Black Moon (1975)

A lot of avant-garde filmmakers experimented with Lewis Carroll’s classic novel “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”. Some features that come to mind are Jaromil Jires’ wonderful film, “Valerie and her Week of Wonders”, Guillermo Del Toro’s “Pan’s Labyrinth” and Jan Svankmajer’s “Alice”. Louis Malle’s surrealist experimental film “Black Moon” could very well fit into this category of the directors’ own interpretation of the novel giving it their own “free form”!

Written by Louis Malle in collaboration with Joyce Bunuel (Luis Bunuel's daughter-in-law!) and directed by Louis Malle, “Black Moon” is devoid of any central plot as such. Set against a post-apocalyptic backdrop of a “war between the sexes”, this film simply chronicles the weird happenings as experienced (or imagined?) by a teenage girl, Lily (Cathryn Harrison)  who has narrowly escaped being killed by men seemingly out to wipe out the entire women populace! Having been lucky to have escaped, she just speeds away in her car deep into the woods only to come across an isolated property, a huge manor house and its strange inhabitants. The house is dwelled in by a cantankerous, bed ridden old lady (Therese Giehse) with a weird fetish, who talks to animals, especially a big rat-like creature “Humphrey” in some language that’s gibberish, and every once in a while speaks on a radio kept by her bed. There is a brother-sister pair around the house to take care of stuff. They don’t speak a single word. They only hum some songs as they work around the property. Some snakes tucked away in unlocked drawers also share the space with them!

The most bizarre of all though, is the presence of about half a dozen naked children running around playing with a gigantic pig; they keep interrupting Lily’s path every time she chases a not-so-graceful Unicorn that seems to be a regular visitor around the property…..

Everything sounds very interesting for film lovers who love their films rife with surreal dreamscapes but frankly it doesn’t go much beyond this. The film surely holds our interest for most of its modest running time of about 95 minutes thanks to the splendid camerawork by the genius cinematographer Sven Nykvist and the rather awe-inspiring sound design. In a fabulous close-up of a crawling centipede, you can actually “hear” the little thing crawl on a surface! In another hilarious scene (repeated twice), amidst near dead silence, a pig sitting at a table, apparently guarding a large glass of milk kept at the center of the table, lets out a loud grunt every time Lily gulps milk from it!

These are just some of the really jaw-droppingly outlandish scenes in the film and there are a good number of them. There are some scenarios that are so absurd, they are comical and that’s a good thing, but after a while the same devices are recycled instead of bringing in some novelty factor. Once one gives in to the idea of absurdist fiction, then there are no limits to what one can do! But surrealism not being Malle’s forte, he leaves a little to be desired in his product. If a premise that automatically creates endless possibilities starts to get repetitive then there is a problem somewhere! Malle even tries to infuse some allegorical allusions to the Indian epic Ramayana (a particular episode involving “Jatayu”, the demi-god possessing the form of a vulture, who tries to save Sita from Raavana’s clutches!) but it doesn’t necessarily create a huge impact in the overall proceedings.

This is an English language film and Cathryn Harrison, portraying Lily clearly speaks in English. However Therese Giehse’s (Old Lady) speech sounds dubbed in English and her lip movement is ridiculously out of sync. It is unclear whether this was intentional or a technical glitch, a bad dubbing job or a bad lip-synching job! At times even Harrison’s dialog seems out of sync. Some of it sounds really dumb as well!

If one thinks from a certain angle, there certainly is an interpretation that gives the happenings on screen some meaning and a vaguely fitting explanation which could even reflect religious themes! I would not like to adhere to any theory or interpretation though. I think it is safe to assume that Louis Malle didn’t want to make a deeply thought-provoking or metaphorical film. He merely wanted to compile some dream-like visions into a motion picture laced with themes of civil war and futuristic dystopia and a teenager’s coming-of-age, and that’s fair enough. He wanted his film to be more a visual experience than a cerebral puzzle. Only Luis Bunuel or David Lynch could’ve done a much better job with the material at hand.

Score: 7/10.

Cavite (2005)

A couple of Filipino guys put together a brilliant idea and decided to make a film on it. Neill Dela Llana and Ian Gamazon, two ambitious young men had the concept very much in place.

The idea revolves around an American Filipino named Adam, returning to his homeland in the Philippines only to become the target of a mysterious caller on a cell phone who has kidnapped his sister and mother and threatens to kill them if Adam doesn’t comply with certain demands of his. He is not allowed to hang up either. The caller has a task for Adam and Adam is supposed to see it through to its conclusion, failing which the consequences would be dire! Adam finds himself constantly stalked as he is made to travel all around Cavite city and explore its dark underbelly, in order to run the caller’s “errand”. Everywhere he goes he feels he is being watched and a lot of people seem to be “in on it”, as at every step, Adam finds something which enables him to move forward in his task. What’s more…the caller seems to know his every move! The plot thickens as Adam finds there is more to it than meets the eye. Why has he been chosen by the caller? Could it be some extremists who have involved him in something much more dangerous than he can handle?

So there you have it. Sounds great on paper, right? But does every great idea transform into a well-executed motion picture? Sadly not, and “Cavite” is testimony to this fact.

“Cavite” partially works solely due to its interesting premise. It is this premise that somewhat manages to engage the viewer, not the execution; because the execution simply doesn’t have much to talk about. Shot entirely on handheld camera that gets irritating after a while with its constantly wobbly and brownish yellow cinematography, the film captures mostly the squalid parts of the city where there are squatter camps and garbage dumps and hungry, naked children! Now such visuals should normally move the viewer but blame it on the handling, it fails to resonate with the viewer or evoke any kind of emotion, barring a few scenes which speak volumes of the inherent hypocrisy of terrorists who scream “Jihad” at the drop of a hat! Certain props used to scare or disturb us clearly appear fake and that is another big failure on the filmmakers’ part. The film feels slightly long even for its considerably short 80 minutes length, thanks to a lazy screenplay which just doesn’t reflect the sense of urgency or anxiety that is very much essential for the subject at hand. There are hardly any tense moments and the apart from the filmmaker, the person largely to be blamed for this is the lead actor, Ian Gamazon!

This is the kind of story that has to depend on the protagonist’s able shoulders, because ultimately, it is his predicament that is supposed to evoke sympathy in his favour and thus engage the viewer. Sadly our hero proves to be the weakest link as he fails to bring out the helplessness or the vexation that any guy in his shoes would feel. If someone is holding your mother and sister hostage and wants you to carry out a task that could get you in trouble, you should be one big bundle of nerves! But Gamazon almost casually goes through everything, trying to force some emotions on his face once a while and swearing out loud when he is unable to. Alas, it amounts to hardly anything and this is the film’s biggest failure. The actor just fails to connect with the audiences! Then how are we supposed to care about his outcome anyway. The background score is also very uninspired and incomplete; perhaps some attention to a good score could’ve provided some leverage to the film.

Some suspense built in the final half hour of the film raises our expectations and one wishes the makers hadn’t been slothful with the conclusion at least, but the film pretty much ends with a whimper. Add to that some done to death clichéd ramblings about how Muslims are targeted everywhere, thus forcing them to build terrorist outfits for “Jihad” all around the world and one particularly cringe-worthy scene about Adam’s American girlfriend “not wanting to have a Muslim baby” further mar any bright prospects for the film in the audiences’ favour.

“Cavite” is a solid idea that just barely makes it in getting successfully transferred to a gripping motion picture. It has its moments but as an overall product, it just about manages to stay afloat. Watch only if you must….

(Trivia :-)…But here’s an interesting fact. In 2008, Indian director Raj Kumar Gupta made “Aamir”, a Bollywood film which rips off the premise and most of the screenplay of “Cavite”.  Only the action is shifted to streets of Mumbai city instead of Cavite! “Aamir” is a better made film, is considerably gripping and has a much better actor (Rajeev Khandelwal) playing the central actor. However, nothing can change the fact that it is shameless and unethical rip-off of “Cavite”. One only wishes Gupta had officially purchased the rights instead of blatantly copying, thinking that no one would notice. Sad..

Score: 6/10.

Simon of the Desert (1965)

It is typical of every religion to preach that self-sacrifice is the path to find God. That giving up all the "pleasures" of the world will purify man. Wonder where those teachings came from, but it is quite a common trait, no matter what religion. Embrace asceticism, rid yourself of the so-called "worldly pleasures" or "sins" and achieve your spiritual or religious goals! The ultimate path to salvation is here!

The Catholic teachings are no different, and Luis Bunuel has always been highly critical of organized religion. He has dedicated so many of his films as tools to launch razor sharp, scathing attacks on these beliefs or the Church in general. 

Loosely based on the real life story of the 5th century ascetic Saint Simeon Stylites, who spent 39 years atop a column ,"Simon of the Desert" is no exception. Picture a bearded monk, Simon (Claudio Brook), devoting his life to ascetic ways. He has already spent six years, six weeks and six days atop a pillar in the middle of the desert, praying for spiritual purification. He has gained a good amount of followers; mostly peasants, some priests and other village folk who believe that he has been blessed with special powers. They come to him for help or deliver some food from time to time. He is offered a brand new, taller pillar as a token of their faith and respect for his sacrifice. Simon continues his act of good faith, keeps delivering sermons and can even seemingly perform miracles.....

Sounds like a serious, religious, deeply meaningful, preachy biography of a Saint? Not in the Luis Bunuel universe! Trust Bunuel to turn something that sounds very deep and heavy into a darkly humorous, absurd mock-fest that is unrelenting and uncompromising in its ways so much so as to scandalize half the audiences who could be believers!

So this whole God-fearing stuff takes a dramatic turn as some of the priests and peasants start getting critical of Simon and think it is all in vain. Simon is taken to be an arrogant man by some, and a few others think he is faking it. Simon himself begins to deem his actions futile on several occasions. What's more...the Devil shows up too, and tries to "tempt" Simon in his many ways by appearing in the form of a beautiful woman (Silvia Pinal) in an attempt to seduce Simon out of his saintly ways! Will Simon yield to the temptation? 

Bunuel takes only about 45 minutes to drive his point across and does it with his masterful touch. Accompanied by Gabriel Figueroa's beautiful camerawork, Bunuel makes unpredictable transitions from realism to surrealism to hilarious absurdism all in the miniscule time frame that was available to him. Apparently Gustavo Alatriste, the producer could no longer fund the film for some reasons and that is how Bunuel was forced to abruptly end the film (with a bizarre ending that has been criticized in several write-ups, but do not be misled...it does have its place..and its own charm based on the interpretation), while in reality he wished to add more material to the film. Whatever the reasons, the end result is a highly original, savagely funny and one of the most eccentric works of cinema from the twisted mind of Luis Bunuel. 

Pay especially careful attention to certain scenes in which Simon mutters random religious ramblings on seeing some ordinary creatures like an insect (that has absolutely no idea of what is going on!) and later tries to do the same with an inanimate object but gives up! Or the scene in which Simon performs a miracle and gives a cripple a new pair of hands...and the eventual consequence of it! Or that brutally funny scene in which some of the priests don't seem to know the meaning of a particular Biblical reference. Every scene drips a lot of really clever writing....and there is no question that this is an exemplary work of genius from the great director. 

Bunuel's pick of actors add to the amazing experience with their superb performances, especially Claudio Brook, Silvia Pinal and the midget Jesus Fernandez.

"Simon of the Desert" is the kind of film that leaves you wanting more. Another 45 minutes of running time perhaps?

Check out this masterpiece...do not waste anymore time.

Score: 10/10.

Bug (2006)

Poor Michael Shannon! Imagine having to play the same role time and again and turning something as exciting as acting into a mundane routine. In William Friedkin’s colossal misfire of a psychological thriller, Shannon portrays yet another nutcase (who goes by the name of Peter Evans), this time a ‘delusional paranoid schizophrenic’…but a bigger one compared to his recent “Take Shelter”. But that isn’t the least of our worries. He is also a violent crackpot, a total madcap who inflicts cuts and wounds on himself!

What’s more..he has great convincing power, whereby he is capable of making a complete fool out of a seemingly sane but depressed Agnes (Ashley Judd). Friedkin takes us audiences to be complete dimwits too, what with Agnes’ lesbian friend R.C. who ‘just met’ Peter introduces him to Agnes and brings him to Agnes’ motel room for a night of alcohol and cocaine binging! Now it is just one meeting but after some sob stories and a surprisingly quick bonding later, Agnes and Peter end up having sex! One unconvincing situation after the other and we get to the focal point…..the bug infestation! Peter suddenly starts finding bugs everywhere…on him, around him, and keeps slapping himself once in a while in an attempt to kill these bugs….Agnes can’t see anything, but Peter, the great convincer that he is manages to convince Agnes that the room is infested with bugs.

And to add to it there’s a bizarre conspiracy theory of the US army using Peter as a guinea pig to conduct some ghastly experiments which include planting bug egg-sacs in his tooth! By the time the senile old Friedkin starts bombarding all this nonsense on his audiences, we are already awaiting the end of the film, simply because we are just not interested in the madness anymore. And Shannon, being Shannon and a pro at acting like a psychotic weirdo, has a ball doing it, with extra gusto this time...convulsing, swatting invisible bugs all over his body, inflicting injuries, twitching his face, slapping it once in a while, hollering at the top of his voice concocting one theory after another as to what actually is happening with him and Agnes! Judd joins in, with an initially stellar performance which unfortunately takes a free fall in the second half of the film, in which both Judd and Shannon seem to be vying for the trophy of the most ridiculously over-the-top and unintentionally comic performance of all time! A nervous wreck that she becomes, she also mouths off loud lines in resonance with Shannon’s insane ramblings about implanted computer chips and manufactured zombies, human guinea pigs and androids posing as humans ……..you feel like reaching for the stop button already! At one point of time I literally felt like getting a bug spray and dousing Shannon and Judd in it to free them from their misery!

Add to that Friedkin’s non-serious attitude thanks to which he throws so much of logic right out the window….I mean, it’s a Motel room that’s been turned into a tin foil house decorated with bug zappers! Where are the Motel authorities for Christ sakes?! Agnes is supposed to be great friends with R.C. but she trusts Peter over R.C. and slaps R.C. out of her room! A lot more incredibly brainless situations abound. Throw in some couple more stupid scenes and a subplot revolving around Agnes’ estranged abusive ex-hubby Jerry (Harry Connick Jr) who acts like a tough guy wife-beater in one scene, yet foolishly gets his hand stapled in the other….. and voila! You got the perfect schlock in the name of a “disturbing psychological horror”.

But that’s not all! Friedkin gets even more ambitious…and tries to do a Hitchcock here, and needless to say, fails miserably in creating any sort of locked-in, claustrophobic atmosphere, which just comes across as a cheap imitation. Shyamalan did a much better job in “Signs”. There are but a few tense moments which are far between and can’t do much to save the film as a whole. There’s also Judd’s fine acting until she turns into a hysterical comedian  joining in the cacophony of Shannon’s jitter-‘bug’ maniacal clown. Both of them devise a ‘great’ plan to save the world from the bug infection, one that’s supposed to affect us deeply; but we find that we have almost given up by the third act…..

Score: 3/10.

Cruising (1980)

William Friedkin, the man behind such bad-ass gritty cop thrillers like “The French Connection” and “To Live and Die in L.A.” taps his penchant for police detective films with this highly controversial, yet half-baked Al Pacino starrer based on the novel of the same name. The title of the film is a play on words, referring to ‘cruising’ as in patrolling and also to its sexual connotation.

The film follows this strange case of floating body parts found in the Hudson river in New York city. The cops don’t know what to make of it but are somehow linking the act to that of a notorious serial killer who has off late been brutally murdering gay men after picking them up from shady gay S&M and leather nightclubs with names like ‘Ramrod’, ‘Cock Pit’ ( you get the drift..) somewhere in Greenwich village. He lurks in the shadows, wears aviator glasses, a leather peaked cap, a leather jacket. He cruises and picks up unsuspecting homosexual pleasure-seekers, takes them to some seedy motel or isolated areas, sings his signature song…”who’s here? I’m here..you’re here” and proceeds to stab them repeatedly, in the process ensuring they don’t survive!

Captain Edelson (a limping Paul Sorvino) sends Officer Steve Burns (a curly-haired Al Pacino!) on a dangerous mission as an undercover agent to try and possibly attract the killer owing to being in the same age group and physical features somewhat matching those of the victims. An initially reluctant Burns accepts the job and sets out on his task. He rents an apartment in the locality, manages to make friends with the friendly next door neighbour Ted (Don Scardino) and also manages to rub Ted's gay partner Gregory (an early James Remar!) the wrong way! The investigation commences, but things aren’t that simple for Burns, as he sees himself getting sucked into the dark underbelly of this deviant segment of the gay world, replete with seedy hangouts where sweaty, sloshed gay men indulge in kinkiest of sexual activities whilst being dressed in leather and jockstraps! Burns is clearly uncomfortable, as he attempts to fit in, trying to avoid suspicion on account of having to turn down advances!

Who is this killer? Why is he targeting gay men? Is he a crazed homophobic, who despises the gay folk and is ought to teach them a lesson by wiping out as many as he can? Several leads are followed, several suspects are tailed, but is Burns able to find his man?

Right from its inception, “Cruising” was mired in controversy. There was widespread protest from the gay community as they tried to disrupt the filming following claims that the film represented the homosexual world in a bad light. Friedkin had to add a disclaimer to the original release of the film stating that it is set in a small segment of that world which is not meant to be a representative of the whole. There were also claims that the film is “anti-gay”. Apart from showing almost all of the gay men as fetishist slobs, part of the police force is depicted as homophobic, in the way they unleash their brutality and humiliate gay suspects to force a confession out. While the degrading representation of gay people could be one of the reasons why the film was lambasted by critics on its original release, the film suffers from other technical problems too. First, there is a lot of focus on depicting too much of the sleazy side of gay nightclubs and very little time developing the characters at hand. Apparently 40 minutes of footage was taken out from the film to bring down the certification from  an X rating to an R rating and it is just as well! One very important character who is also a suspect is just suddenly introduced; a couple of scenes thrown in here and there are supposed to do the character building and there’s a possible motivation depicted in a fleeting, haphazard manner, so much so that it simply fails to register and comes across as a rather dabbler job. The police procedural aspect of the film isn't very appealing either. Moreover, although there are cops exhibiting gray shades, most aren’t developed well and are quite forgettable, unlike in Friedkin’s aforementioned other films in which all the characters including the supporting ones have a lasting effect.

Then there is the problematic casting of Al Pacino. Apart from giving him that horrendous curly-haired look, the major problem is the failure on Pacino’s part to bring any kind of androgynous quality to his character, which, Friedkin had a problem with as well. Even if he is a straight undercover cop pretending to be gay, he has to do a darned good job of pretending, otherwise what’s the point! That would’ve added a versatile touch to his acting which is sorely missing. Apparently Richard Gere was Friedkin’s first choice for the role because he thought Gere would’ve delivered that kind of attribute to the character. Pacino’s Burns, though, walks, talks and acts like a tough guy in most of the scenes, thus, clearly standing out from the rest of the crowd. At one point, he smokes like Michael Corleone and in another scene he assumes the swagger of Tony Montana! It is surprising, then, that the others don’t recognize him to be an outsider. Maybe the curly hair was there just so that he could ‘look’ different. If only he acted differently as well. So, indeed, Pacino does well …but in the end he doesn’t go much beyond his usual self! Only in a couple of scenes we see the angst…the troubled, worried look on his face conveying that he is clearly not enjoying his job, as he confesses to Captain Edelson (“…not that I am afraid…it’s just that .. things are happening to me..”) and to his girlfriend Nance (Karen Allen, who, by the way, doesn’t serve any purpose in the film except for being in bed with Pacino). There is only one scene that makes it remotely clear that Burns doesn’t “want” Nance anymore. We don’t really know that until she says it out loud.

What does work on some level is Burns’ reaction to her claim! He says something like “my job..it is affecting me”. He is not supposed to tell her what his undercover operation is. So whether it is making him question his sexual preferences or whether it is taking a toll on his health is unclear. In one love-making scene between the two, midway in the film, Burns appears either disturbed or disgusted. This is where the complex trait of his character starts creeping in. It serves as a solid device for a film of this sort. There are a lot of clever scenes where Burns comes across as a rather vague individual…you don’t really know what he stands for! The equivocal nature of Pacino’s character is then the best part of this film.

There are still more positives, of course….”Cruising” isn’t a ‘bad’ film anyhow! There is also a very unsettling atmosphere in the film. New York by night appears at its grittiest best, reminding of Scorsese’s classics “Taxi Driver” and “Mean Streets”. A fair amount of suspense is built up to the climax and the final fifteen minutes including the deliciously ambiguous twist make the film stand apart from conventional cop thrillers. It is good to see Joe Spinell (Willi Cicci of ‘The Godfather’) in the role of a crooked cop, sharing screen space with his The Godfather co-actor, Pacino (He shared a scene with De Niro in “Taxi Driver”!). Some scenes in the nightclub and the murder scenes are genuinely disturbing and well directed.

“Cruising” is a film that had a lot of potential owing to a solid premise. But it only succeeds partially. If only it wasn’t such a half-hearted effort on the part of Friedkin, he would’ve had another fine Cop thriller feather in his cap to stand tall with his best films of the genre. Alas…

Score: 7/10.

Mr. Nobody (2009)

OVERVIEW:

A drop of rain falls on a piece of paper and smudges the phone number (belonging to a girl named Anna) written on it. The number gets erased and so does any trace of Anna. The narrator of the story, Nemo Nobody, aged 118 explains to the journalist interviewing him, “Do you wanna know why I lost Anna? Because 2 months earlier, an unemployed Brazilian boiled an egg”!

Confounding? Not half as what this extremely cerebral film has to offer! Jaco Van Dormael, the Belgian filmmaker who didn’t make too many films in his career had earlier astonished us with his excellent “Toto Le Heros” (1991) (http://gokhaleaditya.blogspot.in/2011/11/toto-le-heros.html) about an old man recalling his tragic childhood and surviving with the sole goal of vengeance for his loss and often confusing reality with fantasy. “Mr. Nobody” provides for a heady cocktail of this earlier Dormael film and some other films, particularly “Donnie Darko”, “The Fountain” and “The Butterfly Effect”. Only “The Butterfly Effect” is more like an entertaining popcorn fantasy that doesn’t go deep into the Science of it, unlike “Donnie Darko”. “Mr. Nobody” is akin to “Donnie Darko”, but not plot-wise. Like “Donnie Darko”, it is one of those rare films that is a work of fiction built around existing scientific principles of Physics and Physical Cosmology.

PLOT:

The year is 2092. It is the age of ‘quasi-immortality’. Mortality is a thing of the past. So is sex! The 118 years old Nemo Nobody (Jared Leto, brilliant, but a tad hammy) is the last mortal on earth. He appears to be confused…..keeps telling a shrink with a painted face that he is 34! Later, tells a journalist (Daniel Mays) that he is “Mr. Nobody” and that he “doesn’t exist”! Upon probing by the journalist, Mr. Nobody starts narrating a strange tale of his supposed past right from his childhood (age 9) through his teen years (age 15) to his adulthood (age 34). But the story isn’t straightforward as it should be….there appear to be multiple threads; multiple lives, multiple realities…each with its own love interest for Nemo!

There’s one thread in which Nemo grows up with his mother who marries a man, whose daughter Anna becomes the object of Nemo’s affection. Then there is another in which Nemo grows up with his crippled father and becomes romantically involved with Elise, a girl who also has emotional problems! And then there is the third thread in which Nemo marries Jean, merely out of a whim! These stories branch out into sub-stories, involving one outlandish adventure on the Planet Mars where Nemo travels to scatter his wife’s ashes!! Or that freaky universe which appears to be dominated by argyle patterns and Nemo is guided by signs all around him! The journalist is confused, of course; doesn’t know what to believe! Yet Nemo jokes….”(in those days) Most of the time, nothing happened. Like a French movie”!!

So what really happened with Nemo? Did he live all those pasts? Are any of those stories real, or figments of his imagination? The fact as we know it, is that all time is irreversible. It moves in one direction. But does it really? Does Nemo have the power to alter the course of time…?

ANALYSIS/REVIEW:

A LOT of questions pop up while watching this film which is almost impossible to grasp in the first sitting. While Dormael drops plenty of clues in the form of dialog and explanations of various scientific theories in order to enable us to understand what he is getting at, it is still quite a task to put together this difficult film! We can gather some hints in the first viewing, but a second viewing can shed some more light on certain things we may easily miss in the first viewing! The 34 year old Nemo (in one of his many pasts!) is a scientist and an anchor for a TV show and is seen explaining  to an audience, the principles of Entropy, The arrow of time, The Butterfly Effect, the Innate fear, The Big Bang, The Big Crunch and a lot of other theories that the film’s plot is based upon! We are supposed to infer our own interpretation of the film by tying these theories to whatever happens in Nemo’s life! This device reminds one of “Donnie Darko” (The Director’s Cut) where some intertiles from a text are interspersed in the narrative to hint at what exactly was happening in the film! There are at least a couple of mentions of The Butterfly Effect (the theory, not the film!) in “Chaos Theory” which is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions; where a small change at one place in a nonlinear system can result in large differences to a later state (Source: Wikipedia). To further stress on this effect, there is also an example given in the form of an incident in one of Nemo’s pasts….the aforementioned incident which appears in the first line of this review!

But this film isn’t really about time travel and altering the past seeking a better future. On a broad level, I think it is about choice and NOT making it! When faced with a choice, as long as you “don’t choose”, there are infinite possibilities, infinite universes which have their own ends…the theories of Big Bang and Big Crunch are transported to a personal and emotional level in a unique fictional narrative that is unparalleled, the similarities with “Donnie Darko” and “The Butterfly Effect” notwithstanding! A Chess move is quoted to give an example, the ‘Zugzwang’: “The only viable move…is NOT to move”! The film also follows a tree-structure with ‘branched’ narratives representing the multiple threads, further branching out into sub-branches of multiple choices (or lack thereof…of making any!).

But ultimately amidst all the scientific mumbo-jumbo, this film has a heart….and literally so, as it explores the protagonist’s emotional ups and downs…the trauma of the separation of the parents, having to “choose” who to live with; the teenage romance(s), the heartbreaks, the desire for a good family life, kids, the works; these emotions come into play across narratives too. It is the emotional thread that binds all the branches together, and the manifestation of this is seen in some scenes in which Nemo appears to have memories of another reality in his “current reality”! So what is it exactly? Does Jaco Van Dormael even know what he has filmed? He obviously does. It is not all random as it seems, that is certain. But is there a single thread that connects the dots neatly and gives us a comprehensible structure? Or is Van Dormael only interested in playing tricks? For as you dig deeper, you find out there is not just one thread that connects the dots! There are still more! Just like the branched structure of the narrative itself!

The complex theme is only complemented by Jaco Van Dormael’s penchant for quality filmmaking. His varying use of colour as it reflects the mood in each of the narratives of the “lives” of Nemo is especially commendable. And so is the beautiful music score, the choice and placement of songs in the key scenes in the narrative which give the film its distinct mood. The bizarre, dream-like imagery with the accompanying sound design is a treat for lovers of surrealism and there is a lot for film buffs who are suckers for teenage romance too! There is very little room for character development, thanks to a narrative that keeps shifting between timelines and universes and characters, but that is no reason to complain. The ensemble cast, including Jared Leto, Toby Regbo, Diane Kruger, Juno Temple, Sarah Polley, Daniel Mays, Rhys Ifans and Natasha Little all do their jobs well, especially Leto who has a mighty challenging task of playing several roles (well…almost!). He goes all out, yet slightly hams as the old, decrepit Nemo in some scenes. One really wishes there was more of Sarah Polley and Diane Kruger. Sadly, both get very little screen time, although Polley nails it with her 'Borderline personality disorder' performance. Juno Temple and Toby Regbo as the teenaged Anna and Nemo respectively make their doomed lovers angle of the story more watchable.

CONCLUSION:

“Mr. Nobody” is a film that will not go down well with most people. It is a kind of film that is at a very big risk of being written off as “pretentious” and “self-indulgent”! Others may care less just because it is a little too heavy on the head! But it is also a film that is intellectually stimulating. It makes for some great food for thought and analyzing the story and then re-watching it makes it a more exciting experience. Additionally, it is a mind-expanding film that will make you aware of so many things around you if you are averse to reading about such material otherwise. It will make you rethink the ideas of space, time and reality as you know it!

My advice? Take up the challenge. Watch “Mr. Nobody”!

Score: 9/10.

Take Shelter (2011)

“Take Shelter” is a heart-rending story of Curtis LaForche (Michael Shannon), who resides with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and his little daughter Hannah (Tova Stewart) who happens to be deaf. It all begins when Curtis has visions of a storm coming…in the form of dark clouds, whirlwinds, thunderous noises, and a strange looking rain, the water from which resembles motor oil! Some of these visions are extreme and apocalyptic, laden with immense paranoia. He sees himself and his family being stalked and attacked by faceless people….and that is when he realizes that something is amiss with his head. He has these nightmares almost every night, yet withholds them from his family, for he is concerned about them; doesn’t want them to feel insecure in the company of a mentally ill man of the house! More so, because apparently there has been a history of paranoid schizophrenia in the family; his mother had it too……! He just goes on with life, looks up books about mental illnesses and starts meeting a counselor at the free clinic.

But are these visions actually premonitions of a deadly storm to come (he describes them as “a feeling”, not “just dreams”)? Or are they merely hallucinations? Regardless, Curtis takes up the task of protecting his family…by building a fully equipped storm shelter underground…..

"Take Shelter” reminded me of Andrei Tarkovsky’s final masterpiece, “The Sacrifice” which also features the central character living in an isolated house with his wife, daughter and a son (who is mute!), and decides to carry out an ultimate sacrifice to save his family from the impending apocalypse by a nuclear holocaust. Only the similarities end right there and this film is in no way a rip-off.

“Take Shelter”, on the outside, may appear like yet another psychological drama about a man suffering from Schizophrenia with all the essential clichés that usually infest such films. Writer-director Jeff Nichols proves this assumption wrong, however, and takes a whole new approach in which the protagonist senses early on that he has a problem and tries his level best to seem normal, so as to not affect his family that he loves so much and ensures that they don’t feel unprotected. The idea of delusions of doom clubbed with this fresh new twist work wonders for a tired premise of a schizophrenic protagonist and thus render “Take Shelter” one of the best films dealing with the subject. Nichols handles the story with finesse and takes utmost care to not let it slip into the triteness of melodrama. There is drama alright, but nothing that would seem overdone. Every little bit is realistically done; every scene is carefully thought out, every little character reaction is meticulously written, except for maybe a single scene. 

Some of Curtis’ visions are frightening and Nichols sure knows how to the scare the hell out his audiences! This film could serve to be a perfect blend of the ‘psychological thriller’ and ‘drama’ genres and has plenty of moments to please film lovers of both categories. On the technical front, the film excels in most departments, particularly cinematography, sound design and even special visual effects. Just behold those excellent scenes of the storm that could give any big budget disaster movie a run for their money. Or that chilling moment when Curtis and Hannah find themselves in the midst of some birds gone berserk in a frighteningly surreal sequence! 

The acting is marvelous all along…Jessica Chastain is brilliant as the caring wife distressed upon not knowing what exactly is going through her husband’s head, yet trying to manage the family and making some modest money by selling in a local flea market. The little daughter Hannah is superb as the deaf daughter. Even though she has precious little to do, she has a presence that is endearing! Robert Longstreet and Shea Whigham make an impression in their small acting parts in the roles of Jim and Dewart respectively. Which brings us to the lead performer, Michael Shannon. Now, his performance is definitely solid. Shannon practically lives the character and makes it his own. The realization, the helplessness, the anxiety, the sadness…all pulled off masterfully. Only I didn’t see anything significantly different from what I saw in “Revolutionary Road” in which he played a similar character. Only Curtis of “Take Shelter” is a little more compassionate than John Givings of “Revolutionary Road”, but essentially he seemed like the extension of the same person! Now this leads Shannon into an even greater danger of being type-casted, because even if he attempts something different, we are bound to see a mentally unstable character, and that’s not a good thing. One can just hope Shannon is more careful while choosing his next big role if he wants to show if he is versatile enough.

Jeff Nichols has crafted a real fine film. This is only his second venture and he has already mastered the art. Some may complain that the film slows down at intervals, but it is the kind of screenplay that is best savored at a steady pace rather than in a hurried manner. In spite of the slow place, the film is engaging enough and never lets up, thanks to the fine acting and plenty of great moments to fill the running time of 120 minutes.

This is yet another example of a great film that was sadly overlooked by the Academy. I can just hope that this review and many others reach out to film lovers all around and they take notice of “Take Shelter”.

Score: 9/10.