Category Archives: Film

The good thing about the film is that it accurately depicts the atmosphere of thrilling political phobia often portrayed in 70’s films, thus making the film as if it was made on the era as the event it depicts seems to occur in not so distant time from my perception.

Yet, such a statement might be a backlash on itself. Having seen recent thrillers in which the stories do travel from one continent to another, as initiated by Tom Clancy’s works with the likes of Patriot Games or The Sum of All Fears, and other recent films such as both superb Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Identity, we cannot help seeing Munich belongs to this class. A very unfortunate fact indeed, considering the film has way many potentials to elevate itself in a higher position.

What distinguishes Steven Spielberg’s film to the abovementioned films lies on the pace, that we remove the clock-and-dagger heart-thumping build-up scenes, then we have Spielberg’s reliance on supposedly thoughtful action which gets tiresome by the time we fail to convince ourselves the need of Avner (Eric Bana at his uncomfortable role) and his team to murder the criminals behind the 1972 Olympic attack.

A revenge conceptualized by Golda Meir, then Israeli’s Prime Minister, who assembled her Mossad team is apparent enough on the screen, but the screenplay by Eric Roth and Tony Kushner does not justify the need of this assembly, and by the time Daniel Craig, Matthieu Kassovitz, Bana, or even Geoffrey Rush who leads the team begin to wonder why they are recruited for the assignment, we can only sigh in bedazzlement.

If the indecisiveness of Spielberg as caused by his lack of confidence in the subject, unlike the previous buoyant claim in Schindler’s List, affects many aspects in the film, one of the crucial victims is the cast themselves. Lining up many character actors, only a few of them are listed above, they were lost and taken away from carrying the film as their presence often feels condensed. By the time we begin to emphatize with Avner, a character being given a lengthy supporting plot involving his family, we hardly achieve so as the film gets busy transporting us to another continent, seeing another rmerciless actions.

Thus, the coveted role of a thing that carries the film does lie on the action scenes, which really deserve some accolades in many ways, credits to deft editing by Michael Kahn who does great job in maintaining the atmosphere of the thriller, constantly giving the film a breath of fast-paced action sequences carefully cut to sustain our interest throughout.

Thrilling as it may be, the subject which requires deeper thoughts is finally presented in a carefully-baked manner by the time Spielberg rushes to close the chapter with the historical text seen towards the closing credit, as if to avoid any further open debates.

It hardly leads to any debates though. On the contrary, it only tickles our curiosity from yearning for something more, something to convince us that a maestro will be able to go beyond the serious action, and give the audience something to think about.

If stage world with all its romps is always interesting to be brought up as a subject in the big screen, perhaps the best reason to explain it is that the stage world mirrors the glamour, glitz, and the gloomy life a film world also has, or to some extent, even longs to have. As one world connected to the other, often a film about stage life is vividly interesting, thanks to the ability of film in capturing the subject through the filter of lens, resulting in an indirect response from audience as they get blocked by the huge screen in front of them, as compared to the stage performance where the event is presented right in the very own of our sights.

From The Producers to Stage Beauty to Being Julia, these films capture what’s beneath the fabricated life of stage, and present the interpretation as carried by actors on film, doing stage acts. Isn’t it interesting how we get to appreciate the beauty of proscenium-arch stages in a flat white screen? Thus, Mrs. Henderson Presents is presented in the manner, with a satisfying result.

The satisfaction is relied heavily on the shoulders of the two leads, Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins, the latter being one of the producers as well, who ferociously exhibit their enjoyable performances, suspiciously resulting from their rigorous experience as actors, both on stage and films. Thus, seeing them behaving like children playing around in a giant field, teasing and tricking each other in some silly games, as sampled by having Hoskins doing full frontal nudity and Dench donning a giant bear costume, is a rare pleasure amidst the current serious-minded films that even branch to comedy genre.

Alas, the genre is preserved well by Frears who kept the romp jokes intact, both through verbal and visual presentation throughout the entire 120-minute duration that seems short. Even when seeing Hoskins and Dench dance the night away toward the closing act of the film, we are already taken to their world of leisure and fun, regardless the surrounding one sets his place in.

In the mind-numbing waves of disposable love stories where the presence of characters, backdrops, and more importantly, plots seem to be interchangeable to one another, Brokeback Mountain stands tall thanks to the film’s firm stand to recreate a genre on its own.

Having successfully conquered vast genres ranging from domestic themes of East (Eat Drink Man Woman) and West (The Ice Storm), or a mix of both of them (The Wedding Banquet), to literary adaptation (Sense and Sensibility), to wuxia (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) to faithful comic adaptation (Hulk),Ang Lee marvels in his attempt to redefine a genre notoriously hard and preserved to an elite class of a very few directors ever existed in the course of cinema history. The genre as associated with cowboys is called Western.

And as much as Western often goes with subtle, or rather, repressed, homoerotic subtleties, the film pushes the envelope by breaking the bound loose while surprisingly preserves the dignity of machoism in even subtler way than what we have become familiar with in any sling-and-shot cowboys flicks.

For sure we get to see Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal do what arguably the most tender making out scene in any films, but how the scenes manage to pull through without shrieking response from audience (not the least that I know), is something Lee excels in treating the subject of all his films tenderly, seriously, and carefully nuanced to be contented. As enhanced by gorgeously photographed landscape by Rodrigo Prieto imbued with melancholic score by Gustavo Santaoala, the mountain has become a landmark of testament that love and machoism work well with one another to a mind-fulfilling result.

Alas, the words of praises offer nothing new to the film that I begin to think this will be drowning to any stronger, more stellar reviews that have arisen. Yet, to be in awe by the majestic presence of a mountain and its keepers is an unforgettably heartfelt experience a filmgoer should always yearn to have.

It takes me slightly more than a day to finally come to terms with the fact that while Hollywood, or most members of AMPAS, has not released its strains in fully accepting sexual differences on a big screen, it is good to note that rewarding a film about the city where the film industry stands its feet on is something worth being given a prize as well. Especially when it brings up a certain social theme that appeals to our common senses, in which we experience it on daily basis.

So you see, in the most politically correct manner, this year’s Academy Awards is a banner year in which subtlety of gay life is matched with the harsh reality of racial slur in a city of complex lives. Which one is better? They are of equal match, or should I say, they excel differently.

Crash, by all means, with its compelling storyline told through various kind of lives that seems to be in line with the famous series of Benetton ads in 90s, is an example of ensemble film which was executed superbly, something to be dreamed of by any living scriptwriters and directors in the world. On the other hand, Brokeback Mountain with its gentle treatment proves that no other director than Ang Lee can deliver a film that provokes our mind and shoots us to think thoroughly about the existence of love through many bumpy and painful roads, as what he has shown in his previous works.

Do they deserve their awards? Yes, they do.
Do they upset one another? If you are a stubbornly die-hard fan of one of them, then it’s your call to choose. But going back to the root of films which should be considered as a work of art that subjectively appeals to each and every individual in a darkened room, then an award is merely an award that will not intrude our opinion towards the films.

As much as I highly appreciate Brokeback, not to mention my dark horse favorite Good Night, and Good Luck., to see Crash winning a Best Picture is a testament that Academy, in such a rarity, finally puts its laureate on one smart, thought-provoking film, unaffected by shameless campaigns in any kind.

Seeing George Clooney winning for his less-than-distinctive performance in Syriana is a sentimental acknowledgement as he himself admitted, and that applies to Rachel Weisz‘s victory as well, in a different way, as other deserving actors with the likes of Maria Bello or Scarlett Johansson were not even nominated.
But to see a number of people whose works are rightfully rewarded (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Reese Witherspoon, Paul Haggis, Gustavo Santaoalla) is a rewarding experience on its own.

And of course, having Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep doing arguably the best award-introduction ever is an experience unlike any other kind.

This is what I call a show, you’ll never know what you’ve got until the very end.

See ya next year!

Enough said, I am presenting these films and the stars who will go down in the history of either being robbed or being sentimentally acknowledged.

This is how a popularity show works, and make that for almost eight decades.

BEST PICTURE
Will win:
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Should win:
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
Comment:
The wave of praises is unstoppable for Brokeback Mountain, a film that breaks the barrier of traditional values, and more than that, a film that gives the Western genre a refreshing look while maintaining the genre’s dignity in a very subtle way. However, as far as relevancy to the current state of the world is greatly indebted to the presence of media, no other film can be as smart as Good Night, and Good Luck. Sleek and substantial, the film made me applauding every single speech bravely spoken out. To think that the film is set some fifty decades earlier yet its resonance is still strong as of today is a cinematic achievement unlike any other kind.
Should have been nominated:
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

BEST DIRECTOR
Will win:
ANG LEE (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)
Should win:
ANG LEE (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)
Comment:
No other director is able to redefine a genre, and no other director can be fairly giving each and every character in a film their own voice equally compelling to grab and win our attention. No other director can be patiently guiding us to the lives as vastly different from one another, and no other director can be this innocent in looking at the world, thus constantly giving us films that are not judgmental, but strikes to our mind and emotion.
Should have been nominated:
FERNANDO MEIRELLES (THE CONSTANT GARDENER)
DAVID CRONENBERG (A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE)

BEST ACTOR, LEADING ROLE
Will win:
PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN (CAPOTE)
Should win: P
HILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN (CAPOTE)
Comment:
Unlike any other overdue thespians who get the accolade in some mediocre role, Hoffman triumphs in arguably his role of a lifetime. More than just donning a spectacle and delivering the lines in squeaky voice, Hoffman breathes the soul of otherwise despicable character, leaving us rooting for Capote’s arrogance and by that, we are won over.
Should have been nominated:
RUSSEL CROWE (CINDERELLA MAN)

BEST ACTRESS, LEADING ROLE
Will win:
REESE WITHERSPOON (WALK THE LINE)
Should win:
FELICITY HUFFMAN (TRANSAMERICA)
Comment:
It is interesting how Witherspoon injects much of her own persona in the character of June Carter, and by that, we know how Witherspoon hijacks the film completely from Joaquin Phoenix. Yet, as much as Witherspoon’s ability to carry both dramatic and musical quality at the same time is applaudable, no other actress could match Huffman’s believable, thus terrifying, transformation as a transvestite on the verge of her complete womanhood. A very challenging role that she carries under her skin so convincingly that we do not have problems accepting and acknowledging her full-of-life presence that beguils us for years to come.
Should have been nominated:
JOAN ALLEN (THE UPSIDE OF ANGER)

BEST ACTOR, SUPPORTING ROLE
Will win:
GEORGE CLOONEY (SYRIANA)
Should win:
JAKE GYLLENHAAL (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)
Comment:
Two actors are vying for sentimental values here. Paul Giamatti for being snubbed two years in a row for American Splendor and Sideways, and George Clooney who stands a ghost of a chance in two other categories he’s nominated in. Clooney might walk up to the stage, thanks to his undeniable charming charisma, and add that to the fact that Hollywood loves de-glamorizing its gorgeous habitants.
However, as much as sensitivity goes, no other actor in this category has a rich character as Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in Brokeback Mountain, a film that generously showcases his character in a life journey, allowing us to see his emotional and psychological development. As a tortured and tormented cowboy, Gyllenhaal embodies this character with a tenderness that in turn, leave us in tears.
Should have been nominated:
TERRENCE HOWARD (CRASH)

BEST ACTRESS, SUPPORTING ROLE
Will win:
RACHEL WEISZ (THE CONSTANT GARDENER)
Should win:
–
Comment:
I’m sorry, but as much as I think that Rachel Weisz is an underrated actress of this decade and as much as I praise her luminuous performance in The Constant Gardener (arguably the best in the film), I do not place my faith of such a character could pull off an Oscar quality.
Yet, this is the weakest major category, as what we have here is less than stellar. Catherine Keener has to settle being shadowed by Hoffman, whereas Michelle Williams experience the same from her own hubby, Heath Ledger. The fact that the two actresses I have championed for were not nominated might pretty much affect my decision to leave this category up in the smoke.
Should have been nominated:
MARIA BELLO (A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE)
SCARLETT JOHANSSON (MATCH POINT)
GONG LI (MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Will win:
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Should win:
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Comment:
A beautiful short story that gets its justice after being translated in a screenplay that does not speak much, but tells all we need to know, including the unspoken quality of longing for love, and affection. What could possibly top that?
Should have been nominated:
(doesn’t SYRIANA actually belong in this category instead?)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Will win:
CRASH
Should win:
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
Comment:
A film about interracial slur with a strong echo of post-9/11 trauma is exactly what America needs to hear, and having lines that reflect the painful scars is indeed what made Crash an unusual, likeable subject.
However, referring to my choice on Best Picture above, it’s been a while since we have a film that overwhelms us with its stature speeches, and leaving us staring in wonder and amazement at the white screen while absorbing every single sentence to our hunger mind of a good film. Good Night, and Good Luck. does that all.
Should have been nominated:
ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Will win:
PARADISE NOW
Should win:
PARADISE NOW
Comment:
To all Tsotsi fan out there, I understand that the film’s beguiling story about low life in South Africa is one thing to notice. Yet, rip off the background of the story, and replace it with Bronx for example, will it be hardly any different from any of earlier Spike Lee’s works? The same case can not be applied to Paradise Now, as a story on jihad is distinctively owned by the country where it was produced.
Should have been nominated:
C.R.A.Z.Y. (Canada)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Will win:
WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT
Should win:
WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT
Comment:
The best selection in this category ever since it was created 4 years ago. How thankful we are that the voters are not that easily surrendered to the charm of a has-been company called Disney!

BEST DOCUMENTARY
Will win:
MARCH OF THE PENGUINS
Should win:
ENRON: THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM
Comment:
Here’s my piece on a little flick about a circle of life of that cutesy penguins: it is overrated. What appeals to me from the US version is the grand voiceover on the narration as provided by Morgan Freeman, but the subject per se is hardly related and appealing to the circle of of our own lives as the filmmakers intended, in one way or another. Thus, as the echo of last year’s snub on Fahrenheit 9/11 is still too strong to ignore, my choice falls on to Enron, a political statement that goes in tune with the year’s Oscar color.
Should have been nominated:
MAD HOT BALLROOM
RIZE

There you go once again, this year’s prediction of 11 major categories, and as much as I try not having any puns intended, I’d like to extend my heartiest greeting to all of you gearing up for Academy Awards on March 5:

Good night, and good luck. 🙂

The buzz is deafening at the time when the new rules of preventing shameless promotional campaign (Martin Scorsese in Gangs of New York, anyone?) have been applied for the past 2 years.

But for such a grandeur and prestigious event at this caliber where even the most predictable sweeps in the tradition of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King still managed to get major news coverage worldwide, is the Academy still in need of a good buzz?

Judging from the list of the nominations this year, positively I say: yes, the Academy is desperately in need of a good buzz.

Having been guilty for too many times in favoring questionably good films rather than selecting the ones daring enough to voice out certain statements, be them political, economical, cultural or even religious matters, this year’s selection is hard to escape the notion that not only Academy favors films with edgier themes, but also the fact that the films uncompromisingly make a stand of the themes they bring.

One director daringly opens up the closet subtleties of Western genre and make a whole new imagination out of the notoriously hard-to-redefine genre. Another writer shows the scar of interracial slur happening at a city where the dreams are fabricated, whereas other marvels in depicting a life of a celebrated author at his bleakest phase of lifetime. A certain storyteller responds to the current emerge of terrorism by transporting us back to the oft-forgotten merciless event three decades ago, and finally a director in his sophomore work tickles us with how we should treat a goggle box by tracing theunresolvede problem way back five decades earlier.

If the seriousness of the glamorous event is apparent, then maybe it is required to elevate the common pessimist judgment towards Oscar as a popularity show.

Thus, no more kookiness of previous hosts, as selecting Jon Stewart who is very much at ease with his political stand will guarantee some thoughtful jokes might easily be lost in conservative audiences comprising of elderly aunts and uncles championing their distant cousin or nephew in some obscure, smaller categories.

No more Top-40 song being nominated in Original Song category, or over-the-top score as the voters opt for subtle, if not unique, works that accompany those bravely political films.

Finally, there will hardly be any crowd pleasers this time.

Alas, if these eyebrows-rising affair defines and puts the word “glamour” to this event, then we’re up for it!

A dummy guide by a dummy. If it doesn’t work, I don’t know what else will.

1. Seek out what kind of a film festival it is.

There are different kind of film festivals anyone is putting up, and that pretty much depends on how those organizers wanting to get. Some established film festivals are clearly intended to launch highly publicised new films, of both arts and commercial values, and to market them to distributors worldwide. So you can expect stars to flock by, press to scrutinize the film venues, and these are how Cannes, Venice, Toronto often associated with.

Some film festivals in other countries has different kind of intention. Singapore International Film Festival always gives spotlight to films within South East Asia region, an applaudable intention considering the country being a media hub in the region. The clueless Jakarta International Film Festival has been busy defining itself as a film festival of whatever films they can chip in.

Bangkok International Film Festival? A film festival headed by a president from the nation’s tourism authority which definitely has no direct relations to the film industry. Oh wait! There’s this film festival organizing committee, but they’re based in the US, and that explains the lack of Thai presence in the whole event.

There you go, a still-failed attempt of transporting Cannes to Siam Paragon.

2. Mark out the schedule.

But wait!
How can we do this if the schedule was only released 3 days prior to the festival?
Thus, the gambling’s on.

3. Check out the venue.

Shouldn’t be a problem if the whole festival was only situated within one shopping mall.
Hold on.
A film festival in a cineplex?
A cineplex in a shopping mall only?
Be sure that you are friendly enough to the waiters/waitresses of the food court as you can only spend your meal break there. Hey, it’s a festival, what do you expect?

4. Work out your charm.

Brush your teeth every morning, noon and night, give your gorgeous smile to the festival officers or any volunteers working in a front barrier, the luck would be with you in the form of a press pass, or any pass to let you in for free.
Add that with rubbing skins or patting shoulders with fellow journalists, filmmakers, or whoever people with badges on. Striking up a conversation with some dashing film critic will turn out delightful, trust me! Especially if he remembers your name after the first lengthy conversation.

5. Be an unforgiving opportunist.

Now you’ve got your pass, you’ve got privilege to grab any films you want, better save up than feeling sorry to miss out any of them. Life’s not fair, I know, but then, whoever says it is when it comes to films?

6. Be judgmental.

Hundreds of films within the course of 10 days, that surely does look good. Let’s just say there are 150 films, that will give you an average of 15 film in a day.
Holy Mother!
What time are you gonna sleep? What time are we gonna go clubbing? What time are we heading to Chatuchak? This is Bangkok we’re talking about.
So why not settle ourselves comfortably in this decision: if a film does not impress you within one hour, leave the theatre, and nothing should prevent you from doing so. Award-winning films? Renowned actors? Directors in attendance?
How about shifting to another screening of films that satisfy your heart, mind and soul? The ones that you will clap wholeheartedly by the end of them? Now that’s what I like to have.

7. Indulge yourself.

Sitting alone in a dark room full of strangers while trying to comprehend the films takes up your mind’s work that much. Thus, if you feel someone giving you a look of appreciation, a suggestive gesture of tenderness, don’t force yourself to reject them. Take a good look, who knows you might end up having fun?
Add that to surrendering your tough principle of staying away from popcorn and sodas. Remember, watching 4-5 films in a day requires tremenduous amount of energy.

8. Act cool.

This applies to not having a starstruck if Willem Dafoe appears in front of you and looking much better in real person, or not looking drunk after continuously sipping alcoholic drinks before a ceremony begins.

9. Give yourself a day off from films.

Get a life, folks! Seriously!

10. Watch films. Appreciate them.

After all, this is what a film festival should be, a gathering for film lovers to communally watch films. Clap for them, loathe them, talk about them, curse them, praise them, whatever acts of appreciation you have for the films, this is the chance for you to show off what you have kept in store all these time.
Believe me, no more clueless people who storm into 21 cineplex watching any films the cineplex offers, or the posh-yet-brainless people often seen in a lobby of plush cinemas who can not even pronounce the title.
Film festivals are one of the reasons people like me would be more than willing to sacrifice anything to get a good film-watching experience.
From various kind of people encountered to wacky ticketing system, the package is simply hard to resist.

Alas, here’s to more!

This happened not that long time ago, not in a galaxy far away.

We see NAUVAL, recently graduated from some university, down on his luck while doing odd jobs by being an assistant to some lecturers at some local university, a teacher at a local high school, a translator of some god-knows-what-kind-of-textbook, a tutor giving private tuition, basically the low-salary-next-to-nothing jobs under the sun.

Wait! Why does this happen again at present time? Oh, that’s another story 🙂

Anyway, it was one afternoon when we saw this poor fella staring blankly to the flickering screen of the TV on a living room, and his DAD approached him in a casual manner.

D(ad): How are you, Nov?

N(auval): Well, fine.

D: So, how’s everything?

N: Just like that.

D: Not going out?

N: Nah, not feeling like to.

D: Okay. Not doing your jobs?

N: No tuition today, teaching at schools only on Saturdays, and uni’s on break, so … yeah.

D: Okay. (reaching his wallet, taking out a note of 100 thousand rupiahs) Here!

N: Huh? What’s this?

D: Consider it as a loan, but make sure that you only use it to rent DVDs, and nothing else. Got it?

N: (puzzled, then excited) Sure!

If I’m not mistaken, I have returned the money back once I got the income from those odd jobs, or more like recently? Wait, I have returned the money back, right?! Yes, I have. Whew.

The reason why I still remember the scene to date, as you may guess, is simply the fact that I can’t be more thankful of having people surrounding me who understand my passion over films, in a way that they may not be able to easily accept at face value. And I realize a cloud of doubts hanging above their heads on thinking, “You have not settled yourself yet, but you are going for a film festival?”

Shall I answer the question?

I’d rather not to, but do allow me to excuse myself for going to Bangkok for the event you see on the title of this entry.
I can’t believe that I can have this journey again, after the first time last year was marred with some unfortunate stuff that should not have happened on the first place, if I had strong willingness to prevent it from happening.

But I have to admit that I have quite an expectation to my companion this time as he is quite a regular to some of the more established film festivals the world has had throughout this time. Yes, I do hope I can learn from Kenny more about the fun film-festival experience, and it’s gonna be joyful time ahead, let’s hope so!

Oh well, shall I take a break then from blogging?

Let’s just wait and see 😉

From the direction of Stephen Gaghan, the screenwriter of Traffic.

Seeing the above line, we come to a theatre with a pre-occupied idea that what we’re about to see will resemble the aforementioned film, and when our expectation is met, the next question should be: how different is it?

Recently, a similar notion occured when The Constant Gardener was released, as the promotional campaign relied heavily on Fernando Meirelles’ previous directorial effort in City of God. The former film might share the now-familiar style of puzzling narrative structure as established by the latter, yet his new film still manages to excel on its own, thanks to the strong storyline and the superb turns of the cast.

So is the case of Syriana.

If Traffic takes on a story about several lives affected by drugs problems, then Gaghan’s latest film replaces the drug story with a story on how a merger of two giant oil companies in USA could affect the lives of people across the world, or at least, within USA to countries in Persian Gulf area. These people include the impressive cast of actors ranging from the likes of Amanda Peet to Jeffrey Wright, although the spotlight is strongly given to the pigged-out George Clooney, being groomed by many to receive an Oscar soon.

How Academy loves deglamorization of good looks, it is apparent enough, and Clooney might benefit from this, having gained Bridget Jones’ weight to give a convincing look as his profilic role of a hired killer. Yet, as cliche as it may sound, it takes Clooney more than his bulging flab to carry the role. His presence in both emotional and ruthless scenes is riveting enough to make us long for more, and the singular scene of his conversation with his distant son is enough to make it as “the moment” shown for his nomination clip.
Yet, being in the flood of equally talented cast, it is still hard to see how he should rise above the others, particularly with always-reliable Jeffrey Wright who lit up the screen with his dignified charisma in otherwise passable role as a clean-cut accountant trapped in the dirty and corrupted world of political issues.

Alas, being a poster boy in the film sparks with mind-challening thoughts that leave its audience beguiled in serious thoughts, Clooney does get an advantage of being noticed from the rest. Thus, the glory awaits.

Taking a cue from the above song (thus the title of the film), James Mangold, the director, certainly takes us in a slow walk while building up our confidence in seeing the transformation of Joaquin Phoenix becoming Mr. Man In Black.

It was a gradual process of seeing Phoenix playing himself in earlier scenes, as if his dashing look is on loan for modeling the period costume. Not until the scene at a verandah where he belted tunes for the first time, we are now taken to a belief that Phoenix has finally inhibited the soul of Johnny Cash in Walk The Line. And of course, the pitch perfect note is in synch with a man being at his fullest with a woman on his side. For Johnny’s life, there was June Carter. For Phoenix’s impressive tour-de-force performance, it can only be matched by Reese Witherspoon’s equally convincing portrayal of June.

And for the latter, it was apparent so much on the screen that Witherspoon injects her own warm personality in bringing out the empathy towards the character that we do not mind watching June with a goody-shoe persona a la Witherspoon herself. Alas, June is given a full of life when she sparks the screen with her determination that is far cry from any of Witherspoon’s previous roles where strong willed acts were often imbued with cheekiness, either in Legally Blonde series or Sweet Home Alabama. Seeing Witherspoon in every turn as the country star gives pulsating sensation to the film, in which such a jolt is needed to make the film energetic enough, at least true to the sense of the genre it owes itself to.

An Oscar gold is only a moment away to hold.

Has L.A. been as sophisticated and elegant as what we see in Shopgirl?

The answer is an enthusiastic ‘yes’, as we know the film is penned by Steve Martin, whose treatment towards the city can be in the same par with how Woody Allen muses New York in his stories.

Only the challenge this time is that Martin writes a screenplay for the film which is based on his own novella. Certainly a lot of reservations are put throughout the script, and that is what exactly translated to the screen. A certain hold-back attitude seems to keep the film on hold from letting it free, confining each and every character within their own designated frames, unmoveable ones.

Unfortunately this does not work to Jason Schwartzman who is more at ease with over-the-top acts as he did in many of his previous comedies. Even being assigned with the role of Jeremy, the supposedly free-spirited artist, Schwartzman only seen comfortable when he conveys more with his meaningful silence rather than goofy acts that he does uncomfortably here.

Magically, the confinement does not work at all towards Martin himself, and the actress playing the title character, Claire Danes. Once again pulling off his ability to play serious roles, Martin brings suave attitude to his character, Ray, that makes us understand wholeheartedly why we do not mind being swooned over by him at the first glance.
On the other hand, Danes, at her most mature role to date, gives her character, Mirabella, a sense of independence through the actress’ radiant presence, which suspiciously resulted from her own confidence in imbuing the role. Danes breathes Mirabella with fragility and strength that only makes her presence riveting and lovable at the same time.

Alas, such character traits understandably bring hope to the film, making it uplifting and charming.
In a hard way, the mission to become a romantic comedy, with a little dark humor a la Martin, is accomplished.

Perhaps we can take out that particular music genre above, then we are in for a treat of self-discovery journey.

The hype on the music itself is what mars this film, along with other subplot involving an unnecessary love story among the leading characters. There are times when Upi, the director, tries too hard to emphasize the films two main actors’ penchants over the rock music by unconvincingly tortures Herjunot Ali to sing horrendously at wasted scenes of rehearsal, or the prolong dramatic scenes between the two guys and their families.

Yet, as the film slowly builds up its rhythm, we find a solace to an unexpected source: Barry Prima.

After poking his established macho image in Janji Joni, now Barry returns to what I dare say his most prima performance ever graced the big screen. He acts for the first time, and he does not get overwhelmed with, shall I say without trying to spoil, the costume he has to wear throughout his presence. It is interesting how once hard-wooden, static acting of Barry manages to pull some heart-rending scenes that heighten the film to a level beyond pleasure.
Thus, his presence is never a bore, and being funny while dramatic at the same time in imbuing a multi-dimensional character is a rare feat only dreamed of by most actors to this date.

And this is the reality of Realita Cinta dan Rock ‘n Roll.
That we are not fooled by the rock as previously done in mostly lyrical ways in Garasi, nor the much hyped homoerotic subtleties that only makes the film look pale in comparison to Y Tu Mama Tambien or any Pedro Almodovar’s films.

The verdict reality of this film stands on its unpretentiousness fun, and do watch it with a big smile throughout.

The abovementioned title will centre in one piece that makes the film riveting to watch, and that is, Jack Nicholson.

In his youthful menacing act, Nicholson shows his comprehensive understanding that to carry a multi-dimensional character, one’s got to inhabit it from within. Thus, we see his being a tormented guy trapped in his own ego as a highly-educated pianist, yet having to face the reality of being stuck in a mindless job that plunges him deeper to endless soul-searching, only hurting the people he initially cares about. Eventually, we will accept any seemingly evil doings he led himself to, from being abusive to philandering, for they serve to strengthen his misled behaviour.

As you read the premise of the film as stated, you may begin to notice that the film came at the time when rebellion movements were the voices of the films, and the film could not be more attuned to that. Released in 1969, Five Easy Pieces marvels through its steady pace that once you get hold of it, you will be taken further to an achingly real life-like story of how one lives his life that often is bleak, yet unintentionally comic at times.

The idea of Western world as cold and frozen as captured in McCabe & Mrs. Miller may recall the lonely and almost-empty atmosphere of a kingdom in England in The Lion in Winter, since both films brought out contrast looks of their respective background as commonly perceived, yet the strong elements of both genres still convincingly present in the films, either to enhance the genre or to serve as a supporting backdrop.

The former film as discussed here decided to bask itself under the heavy thick of snow, somehow confining the brass loud of Western as usually appeared on the screen, particularly the Western films made in this era, mid-1960s to early-1970s, when Sergio Leone did not hesitate to downgrade the genre with uncomforting violence, at the same time when John Wayne was still around to maintain the dignity of the genre through traditional values of good deeds over evil doings, in a very two-dimensional way at the very best.
The confinement itself then is redeemed by the presence of the two leading characters with their unique traits considered as a breakthrough then. Warren Beatty’s McCabe is an opportunist who often confuses himself with his indecisiveness. He deliberately suppresses himself from his past that made him what he is, yet eventually he surrenders to the past, his own reputation, to a very unfortunate result at the end. It is understandable then that he carries his gloominess throughout the entire film, making each scenes he appeared seemed to be palpable to swallow.

However, the same cannot be said towards Julie Christie, the saving grace of the film. Thanks to her radiant presence shining through her feisty acts, Christie turns her Mrs. Miller as a multi-dimensional character with a mere single look as represented by her generous eyes that speak many things themselves. It is hardly any wonder then that Robert Altman chose to end this film with the camera zooming in Christie’s bewildering eyes, something we seldom see in recent times until another film, Facing Window, does it with the same satisfying effect.

And isn’t that a rarity to see a Western film is almost entirely carried out by a mere presence of the leading lady character? Another breakthrough indeed, from Altman at his playful time in accordance to his famous M.A.S.H..

“I’ll tell you the greatest regret of my life. I let my love go”.

Then my only regret would be of not watching one of the most powerful dramatic ensemble films ever produced and released amidst the chaotic of mindless and plotless films these days.

What glued one to the seat throughout the entire 195-minute duration lies on the parallel lines of many souls living their lives right in front of us, no matter if you see it on a big screen or small ones, which actually serve as a mirror to what we really are. From the first 10 minutes of puzzling images spanning through decades of human (in)decencies as visualized through quick-cut editings, we seem to be asked to trace our roots that lead us to what we are today.

Thus, in one rainy day of Los Angeles where many intricated stories of life begins, Magnolia starts depicting and exploiting ourselves through the impossible list of characters as portrayed by impossibly talented actors at their best.

At once, we are asked to redeem our sins in the past by suffering from painful pains, both literally and mentally.
Other times, we wish to break ourselves free from any haunting commitment as told to us regularly on daily basis.
Occasionally, we do not realize how little lies as we started imagining from our youth has become a life on its own, trapping us inside that only wounding us everytime we make an attempt to get out of it.
Worse, sometimes we realize that it is only too late to show our deepest affection to our beloved ones.

As the characters start unravelling their masks and allowing us to touch their wounds, the film works as a paradigm that strikes hard to our mind without even being preachy. Those opposing the film may question the necessity of cursive languages, but this opposing team may not realize the aching reality the film grounds itself, that behind the seemingly ruthless acts, it is the hearts yearning for acknowledgement of existence that speaks at their loudest.

Through Tom Cruise’s perfectly-fit annoying charisma, through Julianne Moore’s heart-rending acute portrayal of a tormented spouse, through Melora Walter’s emotional grievances, through our sympathetic nods to William H. Macy’s abused character, we finally realize that these people are pieces of what made the film compelling to watch, all while we are kept reminded that:

“We might be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us”