Munich

I really didn't know what to expect with this film. All I new was that is was a Steven Spielberg film about the massacre of a number of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, after a hostage situation goes wrong. As far as the event was concerned, I was a tad too young to recall it so expected to learn a bit more about it. In fact the film fast forwards through the actual event in the first 5-10 minutes of the film, with a few other aspects being told briefly in flashbacks later in the film. The film is actually about an Israeli Mossad agent (Eric Bana) and his crew (featuring Daniel Craig and Ciaran Hinds) who are secretly hired by the Israeli government to track down and assassinate all the terrorists on their hit list. However, for the most part, they are not an entirely competent bunch and not all are happy with what they are doing and find it very difficult to trust other people outside their group. Admittedly I am making certain assumptions here as apart from the Israeli agent Avner (Bana) we don't really get to discover what makes the others tick, and it is only towards the end that you realise that, generally, the rest of the team are human and not just heartless assassins. However, South African team-member Steve (Craig) never seems to show any emotion or be much more than a robot.

The film is based on a controversial book called 'Vengeance' by one GeorgeJonas who claims he was told the story by the man who is portrayed in the film as Avner. It takes very little research on the net to find that there is plenty of speculation as to the reliability of Jonas' source, but at the same time Avner (should he exist) is hardly likely to want to put himself in the public eye. Spielberg himself has claimed that this film is 'inspired by real events' but that does not mean it is the truth. Of course, Israel has not officially admitted that it sent a team of Mossad agents to track down and kill the terrorists in a revenge attack, but no one is denying that there is a possibility a team of sorts was sent out to avenge the Munich massacre. To pretty much put the words in the mouth of Israel's then Prime Minister Golda Meir in the film, that this is the case is a bit naughty on the part of Spielberg. I think he should have been clearer about where the facts end, and the speculation begins. I don't doubt that some artistic licence has been used, and in other situations the blurring of the boundaries could make for an interesting film, but in this case just made me uncomfortable. If this was Spielberg's intention then he did a good job, but I felt his intentions probably lied elsewhere, which I shall come too.

Before I wander completely off-topic, I will go back to the story, such as it is. The men have taken the list of targets in good faith and set about killing them with various degrees of success, we don't know anything about the background of the targets, but see them portrayed as family men or popular members of their communities, so you naturally are uncomfortable at seeing them killed. It is not until much later that Avner queries what connection these seemingly normal people have with Black September (the terrorist group behind the Munich attack) but not much is made of it. The bulk of the 2 hours, 20 minutes of the film is taken up with one killing after another, followed by revenge killings for other attacks and for attacks on them. This is where Spielberg was coming from, I think. The senselessness of the eye-for-an eye outlook, meaning the killing will never cease as the film closes with the New York skyline (including the World Trade centre) in the background. Perhaps he is saying 'Have we brought it on ourselves?' Perhaps I am trying to read too much into it, but I can't see any other point to the film, otherwise it would just lurch from one killing to the next.

Apart from Avner, we know nothing about the background of any of the team, but it is taken as given that they bond and get on. There is a token effort to show Avner trying to maintain his relationship with his wife and his paranoia at potentially becoming the hunted rather than the hunter is well thought out and well executed. Eric Bana does a good job at the role, but with the other characters so superficial I don't feel I can comment on if the acting is flawed or the character. Is Daniel Craig's character meant to be so wooden and driven, or is that just how he has been portrayed? I really have no idea as there was so little opportunity to make a judgement. Certainly his South African accent sucked. Geoffrey Rush is worth a mention for his performance as a Mossad official, but outside of him and Bana, not a lot has been asked of any of the others (and if it was, they obviously refused).

Direction wise, I assume Spielberg achieved what he set out to do. The film is beautifully shot, and I would think that the attention to detail in depicting the era helped make the film seem authentic. Music is by John Williams (who else?) and is very appropriate in that you don't really notice it; it fits in so well with the film.

Overall, I was very disappointed with the film. It didn't teach me anything new about this event in history, instead it just muddied the waters between fact and fiction. I would have thought the majority of typical cinema goers would have been born after the event or be that bit too young to remember it and perhaps a bit more background info on what led up to the massacre would be interesting and helpful. I felt the film has miss-sold itself to me, it is not about Munich at all but about revenge and charging round cities in Europe bumping people off. It isn't even that good an action flick and any political message (if, indeed, there was supposed to be one) is vague and inconclusive. Basically the film is about hatred and vengeance, so if that doesn't bother you, then you will be fine.

Extras:
'Munich: The Mission, The Team' is a 'making of…' type featurette. It lasts about 12 minutes and glosses over the 'moral minefield' as they refer to it to nice safe topics like the cast and crew waffling on about what an important film it was.

Seven Swords

This 2005 offering adapted from the book 'Seven Swordsmen from Mount Heaven' by Liang Yu-Sheng was recommended to me by my former Tai Chi instructor. Having enjoyed recent Chinese Martial Arts films that crossed over to the UK cinema such as 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' and 'House of Flying Daggers' I was keen to watch this, but had missed it at the cinema.

As the film starts we are informed that Martial Arts in fifteenth century China has been outlawed and the punishment for breaking this law is decapitation. A gang of bad guys in armour, face paint and with some interesting weaponry, are greedy for the rewards and have been killing whole villages, including children and old folk, on instruction of their leader Fire-Wind. However, former executioner-turned-good-guy Fu has been stealing the name plaques from the dead and getting on their nerves. They give chase to him and he meets and is helped by (and in turn helps) pretty villager Yuanyin and returns with her to Martial Village, supposedly the next place on the bandits' list with many coveted heads. Because of his past Fu is imprisoned by the village but Yuanyin trusts him and enables the help of her friend Fang and Fang's boyfriend Han to free him. Whilst Fang stays to take the fall for the group (she is the chief's daughter, so they assume she won't get into too much trouble), Han and Yuanyin go with Fu to Mount Heaven and Master Shadow-Glow for his help.

Shadow-Glow has four disciples, although we only really meet Chu Zhaonan (Dragon Sword), no other swordsmen are explored; we just have a cursory introduction to them. I assume they each have their own stories and that the book has more detail, but as most of the characters are not given any depth anyway you don't miss much. Shadow-Glow then gives the Heaven's Fall sword to Yuanyin and the Deity sword to Han and thus they and Fu make up the seven swordsmen and they return to the village to help defend them from Fire-Wind's imminent attacks and to help the villagers flee.

There are three main big fight sequences in this film, and whilst all impressive not as jaw-dropping at 'Flying Daggers' or 'Crouching Tiger'. My favourite scene was towards the end when Chu and Fire-Wind are fighting in a narrow passage and climbing the walls. There is a bit of token romance as Chu frees Fire-Wind's beloved slave Green Pearl and some token suspense when it is revealed that the villagers have a spy in their midst.

No great acting skill is required of much of the cast with the emphasis on the fight scenes. I enjoyed the performance of Hong-Lei Sun who played Fire-wind. He did the evil general well, and I understood his captivation with Green Pearl rather than Chu's. He had one of the better fight scenes and the most interesting dialogue, such as it was. Dialogue was minimal, as was plot. The music by Kenji Kawaii is very appropriate and full of sweeping and dramatic strings. My one real issue was with the idea to not always feature on screen the person speaking but to show someone else. This is particularly annoying in the beginning when you haven't worked out who is who, and don't recognize voices. Also a lot of the scenes are shot at night and the lighting is inadequate to reveal which swordsman you have been given a fleeting glimpse of.

Overall I enjoyed this film, but it does not pass muster against the inevitable comparisons to 'Flying Daggers' or 'Crouching Tiger', and would recommend it more to existing fans of the genre rather than as an introduction.

Key people:
Director - Hark Tsui
Yuanyin - Charlie Yeung
Chu Zhaonan - Donnie Yen
Han - Yi Lu
Fu - Chia-Liang Lu
Fang -Jinchu Zhang
Shadow-Glow - Jingwu Ma
Fire-wind - Honglei Sun
Green Pearl - So-Yeon Kim


Chinese Translation: Chat Gim

The film had a running time of just less than two and a half hours and has a 15 certificate due to the violence (which is not really offensive, if you are squeamish).

We Need to Talk About Kevin - Lionel Shriver

With this book, the American author won the Orange Prize for Fiction in 2005. Shriver changed her name from Margaret Ann to Lionel as a teenager, as she believed men had it easier. This was also selected to be part of Richard & Judy’s Summer Reads for 2005, and was featured on the BBC’s Page Turners programme.

The book grabbed me from page one, I knew the synopsis from the back cover, and the book starts with a letter from mother, Eva, to estranged husband, Franklin, a year and eight months after the tragic events at their son Kevin’s High School where he murdered seven fellow students, a teacher and a cafeteria worker. After Eva bumps into the mother of one of the murdered students in the supermarket she feels compelled to start writing to Franklin letters talking of her current situation as well as recalling the past, going back as far as their decision to actually have a child. This early part of the book can be quite hard going, nothing seems to actually happen and Eva’s letters occasionally get a bit random and over-detailed. Once Kevin is born we see a bit more about the struggles she has with a son that she was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to bond with. Kevin does not seem to be a pleasant or contented child, and Eva struggles to relate to him although she tries her best. It seems that there is a battle of wills between her and a stubborn four year old, and often the four year old wins. Eva’s recollections are interspersed with stories of her visit to the correctional institute that Kevin is in, all the way up to the final, gripping chapters before ‘Thursday’ as she refers to the tragic day.

As Kevin grows up we see that he is an intelligent and cunning child, as well as a malicious one, often acting out in spite towards his mother, but being sweet as pie to his dad. Franklin did not seem to give Eva the support she felt she needed and always saw the good in Kevin, and made excuses for his behaviour. This itself seemed a bit extreme, and biased but we only hear the one account, and perhaps if we read Franklin’s account we would think Eva biased. I generally thought of Franklin as partly naive but also weak in his lack of support towards his wife and tendency to stick his head in the sand every time Kevin may have done something wrong. Eva certainly recognises Kevin as trouble but even she acknowledges she did not see the ultimate tragic events unfold, feeling that most of Kevin’s behaviour is directed at her or to annoy her and provoke a reaction.

Once the book has gotten going more it is an easier read, although Eva’s thoughts are inclined to ramble at times, it appears to have more relevance. There was one racial outburst that left me feeling uncomfortable. I had to remind myself that this was a work of fiction and that just by reading a novel, I was not condoning a fictional character’s thoughts. Eva seemed a very real person, although I could not always relate to her, I usually found her believable and felt increasing sympathy towards her as the book progressed. I found the character of Kevin harder to believe. I was not convinced that the child was as spiteful, from such a young age, as he was portrayed, he didn’t really seem realistic and at times bordered on a caricature of badly behaved child.

I don’t feel the book loses anything from the fact that you know the ending, and the actual nitty-gritty details of ‘Thursday’ and why those particular victims were chosen are not revealed until the end, and there is a certain amount of suspense as the story unfolds towards the close, and all loose ends are tied up.

Overall I would recommend this book, the subject matter is not always going to appeal, and you might struggle with some of the earlier parts as it seemed to drag in places, but the premise is certainly original (even if the actual events are all too real in some US schools).

Highgate East

Highgate East 23
Originally uploaded by Essexgirl.

A further photo, of any ivy covered cross monument fro Highgate Cemetery taken last June.

I Heard a Rumour

I loved the premise of this film when I heard it and thought it a great, original twist. The idea is that Charles Webb's novel 'The Graduate', and the subsequent film with Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft were actually based on a real Californian family, and that Benjamin Braddock (The Graduate) slept with both mother and daughter. Fortunately the film doesn't try and keep us guessing as to which family it is, although it takes a while for the penny to drop for Jennifer Aniston as ditzy Sarah Huttinger. It is 1997 and Sarah and her secret fiancé Jeff (Mark Ruffalo) return to Pasadena for her sister Annie's (Mena Suvari) wedding. Early on we understand that her mother Jocelyn died when the girls were children and they were brought up by their dad Earl (Richard Jenkins) ably assisted by Grandma Katherine Richelieu (Shirley MacLaine). The night before Annie's wedding Katherine reveals to Sarah that her mother run off a week before her wedding and returned after a few days. Realising that she was born just shy on nine months after her parents' wedding Sarah thinks she has guessed as to why she looks different and has different tastes to the rest of her family.

The next day, even though it is hours before Annie's wedding Sarah goes to see her mother's best friend Mitzi (Kathy Bates) to see if she can throw any light onto who the mysterious man her mother ran off with. It is there that she realises that Beau Burroughs is the man who inspired The Graduate's Braddock, as well as the man her mother ran off with and possibly her own father (as well as ahving slept with her Grandma). After the wedding she tracks him down to San Francisco and leaves Jeff to fly home to New York alone. Sarah needs to address the questions she has about her own relationships whilst trying to find out if the charismatic Burroughs (Kevin Costner) could really be her father or just a cad hoping to get another notch in his bedpost.

OK, so the essentials of a good plot are all there, you have a fabulous cast, an experienced director in Rob Reiner but the film just doesn't work on so many levels. The Reiner of classic Late Eighties/Early Nineties films seems to have gone on holiday or given up. Is this really the same man who gave us 'A Few Good Men' and 'When Harry Met Sally'? Sure, there are no loose ends; everything you need to know has been heavy handedly shoved into the movie for you. You don't even need to be familiar with 'The Graduate' as all necessary references have been unsubtly shoe-horned into the story by Ted Griffin who has done better work on 2001's 'Ocean's Eleven'.

The cast are good although it is hard to tell Aniston's portrayal of Sarah Huttinger from Friends' Rachel Greene sometimes. Costner charms and convinces; MacLaine does her piece well, seemingly content with her status as being available for all good grandma roles. Ruffalo baffles me. He is a good looking chap and has charmed and impressed as romantic leads in previous films such as '13 Going on 30' but seems too straight and sensible to convince as a suitable partner for Sarah, and chemistry is lacking. I don't think anyone would have noticed if he had been replaced with a cardboard cut-out and he only really came alive at the end.

For a film that is allegedly a comedy, I laughed only once and I think Mena Suvari's comic timing is responsible for that rather than a witty script. The romance is cheesy and heavy handed and quite frankly the film just does not live up to its potential. The film has a 12 certificate due to sexual references. As my DVD was a rental there were no extras on it, other than the theatrical trailer which I didn't watch (why, when you have the whole film?) but a quick search on the web reveals that there isn't much anyway.

My main bugbear? If it is 1997, why is it that no-one has a 'Rachel' haircut?