Bridges of Madison County (1995) - 10/10

Odd thoughts come in to my head. Watching a scene in this movie taking place at a breakfast table with Francesca (Meryl Streep) serving coffee to Robert (Clint Eastwood) makes me wonder about what it was that would happen in a similar situation in my house when growing up. We didn't have coffee. No, the preferred drink was Tea. With drinking Tea comes the price that rarely a limitless supply of it is available (unless you are seated at a Tea-shop). If anyone wanted a second cup someone had to brew it. It seems that in all those years, quite often someone obliged.

Although Bridges of Madison County is about two people who fall in love, the thing that strikes me most sitting here now and writing this is that the movie is moving because it reminds me of home, of growing up with my family and most of all my parents. It's odd that a movie billed as a romance should do that. It is even billed as a "chick-flick" in some circles if an issue of Men's Health is to be trusted. Why is it that romances are classified as such? Is the average man not interested in romance? I fear it is partly a perception drawn from movies themselves. Significant therefore, how this movie's perception is. The point being that a "Romance" comes with a certain amount of stigma attached to it. But this movie is far from a cliched romance and in the hands of Eastwood takes on many more dimensions. Strangely, besides the fact that it reminds me of my parents as I write there is also Chopin's Raindrop Prelude playing in my head. I believe the reason for that is that the central piece of the score by Lennie Niehaus (and apparently supported by Eastwood) certainly seems to be drawing from it.

I have said before that A Perfect World is my favourite Eastwood directed movie. Now it seems it will have to become this one. I hope this opinion does not change over time because I committing this to the Web. (Thankfully, in the even such commitments may be undone). However, that does not mean that I will change my mind. I don't think I will. This is much like what happens in the movie: In a way, some commitments cannot be undone.

There are so many things going for this movie that is hard to pick a place to start. The story, a novel by Robert James Waller is perhaps nothing special (although it has a certain appeal, which is discussed in Ebert's review), but here a lot of elements work together to elevate the material. I have mentioned the score before, which is subtle, almost minimal in its use but very effective. It is nicely complemented by Blues / Jazz numbers playing whenever possible on the nearest available radio. The cinematography is also quite brilliant, full of beautiful images and with the use of the lighting gives the movie an almost under-stated, elegiac tone. The performances by Streep and Eastwood are masteries of subtlety in almost the same way. That they manage to become a sort of argument for main-stream (read Hollywood) movies and the acting in them is a tribute to the skill of the actors here. There are critics of mainstream movies and their acting such as the opinions of Ray Carney of acting in Hollywood movies in the last 20-30 years. I understand where he is coming from but can't help feeling sorry at times for the fact that they (probably) don't feel anything when they see a movie like this (or The Shawshank Redemption). To them this is fake art, and maybe it is. But oh... it is so darn good.

Consider the many poignant moments that Eastwood and Streep achieve here together. Eastwood has a seen where Francesca gets angry at his character, Robert and suggests that the thing that they have had (their love affair) us like plenty of others that he has had before. The suggestion is so very painful to him. He doesn't say anything and really his expression doesn't change at all. But so much is conveyed (this reminds me of some moments in Forrest Gump). Watching Eastwood grow out of his type-cast of Dirty Harry / Sergio Leone days to a wise actor (and man) is one of the rewarding experiences of being a long-time movie fan. Not that Eastwood was not a good actor then, only that he has grown wise and learnt even more about his craft. I am reminded of Tow Wilkinson and his performance in In The Bedroom. But Eastwood has the ideal foil in Streep (much like Sissy Spacek in In The Bedroom) and in fact there were moments when I had thought that She was challenging her co-star to rise beyond himself, but that is being a little unfair. There is a time, when She is in a red dress looking on after him driving off into the darkness, which is indescribable for what a torrent of feelings it brings to me the viewer. Thus begins the final moments of the film and little smiles, nods mingled with many tears are the things are most heart-breaking.

Although Ebert feels that the rest of the cast, characters were a bit weak, I disagree. I thought in a strange way by adding shades of eccentricity they became more believable and contributed more to the telling of the story (apart from the necessary narration device). For example, a look at the end by the Michael's wife (Phyllis Lyons) is very striking.

The other odd thing that I was thinking about while watching this, happened somewhere around the middle of the film when Francesca and Robert had made love for the first time and were kissing intimately. I thought suddenly of the actors involved in this and other such scenes and the amount of themselves that they invest in the process of acting. That, in a way, we as human beings have a need to be voyeurs and peeking into other people's lives (and this thought is not restricted to just the kissing or the sexual aspect of things that the word "voyeur" inevitably conjures up in one's mind these days; maybe observer is a better word, but somehow an observer seems to have less involvement than a watcher). As human beings we have a need to hear (watch) other people's stories. It perhaps derives a little from the basic need for society but is more than that. It enables us to empathize with fellow humans and their concerns and in turn informs our personality. That in the century when we have apparently become most obsessed with the self is also the century in which we have invented a way of looking at (and hence feeling for) others seems at length a healthy development. That is exactly why the Art of movies is justified because done right it can sometimes do more (or at least different things) than any form before it (like books), and in effect it reaches more people because there is a much shorter / easier investment of time and attention on the part of the viewer, to get to it.

A very good movie if it makes me think about all that. I am left with reflections about Art, of Artists and their contributions, movie-makers, and of my fellow beings, how much I am interested in their condition (and also an uncanny need to begin answering the Ray Carney brigade). At the center are thoughts of my parents, their sacrifices, compromises in raising me, the commitment and the things they might have given up. Ultimately, I am overwhelmed and I cry.

The films of Krzysztof Kieslowski

The first movie by Krzysztof Kieslowski that I saw was Blue. I loved the movie and therefore had to complete the rest of the Three Colors Trilogy: White and Red. The Trilogy is undoubtedly one of the great masterworks of modern cinema and should be considered one of the greatest works of all cinema. It is often hailed as director Kieslowski's greatest achievement. This is likely true but I am always put off by such statements because I think this often encourages the average viewer to see this and then disregard the rest (I am pretty sure that this happens based on first-hand evidence). There is somehow the impression that if you have seen (heard) the best work of an artist then it's enough and one can move on to the next artist. I guess this happens in part due to the fact that people are usually stretched for time and in part because a lot of people are simply not interested in delving deeper or knowing more about a particular artist. It is left for college students, academics and lovers of art to do this. To obsessively follow the arc of an artist's work through his/her lifetime. Although it is understandable that most people would not want to go into all this. However, it is true that between seeing the best work and obsessing about an entire career there is also a middle path (or several) which is to see a more representative set of the artist's work. For example to see Fellini, it is not enough to watch 8 1/2 and move on, but to at least see La Strada and Amarcord as well (and even that isn't enough, one must also see La Dolce Vita and more - his works before like I Vitelloni - you see where this is going). Apart from the fact that a great artist doesn't become a great artist in a day and so a lot of work done by the artist is likely to be very good, there is also the fact that seeing these other works often gives us a heightened perception when watching the said greatest work (if you don't believe me, watch 8 1/2 first, then La Strada and the 8 1/2 again and you'll know what I mean). It tells one a little about where the artist is coming from. It is arguable that this may not necessarily be the best approach, which is why I am not saying that you need to start with an artist's lesser works but just that you need to be aware that all this other work exists and get to them eventually after seeing the best.

Returning to Kieslowski, it is needless to say that since then I have seen a number of his films and liked each and every one of them. The next film (or set of films) that I saw was The Decalogue and this work in general benefits from being at least a little aware of the Kielowski psyche. Not that one will be disappointed if they are unacquainted with Kieslowski's work but that they may feel a little left in the dark (although every person's reaction is no doubt different). In any case, this is another masterwork of cinema and therefore is not to be missed. It is also a wonderful conversation aid because almost everybody's take on it is different. However, it is recommended that conversation be carried out soon after watching the films because it tends to blur in one's memory: stories seemingly intertwine and characters appear in other stories in one's memory. All of the stories happening in the same apartment complex with people actually appearing in more than one story alongwith the consistent look and feel (although managed by 10 different cinematographers) heightens this effect: I think Kieslowski wanted a little of this while making it.

Since then, I have seen The Double Life of Veronique, Camera Buff and No End. Each of those movies is worth watching for different reasons. The Kieslowski sensibility and general-outlook-on-life permeates through each of those works but they also have a great story to tell as and in of themselves. I imagine Camera Buff is the most autobiographical of the lot in more ways than one, in essence the ending of the film seems to mirror what happens (or is about to happen) in his own life. In the late 70's and early 80's is when Kieslowski went through a process of gradually giving up the making of documentaries. This is in some way the director starting to look inward rather than the outside world. This does not mean that the director actually began filming himself from here on in but rather that from here on in he worked exclusively in the realm of fiction. He had a worthy ally through most of this in his co-screen-writer Krzysztof Piesiewicz, who collaborated with him beginning with No End and together they helped shape a lot of the remainder of Kieslowski's movies. Piesiewicz was a lawyer and is it a co-incidence that the first film that the two wrote together, No End has a trial in the center of the story? One of the great things about the writing and the film-making is that although Kieslowski almost always has a lot to say, the film's are rarely didactic or otherwise painted with obvious plot points to indicate exactly what the author is thinking. Some things are easy to see of course, such as the high level political inklings as perceived in No End. But even then it is less than clear what the political message of the film is. There are the knee-jerk-reactionists who say that the film is about this and so on but that is much too simplistic a viewing of it. The same reactionists who would label Kieslowski a pessimist no doubt. Again that is much too simplistic a viewing of his work. To me Kieslowski is in the realm of realism but is rarely pessimistic. He does differ from the likes of Ray in that he does not necessarily see a lot of good in the way a lot of people live but that does not make him a pessimist. He is less in love with romantic ideals and more interested in how real people actually lead their lives. Read some more of my thoughts on this here.

It is true that my overall opinion of Kieslowski and his psyche is coloured by the fact that I saw his later works first. It is true that those later works are definitely more hopeful than the rest. But then again as I have said here a film like Blind Chance is wonderful because it offers us a view of these different outcomes. Which one of these is the one that happens, which is one is the best outcome are all things for us to contemplate. However, it is important to see that although we exist in the ideal that we shall always find the best for us in life, this rarely happens and a Kieslowski in showing us what an effect chance plays on our lives is in fact suggesting at least two things: that the outcome is not always (if ever) in our hands therefore we need to make the most of it and how we are affected by each freak of chance is largely upto us. In effect characters in great drama are always more courageous and emotional than we are and it is incumbent upon us to try and become a bit like them. The quality of one's life is determined largely by the person himself/herself.

A Perfect World (1993) - 9.5/10

This is one of Clint Eastwood's best films. I consider it to be better than some of the more celebrated of his movies, such as Million Dollar Baby or Mystic River. This is a movie whose premise looks simple: a jailbreak, a fugitive on the run, a hostage, and a manhunt; however the way these commonly-found-in-the-movies themes are handled make it go a lot deeper than the things on display.

The plot of A Perfect World revolves around Butch (Kevin Costner) who escapes from prison with the help of another convict. Soon after they take a little boy named Phillip hostage and are on the run. The manhunt to try and catch these men is being led Texas Ranger Chief Red Garret (Clint Eastwood), and in his team are two more interesting characters: a criminologist Sally (Laura Dern) and a sinister FBI man Bobby (Bradley Whitford). The opening scenes of the movie work in establishing each of these main characters, and giving us a few hints as to what each of these people is about and what their equations are with the people that they are working with: It is obvious that Butch doesn't like nor trust his partner-in-crime; good-looking Sally has a hard time getting settled into a man's World, while Red goes about showing who's boss; and the child gradually begins to trust the stranger Butch. The rest of the movie is about the chase and the relationship between the child and Butch.

As I said before Eastwood and writer John Lee Hancock are working in cliche-territory but avoid it with skill and take the story to whole new dimensions. In a way they have willfully set us up in the opening scenes so that we begin to expect a certain kind of film and then once we are in that mode of thinking they begin pushing boundaries and start challenging our pre-conceived notions and in that way succeed in finding moments of truth, of great meaning and social commentary while all the time continuing the basic plot.

A number of things are done to avoid falling into these cliche-traps. In the relationship that develops between Butch and the kid it is never very clear what the dynamics are, and although we are given some hints that the boy may eventually take-off with the convict (at one critical moment in the film he has a choice to stay behind but chooses to go with Butch) we quickly realize that this is a 7-8 year old boy who really misses his home (a reason why he chose to go with Butch at that critical point is revealed to us later, although that may not be the only thing playing on the kid's mind). It is clear that the kid begins to trust this man, partly because he has never had a father-figure before (his father left when the child was very young) and partly because it seems that Butch is much more understanding than the mother who the kid has to deal with most of the time (Butch lets him go trick-or-treating and other things like that); however, it is also clear that the kid has a strong sense of right and wrong and that leads him to constantly doubt Butch and even to an extent be afraid of him. It is certainly true that Phillip learns a lot from the older man which conventionally happens in such a movie, but then so does Butch learn a lot from the kid (and this may seem conventional also but the way that this happens is far from conventional). Moreover, the movie does not provide us with mandatory scenes of Butch's reformation, if someone is saved from being shot by him it is because of Phillip's ingenuity. On the other hand, there does seem to be redemption for Butch, this is a very subtle point and the way it is handled is one of the good things about the film-making here.

The title of the film comes to us in many ways, but at one point a character says that in a perfect world they could have nabbed the convict very quickly because there would be so many people in pursuit, roadblocks, etc that escape would not be possible. This is a critical point, because then Sally says that in a perfect world there would be no such situation. This then is the central idea of the film in that an imperfect world made Butch the way he is. This seems true because on the whole we find that Butch is not as bad a man as his partner-in-crime. However the question arises how good a person is he. We are told he is a fairly intelligent man, but wouldn't such a man be able to see through what he is doing? Or does he see what he is doing but is unable to stop? What happened in his past that made him this way? Some of these questions will be answered, others not so much. But the pace of the movie gives us ample opportunity to consider these at length and others. At two and one quarter hours the film is long but is never slow, boring or less than intriguing-to-watch. There is also ample humor throughout that keeps it consistently interesting and the way that it is done through dialogue and through visual moments, makes you not want to miss anything. The cinematography also keeps the film visually very interesting throughout and the closing shots are particularly impressive. The dialogue consistently rings true and there is great subtlety in the exchanges involving Butch / Phillip and Red / Sally in particular.

There are other things going on as well. We come to know that Red had a hand in sending Butch to a reform center (which in turn may have pushed him into the world of crime, although his upbringing before that has been far from perfect). Therefore, Red has invested more than just a man-hunt into this equation. Butch speaks of going to Alaska and reaching there in 3-4 days but doesn't really seem to be going anywhere. To me, it seemed that after-a-while he just wants to hang out with the kid going nowhere in particular: his curiosity, his need for companionship and his need for mentoring are all being served in this way, as is a need to command over someone (he certainly thinks he manages that with the kid, though he may not be entirely right). Towards the end of the movie all of these different things come together in a beautiful way and it generates an emotional reaction in unexpected ways (again the cliches are avoided skillfully). Nothing more really needs to be said except that in a perfect world, this movie would have been much more well-received.

I give it 9.5. The only flaw for me are the implications of what is done to the kid (and I mean the actor as well as the character). Now I leave that for all of you to ponder.

Thank God for the fact that the film gets a PG-13 rating because this is a film that both teenagers and adults can see and derive different meanings from. I first saw this movie more than 10 years ago, it was rated A (only for Adults) in India but I remember it had a profound effect on me.

Lost in Translation (2003) - 8.5/10

Although the title of the movie is Lost in Translation and set in Japan it consistently showing us the cultural differences between Japan and the US, this movie is really not about meaning getting lost in translation between two languages or cultures. That is more the subject of the movie's comedic elements. Instead this is a movie about the meaning of life as perceived by certain characters where-in it gets lost in translation or the very act of living it (consider how translation could mean the act of forwarding, that of forwarding one's own life). True, that such a meaning of the title (or specifically the word translation) is not necessarily the defined meaning, but then any kind of artistic effort is in some ways about redefining meanings. And before I get lost in the translation of my thoughts to this page I will get back to the task at hand.

The story follows Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) as they spend some time in Japan. They are both lost in translation in the sense that I described before. They really have no idea where they are going, why they are doing what they are doing (if they are doing anything at all) and how they are going to get out of this situation that they find themselves in. Bob's suggestion that they should leave the hotel, then the city and then the country seems like a good one. But since the problem is within, it is not really going to be a fruitful solution in the long run. In a way, we can see that both of them have indeed taken this trip to Japan as a sort of changing-the-scenery but that hasn't done anything for them. In fact, now in these foreign locales they are more lost than ever. That is until fate lends them a hand by making the two of them meet.

Their meetings, and their relationship as they talk through their respective issues (and what those issues exactly are is not necessary to be discussed here, it is more rewarding for them to be discovered in the movie and it should be said that they are not particularly anything Earth-shattering - something along the lines of growing up for Charlotte, mid-life crisis for Bob and marriage issues for both) is interesting both as an observation of a budding relationship between two lonely lost souls, and also as the hint of a romantic possibility. Add to the suggestion of experience versus fresh-thought, and watching accomplished versus budding actor and the film really grows to be much more. That is one of the things for me that I believe in time this is going to be one of those films that people will watch as a cornerstone for both Murray's and Johansson's respective careers, and that thought is so very interesting. That means of course that they have really put in wonderful performances here: searching, haunting, mature are some of the words that come to mind.

Tokyo, some Kyoto, and modern Japanese culture stand as a backdrop to this and it is interesting in the sense that it works at the level of putting us on unfamiliar ground as well so that we ourselves are doing a little bit of that searching all the time. This is a brilliant thing about this movie, because especially the opening shots with Bob Harris in the car waking up in a foreign city and the unusual (and might I say beautiful) first shot of Johansson's back puts us immediately on foreign ground and we are interested if a little anxious of what is to come.

That Sofia Coppola (daughter of the great Francis Ford Coppola) is able to find this second layer is her greatest achievement. She uses a camera that frequently goes in and out of focus as the characters look at things around them and captures interesting images of modern Japan (a game arcade and the players there including one who dances in rhythm with the game, a karaoke party, etc) add to the feeling and all of this is underscored by a wonderful soundtrack.

She does other things well too in a conventional sense, keeps the camera on Bill Murray giving him the opportunity to use it to complete effect (watch him especially in the closing moments of the movie, and you'll see why this is one of his best performances; his restraint in the movie's comic scenes adds to that). Johansson on the other hand is given a slightly different treatment and that helps her grow (blossom?) into her role. She allows for this movie to be much more than a comedy (which it could easily have been, and it is very funny) or worse a romantic comedy (that their relationship pushes into romance is not surprising, but the way that it is handled is critical to the success of the movie). The setting of the tone and mood throughout the story with slightly pale colours (always giving the feeling of jet-lag/insomnia) is particularly striking, as is the almost taste-able Santory whiskey. This is an achievement not only of Coppola's but the cinematography and art direction.

Ultimately, the meeting of Bob and Charlotte gives them an opportunity to consider their life as it is (and more importantly to talk about it). This in effect results in their internal conversation reaching fruition (although this is not shown explicitly but becomes clear in the closing shots where Bob whispers something to Charlotte - we are not a party to this conversation and that is a good thing).

I give the movie 8.5. The biggest shortcoming is that the editing could have been tighter, some of the observations of Japanese-isms could have been curtailed. Consider the ending which starts of with the Bob's ride through Tokyo and is a montage of shots of the city but goes on for too long (I would have liked to see it end as they went up a flyover/bridge - both on a cinematic and musical note, but it continues for at least another 20-30 seconds) and that underscores for me the limitation of this movie.

Reservoir Dogs (1992) - 7.5/10

Tarantino's first film is well-known and generally fairly well-acclaimed, so it doesn't really need my approval. However it is instructive (at least for me personally) to examine the reasons why it is regarded as a fairly good movie and especially instructive to examine its shortcomings.

Reservoir Dogs open with the camera circling a group of men seated at a dinner and having a conversation (which in the decade and a half since its making has come to be known as almost Tarantinoesque, which is not small praise for any director/screenwriter). The conversation is about many things but not about what is going to happen in the film. In a sense, it is there to fill in space. In other senses it is a lot more than that and works to not only set up the rest of the movie but on close observation it also helps to establish character. The classic Steve Buscemi induced tipping conversation has implications which will be picked up at the end of the movie. Dialogue is one of the strong points of this movie (as it is with any Tarantino movie - but now I am going to refrain from saying that, because I am trying to review this movie separately from Tarantino's work thereafter). However, in a way dialogue is also a shortcoming of this movie. Not in that it is necessarily used to no effect. Rather, that it is used for too much effect. After a while (say 2/3rds of the way in) one gets the feeling of watching talking heads, with not too much to recommend them. A series of flashbacks, which should serve as character development end up being more opportunities for said talking heads. And this is a pity because you have a wonderful cast who have assembled and it seems geed themselves up for a spirited performance. Unfortunately, their chaperone lets them down.

Consider for example, what happens to the character of Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), who lies bleeding for most of the time at the warehouse, but suddenly comes alive at some stage and speaks some nonsense (and I do not use the word lightly). Or consider Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr. Pink's (Steve Buscemi) first conversation at the warehouse, when a guy lies their bleeding. The thing that eventually gets to me is that Tarantino starts off so well, both with the opening dialogue and the moments immediately following (and this movie could have easily gone on to become a classic from there). The movie is rescued somewhat by Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen, in a career-making role, even if that is not always a good thing considering the rest of his career after RD) from time to time. But again the movie insists on too many flashbacks for the effect to be carried through and through to what it could have.

In the end, therefore, this movie becomes a classic could've-been and not a classic (and I am willing to argue with those who think otherwise - and by the way cult-classic phenomenon is questionable, since I have read recently that Chaos has attained cult status). Tighter editing would have helped, so would a couple of re-writes, less flashback and a control on the number of words spoken by a person at a time (see the initial realism created in the opening sequences is lost because people who are apparently in panic or injured speak volumes, and it is far from hysterical chattering, more like caffeine-induced monologues).

All this is not to say that the film is bad. Far from it, it is still recommended viewing for anyone but the weakest of stomachs (the gore/violence quotient though is less than typical Tarantino). It is great to watch the first effort of a director, who spent a lot of time and energy in getting the project to fruition in the first place. Most importantly it is great to see the lessons that the Tarantino learns from the short-comings of this movie. Despite what people may think, one thing that Tarantino has in all his other movies is restraint (though on the scale of Tarantino it differs greatly from what it means for you or me). For a guy who is way-out-there it means that he keeps it enough under control for it to be useful to his object and consitently interesting. Critics such as Ray Carney who think that a director like Tarantino has no place among good film-makers (but then he thinks that there is no place for Kubrick, Scorsese either) don't realize in a way what this kind of film-maker brings to the movies, he pushes boundaries (even if primarily stylistically and plot-development) and that is always of great benefit. Yes, it is a pity that he does not take up more serious subjects. But then again who is to say that a Pulp Fiction will not stand the test of time. What is that film about, well that is the subject of a completely different kind of piece. Suffice to say, that it is essential watching.

Reservoir Dogs also has great camera-work by Andrzej Sakula. The moving-camera Scorsese influence can be seen although it is not desperately obvious and the long (and often moving) shots are also great. Action sequences are filmed with urgency and somehow the wonderful shot of Mr. Pink running along the pavement, being roughly at the center of the frame throughout is reminiscent of the shots at the end of Truffaut's The 400 Blows with the character of Antoine running away from his reform school. I always wonder about how a shot like that was managed, more so for Truffaut's film which was made in 1959 than this one, and also if anyone else sees the similarity.

Michael Madsen is at the center of this movie with a glowing performance, although the rest of the cast is very good: Harvey Keitel as usual, Chris Penn shows us some of the darkness which will see him get cast in Altman's Short Cuts a year later, Steve Buscemi is hyper and anxious as ever and Tim Roth actually brings a couple of different sides to his character. The line of the movie for me is, "Are you gonna talk all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?" from Mr. Blonde. Madsen has one sequence in this movie which oozes with so much sheer coldbloodedness that nothing can be said about it except: watch it! It is a pity that in a way this role type-cast him and he really never got too many more roles that were of the same calibre (not even Tarantino could give him one in Kill Bill, though he tried).

The movie gets 7.5. It is rated R with good reason. It is reported that it uses fuck or a variant 269 times and ain't that a beauty.

Being There (1979) - 9/10

What a great film this is: beautiful, thought-provoking, sensitive and full of wonder. Being There is usually billed as a comedy, but it is so much more than that. The story follows the events in the life of a gardener, who works in a small house in Washington, D.C., after the death of his employer (although it is not clear whether he was actually employed by the dead old man or if he was related to the old man in some way). The gardener's name is Chance (Peter Sellers) and after the old man's death, the house-maid Louise (Ruth Attaway) must leave (she used to bring Chance his meals), this appears to be a problem but we are not given a chance to consider this as two attorneys from the law firm representing the dead man's estate turn up and ask Chance to leave. It appears Chance has always lived in this house, he was not allowed to leave the house and has therefore never been in an automobile (a theme which will return later in the film as a wonderful comic moment) and the clothes he wears are essentially from the old man's wardrobe (they are a good fit) and therefore Chance always appears dapper in great suits. This has implications for the rest of the story.

As for what kind of person Chance is, from early conversations with Louise and his matter-of-fact reaction to the old man's death suggest that he is either retarded or just kind of slow. His main interest in life is watching the TV set, he spends his time watching the TV (even when he is next to the dead man), he usually carries around a remote so that he can easily change channels. Chance also cannot read and write, he apes actions that he sees on the TV set and it seems that most (if not all) of his education has been through that medium. Therefore when he is asked to move out we have already been supplied with enough anticipation for what's to come once he moves into the outside world. However, anything we can think of is far from what's really to come, and how the story unfolds is one of the joys of the movie for me. As Chance walks out of the house with a suitcase, the soundtrack plays a rocking remix / improvization based on Richard Strauss's "Thus Spake Zarathustra and coupled with the shots of Washington, D.C. as Chance discovers it the effect is fantastic (it also works at a subliminal level to inform the viewer of the fact that something big is about to come - as a vision of 2001: A Space Odyssey flashes through the mind - the remix perhaps suggesting the unexpected nature of it), but I'll say more about the soundtrack later.

How much of Chance's experience is TV-related becomes apparent when he gets confronted by a gang of black kids. What does he do? He tries to change the channel using the remote. He gets off the hook by promising to deliver a message to Raphael (whoever that is). This again is a small plot point which returns as good laughs later on. This and many other small things like that show how wonderful the writing is. The screenplay was adapted by Jerry Kosinski (and Robert C. Jones) from his novel.

The remote also leads to an accident when Chance is confronted by a TV set in shop window displaying passers by and while trying to change the channel in earnest he crashes against a backing car and hurts his leg. This leads to him being taken into the household of Benjamin Rand(Melvyn Douglas) and his wife Eve (Shirley Maclaine). Ben is ill and they have a Doctor living at the house and it is thought that he would be best-suited to take care of Chance's injury. Chance is asked to stay for a few days by the Doctor (Richard Dysart) so that he can observe Chance's progress, is it any wonder that Chance agrees?

Through some mis-understandings Chance comes to be known as Mr. Chauncey Gardener and is thought of as a wealthy business (certainly his appearance confirms that view, even if his manners are a little out of the ordinary). Ben and Eve grow fond of Mr. Gardener and so do some of the minor characters such as a lift-man. The only person who doubts Chance is the Doctor who begins a personal investigation about the money. The next few days unfold as a sort of dream in which we expect that Chance's deception to be discovered at any moment and the dream shattered. But Chance is not intentionally deceiving anybody and this holds him in good stead.

Ben's good friend the President visits and is introduced to Mr. Gardener. The President is surprised by the man's allegory - when asked about growth Chance speaks of gardening the only thing he knows, but the other two men find a much deeper meaning in this. The President goes on to repeat this on TV and overnight Chance becomes a much sought-after figure. Now in addition to the Doctor there are many more people who investigate his past but they all come up with nothing and in the meantime his stature only rises. More importantly, Eve falls in love with Chance (and maybe he falls in love with her) and Ben accepts that this is so and in fact is happy and it seems because of Chance's appearance he is now content and no longer afraid of dying.

I think the basic premise of the story is how adults can be easily taken in by a simple-minded and straight-talking person such as Chance, as most of what he says is based on his immediate reaction to what he hears (and knows from TV experience) and this works in a wonderful way for the listener. Of course, his being named Chance is no co-incidence because chance is working overtime to make all this possible. But ultimately, the movie grows to be much more than that, as all the supporting characters are written with pitch perfection and we begin to understand why Ben and Eve would easily accept Chance in this situation. Again the dialogue is phenomenal and this is one of those movies where every word is placed near perfectly.

I was reminded of Forrest Gump as I watched Chance. It appears that they have much the same IQ and respond with the same sort of honesty and earnestness when spoken to (as such Forrest is a much more interesting character, because he does have thoughts of his own and displays a lot more emotion). In fact, that idea of working within one's limitations and therefore achieving a lot more than one hopes is also a crucial idea of this film. It is true that this is a plot driven by appearances but as I said before Chance is not actively participating in the deception (he is not completely aware of what is happening) and therefore there is nothing morally questionable about it. In any case, most of the time Chance just makes a good attempt of listening to the people talking to him and responding as best as he can. That this is what the people meeting him need the most is just a matter of chance, but then again there is a lesson for everybody about what is important in human interaction. Both Chance and Forrest Gump at some level understand this better than most people who are much more gifted intellectually, and it appears they are rewarded for that.

Peter Sellers is fascinating to watch in this movie because of his restraint through the part. Whenever you see his name in a movie there is always the possibility of something quite over-the-top, but his poise here demonstrates why he was considered such a dramatic talent (even if he rarely chose to use it to its fullest extent going rather for effect most often - much like our very own Jim Carrey). Shirley Maclaine is once again looking gorgeous (at 45?) and turns in another of those wonderful performances that She has demonstrated herself to be more than apt at (consider Terms of Endearment). She has great subtlety in her role here, which involves even a masturbation sequence at one point (since Chance likes to watch - but he meant the TV; the scene has been called embarrassing for Maclaine and I am sure that it was, but in the context of the film and a particular conversation that follows some time later it is apt). The rest of the supporting cast delivers very good performances and everyone is helped along by the exactness of the dialogue. Melvyn Douglas won an Academy Award for his role as the dying man.

The soundtrack is wonderful and after the initial fanfare of the "Thus Spake Zarathustra" mix it almost recedes into the background, but is really always there to highlight the right moments. But even here there is a restraint shown that makes the soundtrack less of an emotional aid (for the right cues) and more of an enhancing element to the visuals (as any good soundtrack should be). The closing shots of the movie are wonderful in the combination of visuals and music as well as our thought-process as we summarize what we have seen. The cinematography throughout is actually very good and is able to convey the beauty of the D.C. surroundings better than I can remember in any other movie, but that maybe because it tries to see it from the perspective of Chance.

I give it 9 out of 10. The major negative point being the outtakes that appear in the movies end credits, after the wonderful closing moments which elevates the movie to yet another plane altogether (the last words of the movie are "Life is a state of mind" and its juxtaposition with the closing image is just something else and needs to be discovered for itself by each viewer). I thought this was unnecessary and detracted from my experience of watching the movie. I know people will say that this is a comedy, but as I said before I have perceived this to be more than that (imagine Forrest Gump with similar outtakes and you'll know what I mean). Sometimes movies are just not content with brilliant closing moments, remember Donnie Brasco. I wonder why that is. It could be that they want to deliberately bring down the movie at the end. Another negative was that the pace of the movie could have been a little quicker although I cannot really fault it. Thankfully, sense reigns and this movie is rated PG. However, thematic elements really don't lend it as interesting viewing for kids.

Coffee and Cigarettes (2003) - 7.5/10

Jim Jarmusch first made a short film called Coffee and Cigarettes in 1986 with Roberto Benigni and Steven Wright. Then over the next 17 years he made two more installments, part II with Joi and Cinque Lee and Steve Buscemi and part III with Tom Waits and Iggy pop that went on to win the Golden Palm (Best Short Film) at the Cannes Film Festival 1993.

In 2003, he collected these three and eight other vignettes as part of the 2003 release of a full-length film Coffee and Cigarettes. This is a must see for anyone who enjoys Coffee (or for that matter Tea, at least one vignette substitutes Tea for Coffee, and another well it does away with any caffeine altogether that is until Bill Murray walks in with a pot and starts drinking directly from it) or cigarettes or both. This is also recommended for people who don't enjoy any of those things but enjoy brilliant dialogue and comedy. This is a very funny film and also at times has acute observation of human nature. The way people who have become successful in their lives behave (especially in the Alfred Molina / Steve Coogan segment, the Cate Blanchett segment, the Iggy Pop / Tom Waits segment) and how others perceive them to be (Cate Blanchett has a double role as herself and a jealous cousin in one segment). There are some classic conversation moments such as when Steve Buscemi explains his theory about how Elvis is still alive and a wonderful discussion about Nikola Tesla. All this ends up making the film fascinating and entertaining at the same time. People will argue that there is no real point to all this, but any caffeine-junkie (and I can't speak for smokers, because I am not one) will know that that's the point: That caffeine is a great conversation aid (and creative aid, you can see JJ and co. sitting together guzzling infinite cups of Coffee and Tea as they made this), and who says conversation needs to really be about something.

All of the vignettes are good but a couple of them seem to lose direction half-way through, but even that seems like a deliberate reflection of real conversations. My favourites are the Alfred Molina / Steve Coogan, the Cate Blanchett double, the Alex Descas / Isaach De Bankole and the Roberto Benigni / Steven Wright one. Some of the later vignettes refer to some of the earlier ones (which one should know that at the time of the final making where already out and perhaps well-known and therefore part of the conversation of the people in question?) and this adds to the experience of watching the series.

I give it 7.5 for being eminently watchable but lacking anything more than that, and as I said before a couple of the vignettes could use some help. The camera-work is interesting, especially in shots of the coffee-tables from above, and the editing is generally good except in parts. The movie gets an R-rating, for no better reason than the use of fuck and other associated words. Ah! More material for my censorship-bashing. Unless the censors were thinking about the pervasive smoking and matter-of-fact approach to it, but that is a whole another story.