Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 March 2003

“Great aspiration without contribution is of insignificance.  What will your contribution be?  How will history remember you?”  The words of teacher William Hundert as he addresses his class for the first time at the St. Benedicts School For Boys.  As assistant headmaster, Mr Hundert passionately preaches the importance of honour and virtue in living one’s life.  Teaching his students the valuable lessons learnt in classical history, he aims to mould the character of his students into something they can be proud of.  This is his contribution.

In the summer of 1972, a new arrival to the school would leave Mr Hundert questioning his ideals for the rest of his life.  The son of a senator, Sedgewick Bell was a disruptive brat (marginally over-played by newcomer Emile Hirsch) who used his smart mouth to ridicule teachers and earn popularity from his classmates.  Drawing on his own personal experiences, Mr Hundert sensed the unspoken pressures being applied to Sedgewick by his famous father and reached out to help him.

Mr Julius Caesar is a title bestowed on the student of the school who demonstrates the best knowledge of Roman history.  The competition has been in existence for almost a century and photos of the winners line the walls of the long corridors.  A series of challenging essays are set to determine the three top students before these finalists compete in a public shootout with increasingly difficult questions being posed by Mr Hundert until one man remains standing.  Could the improving Sedgewick make the final cut and satisfy Mr Hundert’s belief in his ability.

What begins as a beautiful woven feel-good drama then takes an incredible (yet totally believable) series of shocking twists.  Most modern-day filmmakers put little thought into “twists” - they think an audience will be impressed by something startling despite the fact it doesn’t fit the story, makes little sense and lacks in realism.  This crafty screenplay from Neil Tolkin keeps luring the audience into a satisfied sense of comfort before having them suddenly revaluating their position on the virtue of these characters.

Kevin Kline is at his brilliant best in the leading role.  It’s such a controlled performance – he speaks with exuberant vigour in his classroom, clinging to his deeply held principals and transfixing them onto those in front of him.  He utters invaluable quotes based on decades of experience – the kind of advice which few teens are exposed to.  Mr. Hundert will leave a lasting impression on his students but so to will these students leave a lasting impression on Mr. Hundert.

The stylish Michael Hoffman (Restoration, A Midsummer Night’s Dream) uses his soft, precise direction to textbook effect.  Hoffman himself has a background in the subject having studied the classics at Oxford University, and in fact is a Rhodes scholar.  But his true attraction to the project I couldn’t agree with more – in his own words “the film has the ability to turn the genre on its ear”.

The script itself is based on a short story penned by Ethan Canin known as The Palace Thief.  Backed by Hungarian cinematographer Lajos Koltai (Malena), Academy Award winning production designer Patrizia Von Brandenstein (Amadeus), and the underrated composer James Newton Howard (My Best Friend’s Wedding) the director effortless takes us into this picture-perfect 70s campus and the world of Mr. Hundert.  We are the students in Hoffman’s cinematic classroom.

No more highly can I recommend The Emperor’s Club but expect the unexpected.  A valuable reference Mr. Hundert leaves his class is that “it is not living that is important, but living rightly.”  To see this film, would be living rightly.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 March 2003

It’s a swanky lifestyle which has suddenly found itself off balance.  Roger’s currently sleeping with his significantly older boss, Joyce (Rossellini), and you get the sense he feels something deeper.  She isn’t though and knowing the risks of an intra-office relationship, Joyce suggests they end their short-lived relationship.  Roger is upset by both this development and the fact that he’s lost the upper-hand against a woman (a rare occurrence in his life).

Out of the blue, his 17-year-old nephew, Nick (Eisenberg), arrives on the doorstep.  Apparently, he’s in town to look at prospective colleges but we soon understand he’s not paying Roger a visit out of courtesy.  The hormonally charged Nick hasn’t even made it to first base with a girl before and with campus life around the corner, wants Roger to teach him all the tricks to woo the ladies.

Roger’s somewhat pleased by the challenge and takes Nick to a nightclub with the specific intention of getting both of them laid.  They meet two girls, Andrea (Berkley) and Sophie (Beals), and Roger starts showing his moves.  But it’s Nick’s innocence the girls seem most attracted to and Roger’s forced to adapt his style to get the job done…

Roger Dodger has a rough, documentary feel as it was filmed entirely with one hand held camera.  The cast remained “in character” for extended periods of time as there were few cuts from first-time writer/director Dylan Kidd.  It’s also a very dark film but I’m not talking about the subject material.  With the film shot in indoor locations with minimal lighting, there’s a lot of black on screen and at times characters are only recognisable from their shadows and voices.  An effective technique that brings the setting alive.

Campbell Scott has received rave reviews for his performance.  He’s accustomed to playing nice guys (in films such as The Impostors, The Spanish Prisoner and Big Night) but relishes the chance to extend his range with this freshly raw character.  His evilly smug personality brought back memories of Christian Bale’s depiction of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho.

A few scenes drift on too long but some wonderful one-liners keep this adventurous film on the rails.  For better or worse, you’ll learn a lot about the real Roger Dodger’s that are out there.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 March 2003

We meet Antwone Fisher (Luke) as a 25-year-old working in the navy.  Provoked, he lashes out at a fellow crew member and (after a rather silly hearing) winds up in the hands of psychiatrist Jerome Davenport (Washington).  As you’d expect, Antwone isn’t initially forthcoming in sharing his deep thoughts with a total stranger but Jerome uses his experience to get Antwone to open up and reveal the reasons for his anger.

You see, Antwone is angry because he had a rough childhood.  His father was murdered before he was born and his mother was in prison with no need for him.  We spent his first few years in an orphanage before being taken in by a foster family who treated him like dirt.  He was constantly looked down upon, treated like dirt, and yep, even sexually abused.  It’s time to start feeling sorry for Antwone. Boo hoo.

The film takes a slightly different path at this point.  Instead of focusing on Antwone getting his navy career back on the rails, Jerome suggests he go in search of his mother who abandoned him long ago to find closure on the matter.  Travelling with his new girlfriend, Antwone has success and all ends happily ever after.  Before I forget, I need to mention that Jerome and his own wife are currently having troubles of their own and his friendship with Antwone helps him fix all that ails him.

This is sugary tale is too sweet for its own good.  You can’t help but feel manipulated.  I wasn’t even slightly touched emotionally by this true story.  Perhaps if told with more realism I could speak more highly but Antwone Fisher’s own screenplay has the Hollywood touch and has borrowed from many other films.  In fact, after 20 minutes into the film, I thought I was watching an African American version of Good Will Hunting.

Denzel Washington’s directorial debut is a little rough around the edges.  He treads familiar territory and some lukewarm editing makes the storytelling look a little sloppy - there are too many gaps in this story.  Parts of the film which seemed of most interest were unexplored and kept short.  I was also unimpressed by the ease at which Jerome coaxes the bad memories from Antwone’s heavily guarded mind.

Antwone Fisher needed more work.  I mean no disrespect to the man himself as I’m sure his triumphant story is something to behold.  But after seeing this interpretation on screen, I’m not interested.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 March 2003

The 14 person jury was headed by director David Lynch (Mulholland Drive) and included Martin Scorsese (the director of Gangs Of New York), Michelle Yeoh (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), Tilda Swinton (The Deep End) and Sharon Stone.  They would decide the winner of the Palm D’Or.  Recent winners included Dancer In The Dark, Secrets & Lies, Pulp Fiction and The Piano.  After deliberation, their selection as winner of the Palm D’Or was… The Pianist.

Adrien Brody shines in his role as Wladyslaw Szpilman.  He is the only featured actor in the film and he appears in almost every scene.  Living in Poland, he was a beautiful pianist who was well known and played regularly on the radio.  Then World War II began.  The film isn’t directly about the war and its horrors, it’s more about Szpilman’s place within the war.  We only see things from his perspective and I enjoyed this decision made by the filmmakers.  There’s a part in the film where he lives in a locked apartment for several months with a view overlooking a hospital.  In the cinema, that’s all we see too.  We don’t know the progress of the war, we don’t understand what’s going on outside and it’s as it should be.

The Pianist plots Szpilman’s quest to stay alive.  When the war begins, he and his wealthy Jewish family are forced to leave their home and move into a Warsaw ghetto where all Jewish people are ordered to live.  As conditions deteriorated and numbers grew, families were rounded up and sent to Nazi labour camps and other places of horror.  His family would perish but with the help of a police officer, Szpilman was able to escape.  There would be many more years of suffering and many close shaves but Szpilman continued his fight for survival.

Director Roman Polanski (Chinatown) has made a great film but the real star is Adrien Brody.  His performance is incredible and you can he is devoted to the cause of this movie.  He looks terrible in the later scenes and it’s not just from make-up.  His Oscar nomination for best actor is well deserved and I’ll be rooting for him when the winners are announced in two weeks.  Polanski has been nominated in the best director category but won’t be able to attend the ceremony since he’s wanted in America on a statutory rape charge from 1977.  I won’t comment any further on that matter.

There are a few minor luls but generally, it’s a very interesting film given the way it is told.  There’s an abundance of films showing stories of war heroism but this is uncommercial and different.  It’s based on Szpilman’s own biographical novel and Polanski’s own parents lived in Poland and were taken to German concentration camps (his mother died there).  The Pianist is a film you won’t easily forget.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 March 2003

It occurred to me that there’s an increasing number of foreign language films being released here in Brisbane.  Cinemas such as the Palace Centro and the Dendy are rewarding more discerning filmgoers with treats from all over the globe.  Later this month, the Centro is screening a range of unseen films as part of its French Film Festival.  So if you’re tiring of American culture, the opportunities are there to see something new.  Given I fit into this basket, I took the chance to see my first ever film from Brazil, City Of God.

The film begins in the late 1960s in a community outside of Rio De Janeiro known as the City of God.  It’s a housing project for the poor with tiny homes and few utilities.  Teenage gangs roam the streets day and night.  With nothing better to do, they steal from everyone and have established a roaring drug trade to generate power and money.

After establishing the characters, we move into the 1970s where the kids have become young adults but little else has changed.  A leader had emerged from the gangs, Lil’ Ze, and his influence had differing effects on this city.  Crime was down and people lived less in fear as no one dared go up against Lil’ Ze and his growing army of supporters.  Conversely, his rule was become something of a dictatorship and more and more people became disenchanted by his brutality.  He would slay meaningless people in the streets.  A rival group was building and a massive gang war was looming to reclaim control of the city…

Knowing nothing of its cast and crew, the film’s website provides a wealth of supporting information to this engrossing story.  City Of God is based on a true story and the actual city itself is still a troublesome area in Brazil.  In making the movie, duals directors Katia Lund and Fernando Meirelles used actual people from the city who had never acted before.  Over 100 children were used in feature roles and they all became close friends thanks to the numerous acting workshops that were held to help them prepare.  Their closeness to the story, and the fact the film is shot in the actual town, heightens the realism.

Subtitles will guide you through the Portuguese dialect and take you into a world you never knew existed.  The film is narrated by one of it’s characters who speaks from the present looking back on the scary past with the thankful joy that he lived to tell the tale.  A common film technique is used where we are given a sneak peak of the end at the beginning and then look back to show the lead up to this point.  The directors wonderfully use this method and tease the audience with hints of events to follow in the story.

The film only took nine weeks to make and has now become the highest grossing film to emanate from Brazil.  It featured on the top 10 lists from a host of overseas critics last year and the film seemed a virtual shoe-in for the Oscar for foreign language features.  But given the Academy’s heavily criticised policy on only allowing a select few to vote in this category, the film was overlooked and an outcry soon followed.  I’d advise you not to follow their trend in passing over this violently entertaining marvel.