Bruges at Christmas time. A lovely medieval preserved town with a festive spirit and now blessed with two hit men laying low at a quaint hotel. How can one react to this movie? In Bruges is a treat!!

Characterization and the characters are superb. Dialogue is witty and fast paced. The scenery of Bruges is shot magnificently. There are little 10 second vignette shots that work very well. The movie follows the two hit men taking refuse following a botched job. The hunker down to await a call. As Vladimir and Estragon, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleason) adopt entertainly different approaches to their enforced tourism. Maybe its just the Irish way, but I feel some Beckett here.

This is Colin Farrell at his best. I haven’t been a fan in the past, but can’t help but applaud his performance in this one. He is emotive, totally empathetic and draws you right into his character. Ray is deeply troubled, but he has a gritty reserve and a bubbling temper and perfect chemistry with Brendan Gleason’s Ken. As Ray decides whether he can suffer an overheard slight, the inner tension is is delivered without suggesting that he’s being coached through it. He is Ray, and he is right on the edge.

Brendan Gleason is always good. I have never seen him in a role I didn’t appreciate. Together, Gleason’s reflective, halting, and calm delivery matches supremely with Farrell’s stacatto, disdainful, remorseful, banter. Especially when he steps out of it and loses it with Ray. It reinforces the truth of his performance. The development of the Ken’s character is a joy to observe. Starting from the unquestioned loyal lackey, he snaps during the story arc of the plot discovers himself. I saw a whole new side of Gleason in this film.

Ralph Feinnes gets just enough screen time to make a role, but Ciarán Hinds momentary appearance, although an important plot points seems strangely under exploited (yes, Rome is my reference point for Hinds).

The facts of the case are teased out at a perfect pace — little nuggets dropped here and there, often in an underplayed fashion. Clearly its about redemption, and considering (or reconsidering) ones’ own life principles. Although there is outright Canadian bashing, it’s just exactly what a Canadian would do and the bashing (literal as well as figurative) is deserved.

Best line: “If I’d grown up on a farm and was retarded, Bruges might impress me, but I didn’t, so it doesn’t.” You laugh at things that you wouldn’t outside of a darkened theatre, and although you see Gleason’s penultimate moment approaching, it is timed and choreographed with brilliant attention to the craft (I wasn’t laughing at that one by the way).There are some violent scenes in the movie and I have yet to quite figure out why they are as graphic as they are. No, still don’t have a considered answer for that — still thinking. And in that this is a cool flick. It does make you think and ponder, and yet has you laughing, and following the action (and often inaction that makes you wonder too).

I give this a 4 for 5. Brilliantly acted, very well written and directed and an absolutely satisfying. No lesson, no positive message, although the selfless acts do add a real warmth to the movie. But what can I possibly say credibly, last time I was in Bruges I watched King Ralph in Dutch — yes the height of culture ;-)

Thanks to Will for the hint to go catch this one. I pass it along.

a

I just discovered at the HNN that George Macdonald Fraser, author of the acclaimed Flashman series of historical fiction novel, passed away yesterday. His ribald contributions to a true appreciation of the nuances of Victorian military and social history will be missed. I have always looked forward to the next installment of the Flashman papers. The obits remind that he was author, journalist and screenwriter. When Octopussy with Roger Moore as James Bond came out I remember thinking that it had a rather different feel than other bonds. The Indian scenes were exotic and there even seemed to be a different pace. Shortly thereafter I found out that Fraser had done the screen play and I should have sensed the familiar had at work. He was a master storyteller and was able to capture the colour and spirit of another time.
The Flashman series of novels trace the life of Sir Harry Flashman, Victorian bounder and cad as he finds himself caught up in many of the most significant events of the time in which he Fraser placed him. The historical treatment was thorough and meticulously documented with footnotes — all of them imagined by Fraser. When the first volume of the ‘papers’ were released in the 1960s, apparently many critics presumed that the stories were true and that Fraser has unearthed a previously unknown cache of private letters. Although this obviously led to wonderful publicity, it is testament to the fine writing and captivating style in which Fraser wrote. If you haven’t experienced a Fraser novel, the early Flashman series are a treat. Flashman at the Charge is my favourite, as Sir Harry participates in the Charge of the Light Brigade and we find out what really happened behind the scenes. Fraser painted a deep and vivid series of portraits of the main players as real human characters and linked them to real events with learned imagination. he truly brought historical events to life, even if he did a little stretching to do so.
His novel, Royal Flash, was turned into a movie with Malcolm McDowell superbly cast as Flashman, and a foil to Oliver Reed as a scheming Bismark machiavellianly piecing together a German Empire.
George Macdonald Fraser was a very unique historian. he brought history alive for me and entertained me at the same time. He will live on through the characters in his novels. He will be missed.

Additional: A wonderful extract from the Charge reprinted in the Times

a

I was finally was able to see Elizabeth: The Golden Age today and was not disappointed. This a movie worth seeing at the theatre. The settings are sumptuous, superbly shot and Cate Blanchett seems to be able to do no wrong. She is Elizabeth.
I am staying away from historical commentary here. This is a story for the screen and I appreciate it as such. However, I will say that I enjoyed the first installment ten years ago more. The two installments shared the lavish settings that set Shekhar Kapur apart, but the web of intrigue in the first was much more taut and tense. In the second installment, there is far less of tension. Where tension exists, it seems weary or puerile. Relationships that may have been mined and explored such as that between Elizabeth and her cousin Mary Stuart are left docile and tepid. Mary, who I expected to speak with at least a French accent is unimposing and a mere dupe (certainly a faint shadow of Fanny Ardant’s Marie de Guise in the first). Although this fits in well with her role vis-a-vis Philip of Spain’s intrigue, this political and fratricidal battle between ‘princes who are female’ could have been mined and illuminated the ongoing struggle between free-thinkers and Roman Catholics. Kapur’s Mary is a stupid, unthreatening victim, and this doesn’t work well — far too simple. The same seems to be true with Philip himself. While we was portrayed in a commanding kingly way in the first, here he is much truer to life as a mildly deformed, unifocular grandee bent on world domination. This is not bad. However, the introduction of his young daughter is distracting. Her story and introduction do not seem to lend to the story at hand and seems disjointed. Are we to sense that Philip is simply trying to provide for her inheritance? — eg. “How would you like to be Queen of England?”

We all know that the Armada will come and there is little or no build up to this point in the film, and takes far too long to appear. When watching I grew rather frustrated waiting for the eventuality and sensing that a silly love story was getting in the way — a story far too detailed and without a sweeping grandeur. The armada battle sequences are generally well shot and delivered, but the sense of scale is lost with this story being such a brief foray. The tension that we lack elsewhere could have been very skillfully built here. In general, scenes are superbly composed and shot well and we have some of those wonderful shots from far above, reducing individuals to a smaller scale and establishing that larger forces are at work. We also have more shot from below (the swimming horse was intriguingly original), and his use of light is amazing. Elizabeth in her white grandeur at the end is spectacular.

On the other hand, Kapur seems to have grown fond of ‘keyhole’ type shots in this version, and I am not sure they work. Is there an unseen watcher? What is the importance of these vantage points? We peer through gaps in the stonework and windows cells that seem to distract from rather than lend to the visual effect.

Nonetheless this is a crucial part of the story that Kapur has chosen to tell and it is a good story. As always, Blanchett is superb. She is able to catch the tremendous vulnerability, tempestuous wrath and supreme power that Elizabeth was. The character has been substantially elabourated and the relationship with Walsingham similarly expanded. Rush is of course also strong in his role and we get to see some signs of his weakness as well, possibly missing from the earlier exploration.

I was also looking forward to Elizabeth’s speech on the battlefield and Kapur handles it well. This was a pivotal moment for Britain and Elizabeth delivers a superb exhortation to her troops to defend England or die trying. But I am left without a sense of panic or of ruthless determination on the part of the assembled militias. How were they feeling? Were they actually inspired? There faces are blank. I think I will be forever spoiled by Brannagh’s delivery in Henry V. How to live up to that. Blanchett comes close.

My favourite scene is the stolen kiss with Raleigh. It captures much of the essence of the monarch trapped in her role, but yearning to escape. The lighting, the timing, the music and the restricted moment is handled with tremendous ability. The role of Bess is also well handled, and its tough to live in the glow of Elizabeth. But we feel for her chief lady-in-waiting and closest thing to a friend. She is unsayingly charged to live for Elizabeth, to serve her, but seek the experience she cannot have. She succeeds and acts as she feels she must, restricted by her loyalty, but also a mere mortal.

As with all, I expect that much material ended up on the cutting room floor and look forward to a director’s cut to truly appreciate Kapur’s vision. The changing colour and tone as the movie progresses is subtle, but impressive.

Clive Owen is well cast as Raleigh, as is Drake, although I sense that a balance between the two might have been established. And where are Elizabeth’s other advisers? Where we had a much more vulnerable young woman in a man’s world, outside of Walsingham, Raleigh and Dee (a superb addition) we find faceless, pointless drones. Mary’s gaoler has the security sense of a vegetable strainer and everyone seems to stand around waiting for something to happen. I sense again that this was in the cause of simplification and this is an unfortunate choice.

All in all, this story lacks some of the complexity of the first. It is as if it was dumbed down and the private life is overemphasized to determent of seeing Elizabeth as monarch and embodiment of the nation. I am sure there is some intention in this, if only simply to reinforce that she is a mortal, thrust into a role that she is not prepared to adopt. She finds strength from various sources and does rise to the occasion, but not before having her resolve tested.

I don’t want to in anyway lead you to believe that I wasn’t entirely thrilled with the production. I point to the shortcomings because I have set this director and his ability on a very high pedestal. I haven’t been drawn to the theatre in a year. This is a movie that attracted and left me feeling very satisfied. Its largely perfectly cast, the determination to explore Elizabeth’s character successful and a visual treat. I look forward to the director’s cut and would heartily recommend this most excellent movie to anyone heading for the theatre.

a

Information Aesthetics points to a great background article on the visual representation of taste in Ratatouille (a movie I absolutely recommend — great story, superb animation). I watched these sequences and didn’t think much about them — but what a great question : how can one visually demonstrate the sensation of taste? Additionally, how do tastes sound — the animations that Michael Gagne created for the movie were used as inspiration for the accompanying soundtrack. Is this a sign of sensory convergence? That flavours will combine and produce an entirely new visualization makes absolute sense, but how do you account for synergy or for catalytic behaviour. What a wonderful challenge to be presented with and to muse about.
There is a lot more to discover at Michael Gagne’s site. His work had appeared in a string of well known productions. Moreover, Gagne is a Québecois and Sheridan graduate — so wonderfully close to home.
I wonder what smell looks like?

a

VideoJug published a wonderful instructional video today on how to give a great man-to-man hug. It’s superb. The site provides many helpful (real) etiquette videos, but and even this one in its way is meant to be of social aid. The terse subtitles just add to the mirth of this little piece. For a few good belly laughs…

a

Here’s a hot movie tip. If you are looking for gratuitous violence and action stop reading right now. Instead, if you appreciate brilliantly composed shots, being submerged in a rich, enveloping, sensual, and splendidly conceived story, the Mistress of Spices a perfect movie, especially for Valentine’s Day. Paulette picked out this movie on the weekend and I have to admit to being absolutely engrossed for the duration.

The film features Aishwarya Rai as Tilo, an orphan who is raised within a sect dedicated to bringing the healing power of spices to mankind. It co-stars Dermott Mulroney, but don’t let that make you walk away — his presence doesn’t get int he way of a superb picture. Rai is a beautiful woman and a wonderful actress, you may remember her as Lalita in Bride and Prejudice. This film combines and Indian appreciation for movement and gesture, not unlike Kapur’s Elizabeth. In Mistress, The plot is simple, the beauty of this film lies in the staging. The spices themselves are front and centre. The shop that Tilo runs in similar to a 19thC apothecary’s shop with dark woods and elaborate nook and crannying. Popular spices are arranged in wonderful colourful and vivid pyramids on low platforms down the centre of the shop. There are countless small shelves and drawers. The spices in raw and processed form are thoughtfully presented. The movie is set beautifully. I don’t want to elabourate on the plot as I do want you to find this one and watch it.

I heartily recommend and would love to hear any comments if you happen to catch this wonderful film.

a

I finally got around to watching a documentary I had pvr’d a week or so ago. The Socialist, the Architect and the Twisted Tower documents (lyrically I might add) the design and construction of the Turning Tower in Malmo, Sweden. I am fascinated by the inspiration behind the design by Santiago Calatrava who sought to instill this kinetic human form to a 56 storey condominium office tower. The documentary itself (in a mixture of Spanish, Italian, English and Swedish) is a behind the scenes sort of production, but it captures Calatrava musing about such things as the passing of the seasons and the importance of customer service. The participants deal with attempts to change the design mid-construction to cut costs. The clients muse over the fact that the Architect is so sensitive to any criticism, and yet I was struck by how strangely accommodating he seems over what are huge alterations to the concept. Calatrava is pragmatic, hands-on and remarkably open — good line: ‘the blood will arrive into the sea’. The engineer-architect is an interesting mix. This is a fine production. The project in question is an intriguing one, and on which I have grown in appreciation for (the subtleties of the details) with this documentary. I am more familiar with his bridges and the Milwaukee Art Museum project although I have very often walked through his magnificent atrium in Toronto at BCE Place. Cost overruns led to the firing of Johnny Orback, the general manager part way through the project. Calatrava is frank and blatantly states his belief that Swedes are simply too used to only doing the comfortable thing and not being willing to risk or do visionary things as the GM did. Interesting reflection son Swedish culture.

I browsed around a bit to follow up on the project and came across this wonderful model of the tower itself that you can download in PDF form and assemble for yourself. Have fun! By the by, do check out the <a href=“http://www.turningtorso.com/” target=_blank”>official site. Its a fascinating piece of interface design in itself.

a

On the subject of impressive focus on detail, comes this amusing exercise…Mapping the various timelines in the collection of back to the Future movies to allow for the creation of alternate timelines due to time travel. This Wikipedia entry charts the various characters, their ancestors and particular events and attempts to portray all the skipping around through time in a straight forward chart. The author does an great job…this is information distillation extremely well accomplished. The article is fun in its own right, but the imagining of the alternate timelines is particularly astute.

a