I just watched the Australian film Candy, starring Heath Ledger, Abbie Cornish, and Geoffrey Rush. I’m shaken. It was such an intense and beautiful story of love and addiction, I can’t stop thinking about it. They portrayed the hard dirty lives of junkies with a sweet and intimate poetry. So hard to watch and yet so beautiful and so truthful. 

The performances were unbelievable. I wish that this film had gotten more international attention as it is, in my opinion, one of Mr. Ledger’s best. Every other element of the film was excellent as well from the pacing to the writing. 

I recommend it to anyone, for it was such a deep story that anyone could find something to relate to. But I must warn you, it isn’t for the surface dwelling film watcher. It will tear your heart out.

What a fantastic film. I know I’m a little behind, just watching this film now, but I suppose it is good that I waited until I could truly appreciate it. So many elements converged in perfect harmony to make it what it was. The acting was illuminating (perhaps with the exception of Billy Zane, but hey, he suited his purpose). The music was so original and compelling. The costumes were breathtaking. The story was poignant and magical. 

Above and beyond all this, there were two additional cards this film brought to the table that truly set it apart in my eyes. The first is that curious and uncommon devise of the characters directly addressing the audience. The second, found in the formal elements as well as the story itself, is the illumination of the beauty of androgyny. 

When that fourth wall is broken down at just the right moment it can be a truly exhilarating experience. Sometimes it is comical, as in the old merrie melodies cartoons. Brecht used it to invoke creative thought towards his work from the audience. Along these lines, it can be quite frightening as seen in Funny Games (another truly brilliant film by the way). But when Orlando addresses the audience we are pulled into her world (for simplicity’s sake I will use the pronoun her, although for the first half of the film Orlando is a he). We become her secret friend, while at the same time breaking the voyeuristic relationship present in most mainstream cinema. We are not simply watching, looking at her mind and body without her consent, she is showing us. As a feminist and a female filmmaker (a rare breed indeed), I find this relationship very refreshing, beautiful, and profound.

The focus on the beauty of androgyny is omnipresent in the film. It extends further than the character of Orlando. We are living in a society where there is no leg room for gender roles. You are masculine or you are feminine, an in-between state cannot exist, let alone be beautiful. A man cannot show up for work in a dress, a woman cannot be considered heterosexual with a shaved head. And I speak from the perspective of a Californian, to many other states that means crazy liberal. This film however, embraces the exploration and movement between gender, and sex for that matter. 

Three cheers for this film!

This film has gotten bad reviews from every source. I have read many of them and though I agree with the details, I must say, I liked it. So how can you like a movie with bad supporting acting, plot holes, poor direction, a rocky narrative, and inconsistent CGI effects?

It all comes down to expectations.

Admit it, the 1951 version, although said to be a classic, was also not that great. The concept was intriguing and fun but the script and the style weren’t anything to write home about. I suppose those elements provoke a remake but adding Keanu to the mix screams, “don’t get your hopes up!” Now don’t get me wrong, he was perfect in The Matrix and a very compelling pseudo-philosophic stoner as Ted, but I dare someone to stand up and say that his resume is consistently good. But now I see Hollywood’s divine plan for him, he was born to play Klaatu. He displays no silly earthling emotions, delivers lines as if he barely understands the words coming out of his mouth, and holds himself with such an awkward posture that there is no need to suspend your disbelief.

When I heard that the updated version would swap warring for environmental destruction, I knew that it would be corny, and I had already canonized it in the SciFi-SuperDisaster-BySupernaturalMeans-ButActuallyHumansAreTheVillains genre. (There are more of these than you think, perhaps a future blog post will outline them, stay tuned). When it turned out less corny than I imagined, there was only room to be pleasantly surprised.

What it all comes down to is that I thought it was fun to watch, and ultimately, I recommend it.

IMDBcomments: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/#comment

RottenTomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/day_the_earth_stood_still/

NYT: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/movies/12stil.html?scp=2&sq=the%20day%20the%20earth%20stood%20still&st=cse

Ebert’sReview: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081210/REVIEWS/812109993/1001

Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, this quiet, meditative film really got me thinking. The film is about a wealthy family who receives a handsome visitor (played by a young Terrence Stamp). One by one, they become overwhelmingly drawn to him starting with the maid, on to the mother, the son, the teenage daughter, and the father. Many other plot summaries I have read described it as the visitor seducing them, however I did not see it that way. The visitor never made any first moves, it seemed as though he was only indulging the other’s desires. After he leaves, they all melt down. Each in their own way, they are torn apart and crazed. So we must ask the question, who was this visitor? He must have been, as the other plot summaries also say, “a god or a demon.” We, as viewers, are left to decide. 

The point I want to make, is hypocritical. I want to say that the uninformed, thoughtless reviews and descriptions of this film take away from the experience of watching it. It is truly a film that you must bring only your own intellect to. So, the hypocrisy is that by writing this I am adding to any preconceived base of knowledge for watching it. Well, hopefully I can at least break down some of the more idiotic ideas out there. Here’s one, the one I am most irritated by since it is the one which disturbed my viewing so intensely. The Netflix description reads, “A wealthy Italian household is turned upside down when none of the family members is sure whether the handsome stranger (Terrence Stamp) in their midst is a god or the devil himself — but finding out sure is fun. Making his way from bedroom to bedroom, he seduces their bodies and wipes their minds of morality, all before the sun comes up. Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, this controversial film was banned by the Vatican for its shocking content.” 

1) The family members never wonder anything about the visitor, one of the most interesting points of this film is that even though the viewer may be puzzled, the characters are certainly not.

2) “But finding out sure is fun,” my god, what a blaspheme to the way the film defines sex. This film is not about a frat party.

3) He does not hunt them, “making his way from bedroom to bedroom.” And once again, he does not seduce, at least not in the traditional way, and especially not “their bodies.” One could argue that he may be seducing their minds, but no netflix, not their bodies.

4) The events do not take place all in one night. “all before the sun comes up” is just flat out wrong.

5) By adding the Vatican bit they are trying to sensationalize it. Although it is true, there is no nudity, no depictions of the act of sex, etc. It was probably banned by the Vatican because of Pasolini’s personal life and disregard for catholic values. (That is just my opinion).  

If I could put a description to the film I would say simply, “Watch it, actively watch it and think about it. Don’t be confused or focus too closely on plot details, just let the film reveal what it wants to reveal. You may like it or you may not, either way let it add to your world view, let it stretch your mind.” Come to think of it, I wish more film descriptions said only that.

Well, with all that said, I do recommend it. Please let me know what you think, if you do watch it.