Monthly Archives: October 2005

There are times when we wish to see a film in cinemas instead of getting even with small size of our television screen.

We may quick to list these films worth going to cinemas for, which obviously will be filled mostly with big-blockbuster films, those with overused CGI effects, or panoramic cinematography, or crisp clear of clinging swords in any martial arts flicks.
However, I heartily propose a film entitled Waking Ned Devine as a film worth every single of our hard-earned dough.

Why do I bother bringing in the film about a lottery winner who dies before collecting his winning, and turning his neighbors in plotting a scheme to outlive the money? Spare for a few minutes of gorgeous view of beaches in (supposedly) Ireland that makes us wish to live there, for most of its 90-minute duration we only see British and Irish’s finest aged thespians, without any girls in scantily clad bikini running around.
But more than that, we will see at least two old folks don their birthday suit, while riding on a motorbike nevertheless.

That only counts for a few scenes from many other hilarious ones you find yourselves laughing out loud throughout this heartwarming flick.

Now imagine, if you are laughing together inside a darkened hall with strangers whom you have nothing in common except the share of laughter towards the same object seen at the same time, and leaving the cinema feeling good, knowing the last one and half hour is spent jolly well.

Movie magic certainly does come very rarely, only in a film like this.

Dear readers,

By now you have noticed how my writings on film appreciation have differed to some other kind which I myself do not possess any control on the change. Of course the notification only applies if you are that faithful in reading this blog consistently, in which the idea itself frightens me out. If you are on the opposite side, I extend my gratitude and welcome you, indeed.

The change itself pretty much is easily identified on how I have recently often dwelled on absorbing the whole impact of the film. In other words, it is what I feel afterwards, what my heart says after the credit title finishes rolling, and I can sit in front of this monitor to pour out every single initial sensory reaction to the films I have just seen.

By any means, this kind of writing would usually put aside technical matters or basically the elements that make the film works, for example, some technical flaws on cinematography, or inadequate music scores, or the one that I talk about most is actors’ performances. Not that I see myself capable in delivering in-depth discussion about that, yet I always find the tryout in touching those mentioned factors appealing, and to some extent, intriguing, as well as challenging my mind to think those through.

However, tonight I have decided to return to the so-called root, as one film has awakened, or rather tickled my curiosity in examining the ‘outer’ look seen on a screen. The film is Shadowlands.

In a nutshell, the film tells the story of that famous author, C.S. Lewis, and his marriage to an American woman, a poet, named Joy Gresham. The characters did exist in real life before, therefore it is aptly called that the film is based on a true story. This will lead to general understanding among smart audience that no matter how the film is mirrored after events ever existed before, certain aspects of exaggeration in the name of dramatic purpose is needed to make a film worth watching. Therefore, is it necessary to put the words “This is a true story” on the very first scene of the film?

Having already seen that on a screen, as audience we are led to believe by the director (none other than Sir Richard Attenborough of Gandhi fame) that he guarantees what we will see for the next 127 minutes are exactly what the couple did on their lifetime or the ways they behaved towards each other is guaranteed real to a maximum effect.

The result could not be more disappointing than seeing the screenplay full of worth-quoting wisdoms has become something of half-baked done. Surely the main actors, Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger, have delivered their excellence, yet the problem of their convincing portrayal of ill-fated couple lies on our perceptive towards them. In other words, their convincing portrayal fails to convince us in thorough comprehension of their love story.

In particular, Winger on her Oscar-nominated role here was given a character with many possible deeper exploration in seeing her gracious falling from a strong-willed, independent woman, to become a woman who has to compromise her unfortunate condition while doing her best to provide affection to her partner in life. Yet, the falling on her character is badly translated as the falling of her screen presence, in which after a good knockout for the first hour in the film as a leading role, she is reduced to become some supporting player. Worse, I begin to think that the last hour of the film, we see Winger’s role has become a damsel in distress, only to be puffed with lavish look of 1950s gorgeous costume and panoramic view.
Luckily, being a consummate thespian on her own, Winger carried her duty amazingly well, although it is a pity to see the butchering.

Hopkins himself might not see his presence reduced to a mere filler of the screen unlike his compatriot. How can it be when his face occupied most of the film? Yet, his inhibition of character leaves us bedazzled in wonder and confusion, as often we find the character’s change is something forced to happen. As a famous writer himself, C.S. Lewis might visit his sentimental feeling in order to emphatize with his own suffering, yet as a noble man with dignity, a weeping scene that lasts for more than ten seconds would only make audience thinking that the old man is a meek, weepy senior citizens who should be back in his emotional reclusion. Talk about the backlash of intended depiction.

Dear readers,

I sincerely hope by now you do realize that whenever a resourceful literary works is adapted into a big or small screen, it is no easy feat to capture the truest essence of the works being adapted. Worth-quoting wisdoms, mottos, or any symbolic words are not able to hold on their own unless they are transformed as a coherent screenplay which allows us, the audience, to see the development of characters convincingly, thus we are convinced that whatever we witness in the screen is a journey worth taken, and remembered.

some films catch you off guard, where you are taken to completely a new world while you are still maintaining a good contact with the film you are watching. this does not mean your concentration deters away from the film, but rather, the film strikes you hard and you can’t help wandering for a good minute or two, because unexpectedly, you feel the film completely with all your senses.

and hedwig transports me to the heartfelt experience.

not being merely contented with my own emotional involvement, the jolly feeling also comes in noticing how this film has set a certain barrier on making a good rock-opera film.
there’s a struggling and to some extent painful journey the main character goes through in his life before coming to his own terms as a singer, a musician, or greater, an artist. this journey then is translated on the words and tunes, to be sung out, played, or greater, appreciated. perhaps the latter might come later towards the end of this artist’s life, because a biopic does not befriend young rising stars after all.

but the main thing a rock-opera film should possess apart from continuous rock songs filling in throughout the scenes is the honesty, and consistency.

alright, that’s already two elements, but they can’t be more inseparable from one another.

hedwig excels in frankly telling us the journey of his life through the lyrics in all the original songs being sung out in the film, making us feeling like witnessing directly his presence in front of our eyes. if such an honesty comes out with catchy tunes enable us to sing along, that’s purely a bonus in store. yet, a greater effect of these unpretentiousness results in a certain constancy maintaining the rock-and-roll atmosphere, as perhaps initially intended by the filmmakers themselves. never a scene slips out of tunes leaving us unhooked, and never a moment shies away out of focus from putting the spotlight on hedwig and his angry inch.

to have a film that is brutally honest and lyrical at the same time, one can only be thankful and be more than ready to have its own heart wrenched over this meaningful film.

pardon me for being terribly late in encountering this film, but i’ve already got enough punishment on my own, for disbelieving that it’d take me this long to witness and indulge looking at a comic literally translated on a big screen, it was initially transferred to the medium although i only managed to grab its dvd, to an extremely pleasant result.

“one visually arresting film”, and such a compliment does justice to describe a story of harvey pekar and his life from zero to become a hero while maintaining his zero-support job. it is not everyday we get to see a famous comic writer who keeps his daily job as a file clerk, but that’s the whole point of his life as he said, “you’ve got to keep on working and something might bound at the end.”

now, if you feel that my penchant towards this film is due to the identification of myself towards the character, i can’t agree more that i have certain weakness towards films portraying born-loser characters who take a great deal amount in his life before achieving anything he desires in life. and if you are that quick to notice that these kind of characters are often portrayed by paul giamatti (who knocks me off my feet for his showcase of terrifying acting skill here) as what he does in “sideways”, well, pretty much he’s got a perfect figure for that.

but the point does not lie on merely having these often-picked-on characters on screen. what makes “american splendor”, be it as comics, film, and play at a mediocre result intriguing should be credited to its daring ability to present the real life truthfully, and nothing can be more appealing to our emotion than things that we encounter in daily life. surely it gets dramatized as chances are you won’t have haunting jazz scores while we see a doctor or being hospitalized to get a treatment, yet above these background, we get to witness how our social life starts getting diminished when we get older, or how scary it is to be lonely whenever our loved ones go away. as blatant and harsh things could be in real life, harvey pekar demonstrates an impossible feat: to be true to one’s own self at times when compromising fame is much preferred.

how shari springer berman and robert pulcini captures the essence of the compelling point above while maintaining the comical spirit of harvey’s original works is purely a film magic.

how paul giamatti and hope davis give a cringe on my skin over their nail-biting portrayals as harvey and joyce brabner show us their faith in these real-life characters, thay the two actors do not only imitate, that they inject their own skillfuly crafted acting to inherit the characters inside out.

how i love the film is obvious.

Tim Burton does musical! And he does it on an animation film!

I can’t help scratching my head and gushing shyly, and enjoying the rollicking fun of looking at semi-gothic characters parading themselves in a musical number from Danny Elfman that seem to serve as sort-of tribute to old-school musical genre. At least, some scores evoke such a thought if you often see musical films of MGM era. And the blast of these tunes perfectly enhance the atmosphere of the world that can only happen in Tim Burton’s own fantasy world.

Imagine a world of living full of gloomy looking people and London turns itself to be a gray city, looking dull and boring. On the other hand at the same time, the underground world way below the graveyards are full of weird looking characters, often not in complete set of body parts, yet they look vibrant and much more alive than the living, as they are presented in bright, dazzling colors. Not to mention that these puppets dance more than their counterparts.

Such a scene might recall for Burton’s previous outing in The Nightmare Before Christmas, and Edward Scissorhands. Yet, what might seem as a totally naïve and innocent Burton on this two works do not show on Corpse Bride, as the latter gives us a much more mature storyline which might be confusing for children who get a chance to see the film, considering its PG rating. I would put Corpse Bride here as part of a testament on how Burton has quite tamed himself recently, with the works like the heartwarming Big Fish, the family-friendly Charlie and Chocolate Factory, and now putting an ensemble of string puppets in a fairy tale that dwells on adult relationship, Burton has tamed himself in maturity that simply swells.

Now, apart from the destined Best Animated Feature clout at the next year’s Academy Awards, shall it go for a higher cast? It deserves so.

if cornelia agatha is snubbed at the festival film indonesia (ffi) for best actress category, i should question the ability of the event’s juries in determining good acting quality.

surely she does act and not to the extent of inhabiting the role yet, at least she has not reached the level of being her “regi” character by still maintaining her shampoo-advertisement hair while playing a highly drug-addicted junkie, but at the scope of acting as junkie, cornelia agatha does give a convincing portrayal in such a controlled manner that we are taken to believe the emotional availability she has as an actress in delivering the assigned duty very well. it is not much then that during her appearance in one of late-nite talk shows where she promoted her film, the host praised her by stating, “this is one of the closest portrayals of a junkie ever portrayed on a big screen.”
i can’t agree more, although it might be nicer if only the director would dwell more on scenes where she desperately longs for her drugs and convinces her dealer to forge the expenses. if only the director would like to spend some time watching leonardo di caprio in basketball diaries, then the same chilling effect can be reached through cornelia’s embodiment to her character.

luckily, cornelia gets an equally good companion who manages to bring out their own best in every scene done together. playing in a more subtle manner, sausan excels in otherwise limited range of acting ability, yet the nature of her character allows her to show minimum effort to maximum result, and giving us no other option but to emphatize with her role here. i guess a nod for supporting actress will not be too much to give as a token of recognition.

however, the praises might stop at this point since cornelia and sausan are the only two elements in making this depressive film bearable and worth watching. i can’t help but having a strong suspicion that they take their own initiative to act well for their own sake, without any necessary guidance from the director who might be busy arranging other elements to be put up nicely on the big screen, to some disappointing result. this might be repetitive, but a stereotype of how one gets involved in a hell-ride of drug taking is too often to be presented, and i was surprised to see this still comes out eventhough the writer of the novel in which the film is based on is invited on board to pen the script. either that, or the limited duration time hinders a deeper character development that would do good this film.

other than that, i am not going to comment on how i wish to see more of shanty in her relaxed presence here, or how i long for more lenient censor cut that abruptly butchers some of cornelia’s scenes, but the bottomline remains to the fact that you might see this film to see a good school of acting, and set aside trivial errors as usually appear in any indonesian films.

once in a while, comes a film worth every single piece of bad comment on the film’s lack of good quality. the redundancy you may notice on the previous sentence is intended to create similar effect to the film.

if they think that indonesian film audience still has not gotten enough dose of brainless teen-flick, think again. the situation has reached the effect of feeding-the-beast, in which the audience soon need to be rushed for treatment of OD-ed by flood of nihilistic love story, whereas producers soon have to endure circle effect of being forced to start all over again in creating a new trend.

nevermind the story, you’ve read or seen it dozens of times before. in fact, spoilers are highly needed to decipher many unbalanced shots not supposedly presented on a big screen as they fit much better on a small screen. what we need to know is why the film seems to lack of direction.

a good director will not have scenes like a girl playing basketball in between three cars circling her moves, or a zoom-in to a packet of tissue, or some 30-second half-lit room where the character utters one single unimportant word.

a good director will think of more coherent logic to make a proper ending. modern literary audience who has consumed contemporary works of arts will not be satisfied with deus-ex-machina concept as it will only show the director’s lack of vision and rushing to finish the story as soon as possible.
(if i see rudy soedjarwo laughing about the latter, i can only pity him since ‘tentang dia’ suffers from the same problem.)

now it is time for indonesian film producers to consider which films they need to show to the press, and which ones are not. after all, how do you expect to comment on this response from one of the reporters upon watching this film:

“oh, the film is awfully fun, i had a good time. seriously! you’d no idea how fun it could be to find many, and i mean many, scenes to bash throughout the entire film!”

it happened.