The Others (2001)

Title: The Others (2001)

Writer/Director: Alejandro Amenabar

Cast: Nicole Kidman

Review:

Famed movie reviewer Roger Ebert said that with The Others, director Alejandro Amenabar was “a little too confident that style can substitute for substance”. This is a comment that I completely disagree with because The Others is a film that is all about substance. It’s not just a great ghost story (which it is) it is a whole lot more than that. It has a depth, and a bravura that shines through in only the best of horror movies. Yes it is an extremely stylish and atmospheric film, but the film also has something more in mind than spooking you. And that’s exactly what I love about it, how it manages to both be relevant with its themes, and be a great ghost story at the same time.

Ebert’s take on the film is that it was boring. That it took its damn good time in building up suspense, but eventually took too long to deliver the thrills. Again, a comment I disagree with entirely. Not all haunted house movies have to be as flashy and special effects driven as say, the Poltergeist Trilogy. Some of the most effective ghost films are those that are subtle slow burners, taking their good time to crawl under your skin. Films like The Changeling (1980) and Ghost Story (1981) are this way. Their emphasis is on atmosphere, convincing performances and telling a spooky story. Not wowing you with visual effects.

And that is exactly the kind of film that The Others is. Alejandro Amenabar, the Spanish director behind such excellent films as Thesis (1996), The Sea Inside (2004) and Open Your Eyes (1997) orchestrates a film that is purposely quiet and filled with whispers. A film filled with darkness and shadows, a potent combination for a horror film. As Nichole Kidman’s character says at one point “we cherish our silence in this household” and to be honest I think that suits this film perfectly well. In a horror film, silence and shadows are an essential tool with which to spook your audience with because the imagination can fill the gap with something usually more terrible then what we actually see or hear. In its most tense moments, silence is king on this film, until an otherworldly thud or boom squeezes in, then you are scared and the movie has you by the throat! Characters speak in whispers, almost as if telling us a secret. This was Amenabar’s way of setting the dark fairytale mood the film has to it. The Others feels as if someone was reading us a ghost story in the middle of the night. The characters talk in low whispers, as if purposely begging us to pay closer attention to what they are saying. I love that about this movie. From its very first moments the film sets its mood by asking us in a whisper: “Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then I’ll begin…”

Atmosphere reigns supreme on The Others!

But apart from these stylish choices, the film has a depth to it. And if you haven’t seen the movie, then maybe you wont want to read the following paragraphs, because I’m going to go in depth as to what the movie was about. What works great for The Others is the fact that the films themes fit perfectly within the context of a ghost story. You see, at its core, the film is is about beliefs. What do we believe will happen after we die? Do we turn into ghosts? Do we go to heaven or to hell? Or do we simply die and rot away? What exactly are we taught about these things when we are children? And are any of these teachings true? Should we believe what ever belief system is shoved down our throats when we are still children? The movie presents us with Grace (Nichole Kidman) a lonely mother who lives in this huge dark mansion with her two children who suffer from a skin decease called Xeroderma Pigmentosum, a decease that makes them sensitive to sunlight. The children need to live in darkness all the time, all the doors in the household must remain close and the curtains have to be close, to prevent the children from being harmed by the sunlight. While in that darkness and in the midst of the candlelight the mother teaches the kids about the bible, about faith, and about what they should believe in.

"So then this guy put all the animals in the world in one boat..."

That was a key sequence for me. The mother and her children, in the darkness, reading from the bible. I’ll get to the symbolisms on that one later. In one scene, The Mother who’s name is ‘Grace’ asks her children to imagine what she is teaching them, to imagine there is a big bearded guy up there in heaven watching over their every move. This is one of the many tools that religion requires of its parishioners: imagination. Since you cant visually confirm anything that they are telling you, they ask you to imagine all these fantastical things and make them true in your mind. Yet interestingly enough, the children in this film don’t believe everything they are taught. At one point they say “I don’t believe the holy ghost is a dove. Doves are anything but holy, they poo on the windows” They also say they don’t believe that Noah put all the animals in the world in one boat. Smart kids! I like how the film presents us with the idea of these two children using their reasoning skills to realize that some of these stories in the bible are simply too far fetched to be believed, too fantastic to be real. These kids represents the new generation, questioning the old beliefs, the old myths, the old beliefs. It’s almost as if they were saying “do you actually expect us to believe these things?”

The film compares Christian beliefs with darkness and ignorance. The children are being over protected by her religious mother, who is afraid to let them go out into the world, afraid that they might be exposed to the light. The light in this film represens illumination, enlightenment, exposure to the truth. In the film, Grace keeps her children deliberately in the dark because she believes that “the light will kill them!” The film presents us with the idea that some people believe exposing the real truth about belief systems on society can be a dangerous thing. The idea that if you were to suddenly tell Christians that Christianity is just one big giant fairy tale, that humanity wont be able to take it. That this might generate one big gigantic chaos in society. That the light might kill them, as the movie puts it.

The ultimate truth in the film is accepting that we die. The ghosts in the film don’t want to accept that they are dead. In one awesome scene the ghosts shout “we are not dead! We are not dead!” The ultimate illumination in our lives, the light that can be too harsh to look at, is accepting our own mortality. Maybe we don’t turn to ghosts when we die. Maybe there is no heaven and no hell, when we die, who knows what happens. Is the idea that we simply die too horrible to accept that we have to make up fairy tales to make us feel better? Can we not simply accept that we have to make the best of this life because this life is probably the only one we are going to get? Shall we live in the darkness of ignorance and misinformation, or shall we live in the light and illumination of truth, however harshly that light might shine at first? Won’t our consciousness adjust to the light of truth?

In the film, finally, the light shines, and the kids don’t die. Their bodies had recuperated from their decease and they took in the light and accepted the fact that they were dead. Mrs. Mills, the cleaning lady that moves in to assist Grace and her children, says to the children “your mother only believes in what she was taught. But don’t worry…sooner or later, she will see them (the humans). And everything will be alright”. On this scene the film is telling us how Grace is stuck in an old fashion way of thinking that doesn’t subscribe to the truth. A very symbolic visual queue is that Grace is living in a constant fog not knowing where she is or where she is going. In one scene she walks out of her house and gets lost in the myst. The myst symbolizing her confusion and her shortness of vision. She only sees things her way, and doesn’t see further then that, beyond the fog and into the light. Mrs. Mills tells the children: “You’ll see. There are going to be some big surprises. There are going to be…changes” I loved that line of dialog because I personally, I truly hope that societies dependency on religion will one day disappear. That one day we will live our lives knowing that we are the makers of our own destiny, that its up to us to make things right. That we have to make the most of this life, because when we die, that’s probably as far as we will go. Ultimately, I see why some people choose to believe in the bible and its ideas of the afterlife. After all, the idea of an afterlife is a comforting one. But is it the truth? How can we know it is?

Grace's light shines a little too dimly

The Others is the kind of horror film that speaks up against religion and uses the context of a ghost story to do it. It wants to tell its audience, open those curtains and let the light in! Illuminate your way of seeing things. Don’t be afraid to confront the truth! And I applaud it for that. It seems that director Alejandro Amenabar’s mission in life is to scream this to the world, his latest film Agora (2010) plays once again with the themes of religion vs. science. It presents us with a world where the new religion (Christianity) is rising up and going up against the old Greek Myths. A nation in clash over beliefs. This world is filled with many unanswerable questions. My take on it is that life is one gigantic mystery, and we have to accept that that’s what makes the whole thing interesting. Like one big mystery film, where we never really know the answer until the very end.

Amenabar discusses a scene with actress Fionnula Flanagan who pays Mrs. Mills 

So as you can see, Mr. Ebert was freaking wrong! The Others not only offers up an excellent ghost story with palpable atmosphere and mood, drenched in darkness and whispers, with things that go bump in the night, it also has something important to say. The way I see it, we all end up believing what makes us happy, and if believing in Jesus and heaven works for you, great! More power to you my friends. Just don’t judge ‘The Others’ that think differently. As long as we don’t hate or kill each other for thinking differently, there is room in this world for diversity of thought and evolution.

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

 

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Title: Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise

Review:

Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is a film that explores what happens when a relationship becomes stale. This is something that can happen when two people have been living together for so long, that the spark that was once there when the couple first met is gone. There is none of that thrill and excitement that the couple might have felt in the early stages of their relationship. So they start considering infidelity, they start looking outside of their established relationship for that thrill. The question that the film asks is: are you sure you want to do that?

On this film we meet a couple who has reached success in their lives. They each excel on their respective fields, they have a daughter, and they have an enviable apartment. This wealthy couple has wealthy friends who invite them to expensive parties where the rich and powerful mingle. But, even though this couple has everything they could hope for in terms of material things, their relationship is in shambles. The routine and hassle of their daily lives has destroyed a once fruitful relationship. So much so, that they both toy with the idea of betraying their matrimonial vows. They even have an extensive conversation about it while smoking a joint. Nicole Kidman’s character goes into this whole monologue about how she was mentally unfaithful to him years ago, how she desired this other man. One day Tom Cruise’s character meets up with an old college buddy of his who ends up giving him the address to a secret gathering. He doesn’t give him details as to what goes on in these gatherings, but Cruise is intrigued. What does this exclusive group of people get together to do? And should he even be considering going there?

On this film Kubrick was exploring various themes. One of them is how the rich and powerful can numb themselves with every possible sensation and experience money can buy. And then they get bored. They have it all, they’ve seen it all, so now they feel compelled to look for new thrilling experiences to entertain themselves with. This is a theme I saw played out in an old Hammer film called Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970), a film in which four rich dudes are so bored with everything that they accept the invitation to participate in a black mass to resurrect Dracula himself. Of course, they end up regretting they ever accepted the invitation and end up paying dearly for their lust for excitement. On Eyes Wide Shut, the rich protagonist is looking for new ways to entertain himself as well. He is bored with his married life, so he is looking for outside entertainment; something new to liven up his sexual life. But instead of participating in Black Mass like the aforementioned Hammer film, Cruise decides to join a group of rich people who like to participate in all sorts of sexual escapades. By sexual escapades I mean of course orgies.

The group behaves in many ways like a religious cult. Their religion being sex. They gather in a secret temple, they perform ritualistic dances and ceremonies before indulging in their sexual acts. They wear ceremonial garments which include these awesome looking masks. By the way, whoever was responsible for making the beautiful masks in this movie deserve some sort of mask making award. But I don’t think Kubrick was necessarily trying to comment on the nature of cults and religion. He was talking more about sexual behavior. The question the film asks is, are you sure you want to venture out into the world in search of a more intense sexual experience? On the one hand, Cruise tries to have sex with a prostitute, in search of this new excitement, but the film shows us that that kind of search can lead to all sorts of dangers, of the venereal kind. So in this way Kubrick is saying: you go out looking for sex in the streets you might catch something you don’t want to catch! It is a dangerous game to play, with way too many risks.

The other comment Kubrick makes is on how much aberrant sexual behavior there is in the world. There is one moment in the film in which Cruise is walking down the street, he walks past a bunch of porn shops, a porn theater, and he walks by a group of teenagers which hurl sexual insults at him. This scene encapsulates how sexually charged the world is, in a way expressing what Freud said about humans being entirely sexual creatures. Sexual desires can lead one down dark paths, if you don’t think so then you should watch the first ten minutes of a film called Irreversible (2002), where a character walks into a night club for people who enjoy the truly twisted and downright sick part of sex. There are a couple of characters in Eyes Wide Shut that represent this type of behavior; Kubrick is obviously warning us with this film about the dangers of choosing to go down these perverted paths.

Visually and technically speaking, Eyes Wide Shut is flawless, as is the norm with a Kubrick film. But I noticed one thing was different with this movie: the colors. Kubrick is known for the use of whites and blacks in his films; white being the color that dominates most of his works. But on Eyes Wide Shut things were a little different. Warm colors dominate the films palette. I thought this was very adequate because of the films sexual themes. Another interesting aspect of this film is how it contrasts these warm colors (mostly different shades of yellow) with blue, a color that can be considered cold. Was Kubrick contrasting the warmth of sex with the coldness in the main couple’s relationship? I thought so.

I’m going to wrap this review up now, sorry if I stretched things out too long, but when a film is this good, reviews just flow out of me and I can’t seem to stop typing! Eyes Wide Shut was made in 1999, yet the film felt timeless. In contrast with other Kubrick films which obviously reflect the times they were made in, when I re-watched Eyes Wide Shut the film felt like it could have been made yesterday. Another interesting aspect of Eyes Wide Shut is that it was made while Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were still married, which of course makes the intimacy between the characters that much more legitimate and genuine. But I’ll warn you, if you are expecting an explicit or graphic sex scene between Kidman and Cruise’s characters, you will be disappointed. This never really comes to be. Strange how a couple of years after this film -a film which tries to reinforce the importance of strengthening the marital bond- Cruise and Kidman split up. Maybe the themes they explored while making this film touched them in a deeper way than they expected? That being said, I think a great job was done by all. Kidman and Cruise gave stand out performances, and Kubrick delivered his last great film.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Nine (2009)

Title: Nine (2009)

Director: Rob Marshall

Cast: Daniel Day Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Fergi, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson, Sophia Loren

Review:

Legendary Italian director Federico Fellini’s 8 ½ is a film about filmmaking. It tells the story of a film director who is struggling with the fact that he has producers breathing down his neck, waiting for him to produce his next film. Problem is that Guido never really knows exactly what film he wants to make. He is struggling between the idea of making the film he wants to make, and making a commercial film that will make money for the producers. In between all the madness that accompanies making a film, Guido Anselmi also struggles with all the women in his life. His wife, his mistresses, his lovers and the complications that accompany them. The film was Fellini’s semi-autobiographical explorations of what it meant be him. Juggling so many responsibilities at the same time, juggling so many women. In the end, Fellini comes to the conclusion that life is just one big circus and that we all form part of it.

The one, the only 8 1/2

NINE, the new film by the director of Chicago and Memoirs of a Geisha (Rob Marshall) is essentially a remake of Fellini’s 8 ½. It’s also a film about a director struggling to make his next picture. The directors name is also Guido, only this time his name is Guido Contini, not Anselmi. And basically, NINE goes step by step through the most important moments seen in 8 ½, but in the form of a musical. NINE is also based on a broadway show of the same name. So NINE is really a film based on a broadway show that was based on a film. And same as it happens with a copy of a copy of a copy…NINE feels a bit lifeless and distant when compared to what is considered by many to be Fellini’s best film.

What this film does basically is, aside from adding a musical number for each female we encounter in Guido’s life, is update the ideas that Fellini presented us with in his films. You see, Fellini was a very macho kind of guy, he was the center of the universe in his films. The character of Guido Anselmi in 8 ½ has always been seen as a mirror image of who Fellini was, the character represents his creator. Guido Anselmi (as played by one Marcello Mastroiani) has always been seen by more then one movie buff as Fellini’s alter ego. The obvious reference to himself is of course that the films main character is a film director. In 8 ½, Guido is famous, everybody needs his opinion, everybody needs to interview him, talk to him, and everything needs his approval first. Same with his women, they all desire him, they all want to be with him, and they all need him. And, Fellini had no problem with depicting Guido as a womanizer, who worships women but hates the responsability of marriage. Fellini always chose these beautiful sexy bombshells for his films. In the films, Guido loves women for their femininity, their natural beauty, their sensuality.

All through out the course of his career, Fellini worshiped the beauty in women. He always chose the most beautiful women on the planet for his films! This is to be expected since directors give great importance to the way things look. Beauty, and the aesthetic side of things are important to a film director. But while Fellini worshipped beautiful women, in Fellini’s films men are unfaithful, they despise married life or commitment, they love to have fun, and not be tied down. Fellini's male characters never want to live married life, they see it as boring. Fellini’s men were always free spirits with no emotional attachments. Free to go and come as they please. This is a theme that can also be seen in Fellini's I Vitelloni for example, where young guys are struggling with the idea of getting married and becoming parents. What NINE does is, it says, “this is wrong, women cannot be treated as sex objects, they need to be loved for who they are, not for their physical beauty alone”. This can be seen in more then one scene on NINE, but the one I noticed most prominently was the one with Nicole Kidman, playing the role that Anita Eckberg played in La Dolce Vita. That of Sylvia, the bombshell actress who Guido whisks away to that magical iconic fountain in Italy. In La Dolce Vita, that scene has Guido falling deftly in love with Sylvia, wooing her, saying beautiful things about her, making her feel like a goddess because she is simply so stunningly beautiful. On this film, Nicole Kidman says “I’m not that woman” and walks away from Guido. Leaving him alone. As if Nicole Kidman’s character was saying “We know we are beautiful and all, but nobody loves a chauvinist pig!”

This film has elements from many of Fellini’s films. It’s not just a remake of 8 ½, this film also has scenes taken from La Dolce Vita, Amarcord and even Nights in Cabiria. It’s like Rob Marshall took some of the most Iconic moments from many of Fellini’s films and updated them with new songs, strung them together and called it a movie. Problem is that the film feels like a series of sketches or musical numbers, and not a movie. I mean, yeah, there’s that main storyline, but the film unfortunately takes no time in fleshing out its female characters and instead rushes its way to the next musical number. It’s like "Hi; I’m the new girl we are going to be talking about…and this is my song!" And that’s it. I really didn’t like that about the film. I mean, the musical numbers are fine, the songs are sometimes catchy (loved that Cinema Italiano song) but as a whole, the film doesn’t feel together.

It certainly does lack something. I think it needed to flesh out its female characters more since in essence, they are as much a center of the film as is Guido. I never felt like I knew these women walking before us. They are simply to be admired for their beauty. In many ways, this film contradicts itself. In one way its saying “love women for who they are not what they look like” but then it presents us with shallow empty female characters whom we never get to really know, so what’s left? Simply to admire their beauty and their song and dance. It certainly is a plus to have so many beautiful actresses on one film. But they are paraded around like trophies instead of tangible characters with life. With the possible exception of Marion Cotillard who actually made an effort to act, the rest of the female performances felt more like quick phoned in cameos then anything else, specially Kate Hudsons sequence. I loved the song she portrays, but shes in and out of the movie in the blink of an eye and your not even sure she was really even needed in the film except to add that song to the film. Even Daniel Day Lewis, who normally wows me with his performances was kind of dry here. In my opinion, they needed an actor who was a tad more dashing then Daniel Day Lewis. Rob Marshall’s original choice of Javier Bardem would have worked better, but he backed down due to exhaustion. Heck, even Antonio Bandera’s would have worked better.

This is not the worst film ever made, but the problem for me with it was that it’s coming from such great inspirational material, that the result should have somehow been better elaborated. Even the art direction was lack luster at times. Most of the songs take place in a stage, not a location, not a cool set, but a stage. I was expecting something grand for the big fountain sequence with Nicole Kidman, something that at least lived up to the memory of that awesome sequence in La Dolce Vita, but what we get is this silly looking little fountain. Nothing that came even remotely close to the great work of art we saw on Fellini’s film.

So why is this movie tanking at the box office? Well, my main hypothesis is that Fellini is a well known director amongst movie buffs and critics, but he isn’t a house hold name. He isn’t somebody that everyone knows about, and for that matter, neither is his film 8 ½. An awesome film, but a film that not everyone will be able to watch from start to finish. Fellini fans are a knowledgeable bunch; they aren’t your regular everyday movie goers. Problem is that NINE was made for the regular everyday movie goer, and these are the people who will enjoy this movie the least! This movie will be enjoyed by fans of Fellini, and that’s it. Nobody else will understand why the film takes place in Italy, why it takes place during the 60s or what films are being referenced, they will simply be disappointed and lost, which is what I’m thinking is happening right now with the abysmal Box Office Performance this film is having. Even with all its stars, it was not able to pull audiences in.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5