'Trimurti'. People who prefer films like 'Don', 'Dhoom', 'Rang de Basanti', 'Dil Chahta Hai', 'Veer Zaara', 'Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gam', 'KANK', 'No Entry', or 'Dil to Pagal Hai' will probably have problems to feel attracted by this film.

Paheli (2005)

good production value, weak rendering of a fairy tale

[2/10 · 2 October 2007]

I watched 'Paheli' two times and I still dislike the ending. For me a fairy tale's use in history is "education", the perpetuation of traditions, the transmission of values.

Spoiler alarm: For me this fairy tale would have been right if it had been about the education of the human male to love his wife. Think about it: how many ghosts are there to provide a female with a loving husband? Quite on contrary, the human males have to be transformed into loving husbands! The film succeeds partly when we see the longing of the husband far away. But when he comes home lovingly though still subservient to his father the film crashes for me. For me the film needed to end with a strong husband declaring his undying love for his wife and his acceptance of the ghost's baby, while the ghost needed to go back into his tree.

The wife in this film is for me such a week vessel and hollow shell that I dislike her tremendously (this impression might be enhanced by Rani Mukherjee whom I have seen only once to give a nearly realistic portrayal: in 'Yuva'). The director said something along "This film is about the decision or choice the woman makes". But this woman makes no decision, she says something like "I could not hold the first one, who am I to repulse the second one." For me this is not a decision, but only a concession. In my view, this is a very weak portrayal of a woman's choice. One point more why I dislike this film.

The husband is not likable in his weakness, but the ghost for me is far more disgusting in his selfishness. He makes some magic for the family (which is already disgustingly rich) so that he can stay accepted, but he does not much for the community, and when the husband sends his messenger, he sends him away without any refreshment. Another point why I dislike this film.

End of spoiler alarm: For me this is a very unsuccessful fairy tale with a very good production value. I think the director Amol Palekar was not able to make good use of the lavish support he got from the producers. I did not even like the two performances of SRK in this film, which for me are overdone and not in agreement with a fairy tale but more with a comedy like 'Duplicate' (and I normally like each of his performances). I ascribe SRK's failure to the weak direction. In my view SRK needs good directors to shine. Otherwise he usually hams which often is quite in agreement with the film's intentions and consequently there I have no problems with this style of acting.

Conclusion: in no way is this a fairy tale on par with 'La Belle et la Bete (1946) - Beauty and the Beast' by Jean Cocteau or 'Tri Orisky pro Popelku (1973) - Three Nuts for Cinderella' by Vaclav Vorlicek.

I gave this film 2 of 10 stars.