And finally- harder than the others because my ability to think about paintings is so limited in comparison so my thoughts are going to be far more limited.
First impressions are that I'm not sure I like Turner as much as I thought I did. There were some beautiful paintings such as Dido at Carthage which really are magnificent. But, and perhaps this is a point of the curation, looking at his work next to a variety of different painters I became quickly bored with his colour schemes. They attribute his sun light to Claude Lorrain and he uses it with greater skill, I feel then Claude. But it appears so often you grow a bit weary of it. When used adroitly it's quite staggeringly beautiful- but it's always a relief when he tries something different.
Often this is when he is trying to ape Rembrandt- the one master he doesn't seem to get near, although he arguably mimics his style far more than the others. I realise now I need to look more at Rembrandt. There's a painting of the Holy Family which is technically extraordinary in the way the light spreads from a lamp at the centre of the painting. The anachronism of the painting upset me though.
I tried hard to see where things were being copied but I often found it quite difficult to see, particularly in terms of style. Turner's colours are always honeyer, often I feel to the detriment of it. His paintings are also, and excuse my total ignorance on technical issues, deeper. They stretch far further back, giving everything a far grander scale and making the characters at the front seem smaller and more pawns in the scheme of the world. I think that's why I found his painting of trafalgar so effective. It just seems to go on and on, with huge boats and fighting and sails and so the bloodied floating corpses in the foreground seem ever smaller. Certainly compared to a lot of the other work I noticed how three dimensional the images were. So many others felt a bit like those childrens books where you stick on pictures onto a background.
The other thing that struck me is that he did a rather nice painting of another painter (Watteau I think) which had a sort of shambolic intimacy I'd never seen before and I hope there is more of his stuff out there. It is in some ways quite a large tableau, with paintings and easels and models and sketches but without his legendary sky it loses all sense of the epic but is none the worse for it.
Finally my favourite painting of the day belonged to someone I'd never heard of called Francis Danby. It is a giant angel, head above the clouds in sun and legs below in a dark, red ominous sunset. I can't even remember what the Turner it was being compared to but that was certainly one he lost (I put every two up in head to head. Turner won many but less then I thought he would).
I have to say though, as someone uneducated in art it was a real pleasure to have such an exhibition which really helped to try and look at art. My big regret was being a tightwad and not getting the headphones as I'm sure I'd have learnt lots more. So my new vow is to always take along either someone who know about art or the headset. Here endeth the lesson.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Avatar
Given this is on everyone's lips I feel I should have lots to say on this but I have substantially less but here goes.
It is literally jaw dropping. The world they have created is utterly beautiful- particularly in the night scenes. The floating mountains, tree cities, insane creatures and luminescent night forest are so beautifully realised that you just want to give them rounds of applause at points. There are more shots of true unnatural beauty in that film then anything I've seen before. It has been lovingly crafted and visualised and the people who did it cannot get enough awards. They legitimise making the film and they make me recommend it to everyone.
I know a lot of people who are unkeen to see it. Because it's a stupid plot with evil capitalist, trigger happy marines, nice scientists and natives at one with nature who need a white guy to lead them to salvation. Mostly fair but (with the partial exception to the Dances with Wolves syndrome which I'll come back to) totally irrelevant. The vistas in Hidden are pretty uninspiring. The make-up in United 93 doesn't do it for me. The special effects in Slumdog Millionaire are average. It doesn't matter because it's not what those films are about. Likewise dialogue and to a certain extent plot.
I actually think both are serviceable. It's undeniably a bit trite all this at one with nature business when we're talking about a state of the art, budget blowing film. But it's not a terrible message and it wears it fairly lightly. It would much rather show you a cool plant in the forest or have a chase with 100 stone hammerhead rhinoceros then preach about anything. The last act drags a bit with too much fighting (but the fact that I often find battle sequences boring I'm fairly sure puts me in a minority) but the second act is just the most wonderful adventure. Unlike King Kong which definitely felt like it clearly had two monsters too many, I didn't really want to leave the second act.
Also I'd like to say how absolutely seamless it worked with humans. That was what really struck me. You really couldn't tell they were acting up against a blue screen- the two worlds meshed so much more seamlessly then anything I've seen before. I don't know if that was an IMAX effect (and if you're going to see it- see it in IMAX) but it really worked.
So yes, worth every penny. It doesn't want to make you think- it wants to make you go wow. And boy did it.
On the Dances with Wolves syndrome- it's legitimate. But I think it's unrealistic to expect audiences to be up for a story where humans are the bad guys full stop. Why it has to be a white guy while all the Na'avi are played by 'actors of colour' is a different question. I reckon the world's ready for whites to be the bad guys full stop. In the movies.
It is literally jaw dropping. The world they have created is utterly beautiful- particularly in the night scenes. The floating mountains, tree cities, insane creatures and luminescent night forest are so beautifully realised that you just want to give them rounds of applause at points. There are more shots of true unnatural beauty in that film then anything I've seen before. It has been lovingly crafted and visualised and the people who did it cannot get enough awards. They legitimise making the film and they make me recommend it to everyone.
I know a lot of people who are unkeen to see it. Because it's a stupid plot with evil capitalist, trigger happy marines, nice scientists and natives at one with nature who need a white guy to lead them to salvation. Mostly fair but (with the partial exception to the Dances with Wolves syndrome which I'll come back to) totally irrelevant. The vistas in Hidden are pretty uninspiring. The make-up in United 93 doesn't do it for me. The special effects in Slumdog Millionaire are average. It doesn't matter because it's not what those films are about. Likewise dialogue and to a certain extent plot.
I actually think both are serviceable. It's undeniably a bit trite all this at one with nature business when we're talking about a state of the art, budget blowing film. But it's not a terrible message and it wears it fairly lightly. It would much rather show you a cool plant in the forest or have a chase with 100 stone hammerhead rhinoceros then preach about anything. The last act drags a bit with too much fighting (but the fact that I often find battle sequences boring I'm fairly sure puts me in a minority) but the second act is just the most wonderful adventure. Unlike King Kong which definitely felt like it clearly had two monsters too many, I didn't really want to leave the second act.
Also I'd like to say how absolutely seamless it worked with humans. That was what really struck me. You really couldn't tell they were acting up against a blue screen- the two worlds meshed so much more seamlessly then anything I've seen before. I don't know if that was an IMAX effect (and if you're going to see it- see it in IMAX) but it really worked.
So yes, worth every penny. It doesn't want to make you think- it wants to make you go wow. And boy did it.
On the Dances with Wolves syndrome- it's legitimate. But I think it's unrealistic to expect audiences to be up for a story where humans are the bad guys full stop. Why it has to be a white guy while all the Na'avi are played by 'actors of colour' is a different question. I reckon the world's ready for whites to be the bad guys full stop. In the movies.
Aladdin
This really will be a short one. But technically it's the first piece of theatre I've seen this year so here goes.
Sadly Pamela Anderson had gone by the time we got tickets so we were left with Anita Dobson as the genie who I don't really remember from EastEnders so didn't mean much to me and although she gave it a good old go I have to admit it was annoying knowing that two days later we'd have seen Paul O'Grady. Now there's a performer made for Panto.
The other performer of note was Brian Blessed who is clearly insane. His voice is perfect for it and he's pretty good at getting the boos going as the baddy but then he'll riff, mumble a bit and then say I think that deserves a round of applause- which you always get in panto whether you deserve it or not. He was less involved in the second half and I think that's why it was so much stronger then. I had a feeling he had a tendency to adlib which is why it didn't quite fit- there was one moment where he called Widow Twankey a he and while Twankey was quick on the draw he clearly lost his place.
And that was actually what I took most from it. Widow Twankey was cracking- huge, saucy humour with good timing, sings competently and moves exceptionally well in those heels. And Wishy-washy was also clearly a panto pro, and very good at the end when they brought some kids on. And there was a policeman who was a great unicyclist and juggler and to me that is what panto is. It's music hall (or what I imagine music hall was like) and almost circus. And yet so much time was spent with two bland as can be leads poorly singing ballads and dancers who (for someone who's been watching a lot of Glee) seemed to be out of sync with each other. The little kids seemed more together.
It has however made me want to direct kids' pantos. I think the reason why they work is because they don't have to hang together particularly. No one minds if a character suddenly appears and juggles- because who doesn't want to see some juggling. Or some dancing or singing or freestyle rapping or crazy football skills. You can use it to cram all sorts into a show- and it did, it has to be said have the most fantastic set. So there's a part of me which love to write a panto for a school each year where I could pick up every little skillful and creative thing the kids have done and stuff it all into a dubious plot- put in a couple inneundos and lot it roll. Almost feels like an exercise worth trying.
Sadly Pamela Anderson had gone by the time we got tickets so we were left with Anita Dobson as the genie who I don't really remember from EastEnders so didn't mean much to me and although she gave it a good old go I have to admit it was annoying knowing that two days later we'd have seen Paul O'Grady. Now there's a performer made for Panto.
The other performer of note was Brian Blessed who is clearly insane. His voice is perfect for it and he's pretty good at getting the boos going as the baddy but then he'll riff, mumble a bit and then say I think that deserves a round of applause- which you always get in panto whether you deserve it or not. He was less involved in the second half and I think that's why it was so much stronger then. I had a feeling he had a tendency to adlib which is why it didn't quite fit- there was one moment where he called Widow Twankey a he and while Twankey was quick on the draw he clearly lost his place.
And that was actually what I took most from it. Widow Twankey was cracking- huge, saucy humour with good timing, sings competently and moves exceptionally well in those heels. And Wishy-washy was also clearly a panto pro, and very good at the end when they brought some kids on. And there was a policeman who was a great unicyclist and juggler and to me that is what panto is. It's music hall (or what I imagine music hall was like) and almost circus. And yet so much time was spent with two bland as can be leads poorly singing ballads and dancers who (for someone who's been watching a lot of Glee) seemed to be out of sync with each other. The little kids seemed more together.
It has however made me want to direct kids' pantos. I think the reason why they work is because they don't have to hang together particularly. No one minds if a character suddenly appears and juggles- because who doesn't want to see some juggling. Or some dancing or singing or freestyle rapping or crazy football skills. You can use it to cram all sorts into a show- and it did, it has to be said have the most fantastic set. So there's a part of me which love to write a panto for a school each year where I could pick up every little skillful and creative thing the kids have done and stuff it all into a dubious plot- put in a couple inneundos and lot it roll. Almost feels like an exercise worth trying.
Glee
So,
My new year's resolution (or one of them at least) is to write reviews of all the cultural things I do this year- films I see, TV shows I watch (as in a whole series, not planning to review every episode of QI), exhibitions, new albums, concerts etc. etc. They're not going to be long- few paragraphs unless I've really got a bee in my bonnet but just forcing me to reflect and see what I gained from it.
And because I'm so classy I'm starting with a show I've seen the first half of just now (second half coming out in states in April)- Glee.
Glee is every cliche you could want from the teen drama book. There's a camp kid who's bullied, a big fat black girl, a scheming blond head cheerleader who dates the quarterback who's a bit dumb but has a big heart, an unpopular girl who's desperately keen and annoying but underneath it all has a big heart, big bullies who always go round in their Football uniforms and a wholesome young teacher who just wants the best for these kids.
So why did I devour all 13 episodes in five days? Because it's such damned good fun. It's plots are willfully ridiculous including faked pregnancies and a pantomine villain in the ruthless cheerleading coach who will stop at nothing to make sure Glee fails. And more importantly approximately a quarter of each 40 minutes is taken up by songs- sometimes these are performances (including some pretty unlikely mash-ups), sometimes these are Chicago style imaginary musical numbers which express what's going on in their troubled teenage lives.
It doesn't take itself seriously but not in an overly ironic, knowing way. It's very unashamed to be right on, whether it's singing with deaf kids or getitng everyone to do a wheelchair number. But it's based on a simple proposition- singing and dancing is fun. It's fun for the kids, though they don't always admit it and it's fun for the audience, who are more than happy to admit it. It's not claiming deep truth, that's why it has archetypal characters. But it does let them be reasonably complicated human beings- it has no problem with the same character being selfish and sweet. The love stories are quickly set up and flit back and forth but not in some desperate Ross and Rachael situation- they're teenagers. They change their feelings regularly so there's no pretending we're talking love for the ages. So basically it's freshness is in it's lack of originality- funny scripts about kids breaking free and expressing themselves equals smiles, no dressing it up.
Its pantomine villain isn't quite as good as she could be. I can't quite figure out if it's the script or her. Certainly the chemistry with the head and the right on teacher isn't quite right. And the teacher better keep on dancing otherwise he's going to become a right drip. But basically it adds nothing to the history of TV except a recognition of why Pop Idol etc. is so popular. It might even make me watch it.
My new year's resolution (or one of them at least) is to write reviews of all the cultural things I do this year- films I see, TV shows I watch (as in a whole series, not planning to review every episode of QI), exhibitions, new albums, concerts etc. etc. They're not going to be long- few paragraphs unless I've really got a bee in my bonnet but just forcing me to reflect and see what I gained from it.
And because I'm so classy I'm starting with a show I've seen the first half of just now (second half coming out in states in April)- Glee.
Glee is every cliche you could want from the teen drama book. There's a camp kid who's bullied, a big fat black girl, a scheming blond head cheerleader who dates the quarterback who's a bit dumb but has a big heart, an unpopular girl who's desperately keen and annoying but underneath it all has a big heart, big bullies who always go round in their Football uniforms and a wholesome young teacher who just wants the best for these kids.
So why did I devour all 13 episodes in five days? Because it's such damned good fun. It's plots are willfully ridiculous including faked pregnancies and a pantomine villain in the ruthless cheerleading coach who will stop at nothing to make sure Glee fails. And more importantly approximately a quarter of each 40 minutes is taken up by songs- sometimes these are performances (including some pretty unlikely mash-ups), sometimes these are Chicago style imaginary musical numbers which express what's going on in their troubled teenage lives.
It doesn't take itself seriously but not in an overly ironic, knowing way. It's very unashamed to be right on, whether it's singing with deaf kids or getitng everyone to do a wheelchair number. But it's based on a simple proposition- singing and dancing is fun. It's fun for the kids, though they don't always admit it and it's fun for the audience, who are more than happy to admit it. It's not claiming deep truth, that's why it has archetypal characters. But it does let them be reasonably complicated human beings- it has no problem with the same character being selfish and sweet. The love stories are quickly set up and flit back and forth but not in some desperate Ross and Rachael situation- they're teenagers. They change their feelings regularly so there's no pretending we're talking love for the ages. So basically it's freshness is in it's lack of originality- funny scripts about kids breaking free and expressing themselves equals smiles, no dressing it up.
Its pantomine villain isn't quite as good as she could be. I can't quite figure out if it's the script or her. Certainly the chemistry with the head and the right on teacher isn't quite right. And the teacher better keep on dancing otherwise he's going to become a right drip. But basically it adds nothing to the history of TV except a recognition of why Pop Idol etc. is so popular. It might even make me watch it.
Friday, 9 May 2008
John Denham as leader of the opposition
Read his speech today and was impressed. If he can hold onto his seat, which I have this sense he will, then I reckon he's a good shout for Labour leader should the local elections be an indicator of what's going to happen at the general. He's southern, moderate and would make a good contrast to Cameron having a grey haired but not aged gravitas and the advantage of clearly being a man of principle having resigned over Iraq. He'd get my vote.
Happy Go Lucky
This was meant to be a blog about politics but all I seem to do is talk about the films I watch. Happy Go Lucky is in many ways classic Mike Leigh. Even by his standards it's weak on narrative thrust but it's a classic look at London lives with a mixture of affection and a strangely unuanced idea of character. Secret and Lives is a decent film but nowhere near as good as it thinks it is and Topsy Turvy is great fun and for my money his best work. Most of the other Leigh films I've seen seem to have this strange lack of interest everyone but the main character. And so it is here.
Sally Hawkins is great as Poppy, really great. It is very hard to play a cheery protagonist. It's far more traditional for the lead to be quietly likeable and their friends to be zany and off the wall. She has to get you through being every so slightly repelled by her excessively cheery demeanour and out the other side where you like and respect her. And she does this mostly through having a face that shows real, mature care in it. Whether it's dealing with kids who are struggling or with Eddie Marsan as a rage-filled driving instructor, she can demonstrate that behind that overgrown kid persona is a person who's far more emotionally adept then those around here and has a genuine warmth and drive to help people. And help people in an effective way based, to sound utterly wanky, on eudaimonia (Aristotle's term meaning roughly 'the good life') rather than on an unemotional utilitarian basis. The idea that you help more by being a positive asset to everyone you eat then if you give away lots of money to charity.
That last point may be a little overstating it but I've listened to Mike Leigh talk about the film and I'm in no doubt that he is interested in the emotional maturity of optimism. Which fits in well with this post on Never Trust a Hippy. There is a strong pervading sense that optimism and idealism is some student concept which you should grow out of. But the truth is I don't think many people become cynical because they've seen more of the world it's got to them. I think most of the satirists and moaning columnists were always like that. It's why ex-politicians are usually better reads because they're more naturally engaged with attempting to put forward solutions.
This is in danger of becoming a moan about moaning. But I do think there is something endemic in the media that puts those who sit and bitch above those who try and help. And more fundamentally which encourages a viewpoint where you should feel sorry for yourself despite the fact that the 21st century in Britain is historically up there with the greatest places to live in history. End of rant.
So I reccomend Happy Go Lucky not because it's brilliant. She is and Eddie Marsan is brilliant as ever but the rest of the cast are stunningly one dimensional and I can't quite figure out if it's the script or the actor's fault. Actually it's a Mike Leigh film so the two are very much intertwined. But because I think it is an unsubtle but right polemic on the virtues of positivity and not succumbing to self-pity. It's a liberal modern version of the stiff upper lip really.
Sally Hawkins is great as Poppy, really great. It is very hard to play a cheery protagonist. It's far more traditional for the lead to be quietly likeable and their friends to be zany and off the wall. She has to get you through being every so slightly repelled by her excessively cheery demeanour and out the other side where you like and respect her. And she does this mostly through having a face that shows real, mature care in it. Whether it's dealing with kids who are struggling or with Eddie Marsan as a rage-filled driving instructor, she can demonstrate that behind that overgrown kid persona is a person who's far more emotionally adept then those around here and has a genuine warmth and drive to help people. And help people in an effective way based, to sound utterly wanky, on eudaimonia (Aristotle's term meaning roughly 'the good life') rather than on an unemotional utilitarian basis. The idea that you help more by being a positive asset to everyone you eat then if you give away lots of money to charity.
That last point may be a little overstating it but I've listened to Mike Leigh talk about the film and I'm in no doubt that he is interested in the emotional maturity of optimism. Which fits in well with this post on Never Trust a Hippy. There is a strong pervading sense that optimism and idealism is some student concept which you should grow out of. But the truth is I don't think many people become cynical because they've seen more of the world it's got to them. I think most of the satirists and moaning columnists were always like that. It's why ex-politicians are usually better reads because they're more naturally engaged with attempting to put forward solutions.
This is in danger of becoming a moan about moaning. But I do think there is something endemic in the media that puts those who sit and bitch above those who try and help. And more fundamentally which encourages a viewpoint where you should feel sorry for yourself despite the fact that the 21st century in Britain is historically up there with the greatest places to live in history. End of rant.
So I reccomend Happy Go Lucky not because it's brilliant. She is and Eddie Marsan is brilliant as ever but the rest of the cast are stunningly one dimensional and I can't quite figure out if it's the script or the actor's fault. Actually it's a Mike Leigh film so the two are very much intertwined. But because I think it is an unsubtle but right polemic on the virtues of positivity and not succumbing to self-pity. It's a liberal modern version of the stiff upper lip really.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
After the wedding
The second sensational piece of drama I watched was After the Wedding a Danish film by Suzanne Bier. It's one of the best pieces of european cinema I've seen in a while. It's nicely done with the kind of performances which make you forget they're acting and a directing style that manages to be unobtrusive even as she whirls the camera around her characters and into extreme closeups. A lesson in intricate camerawork as a tool rather than an end in itself. See Atonement for an example of someone knowing what they want to direct before they know what the story is.
And the essence of all this fine craftsmenship is that you get to concentrate on the story itself which has the capacity to surprise and intrigue in a way that I did not quite expect of it.
It begins in India with Jacob running an orphanage in India but being summoned back to Denmark in order to persuade a vastly wealthy potential benefactor to save the orphanage from closure. He is a typical developing world project man of a sort I've seen a fair bit of. He's amazing with the kids, passionate, kind and devoted to the project. These attractive qualities make him an attractive man but he has no real time for anyone and although he is immersed in India he is not quite of it. But he has no wish to leave because he does not want to go home. He despises the rich comforts of home and this anger drives him to be good at what he does. It also means he doesn't always make the right choices. A distrust of the wealthy and a belief that there is some purity about not thinking too hard about money has meant that most of his projects have come unstuck. It hurts him to acknowledge it but he needs to engage with the smiling face of capitalism if he is going to really bring about the good he so desperately craves.
And there are not many more smiling faces of capitalism than Jorgen. Fat and jolly and enjoys nothing more than coming home to his enormous mansion in the countryside to read nursery tales to his two supremely scandanavian looking twin boys and then putting his dear mother to bed before joining his wife in the bath fully clothed for a canoodle and a discussion of their daughter's wedding. He is someone who presents a picture of captialism completely at odds with Jacob's simplistic view of what the wealthy are like. He's caring and generous and wants to do give away some of his vast, vast self-made fortune.
This in itself was a promising start as far as I was concerned. It dealt with things I find hugely interesting and aren't discussed enough. Particularly the relationship between charities and their donors. But if it has stuck there it would have possibly lost itself in among the preaching. It doesn't. It moves through a range of revelations which dissect issues of disclosure and trust and the nature of love. In particular it looks at how people try to take care of others by hiding things from them and concocting plans without consulting those involved. It's about personal skills that are so effective in one arena can be so useless in others. And perhaps most of all is about the idea of responsibilities.
I don't want to divulge too much but one aspect that really interested me is the sense that when a westerner settles in a developing country they're always expected back. At some point, despite everything, it will make sense to go back. You are not of the world you live in. Your world, whatever your relationship with it, is across the seas and you can't truly leave it behind. The film is brilliant for the way it depicts India slowly leaving Jacob the longer he stays in Denmark.
This obviously becomes less true when they marry and have children but the point about development work is that you are dealing with people so much less blessed than you. No one does aid work unless they're educated, healthy, well-travelled rich (comparative to the local population and usually far from poor back home either) and free of responsibilities. The people you work and live with are none of those things. And while you can do so much to help them you can't make them your equals in terms of opportunity or knowledge. As a result you are in a strange and, to my mind, hugely interesting personal situation.
My parents spents a weekend in the hills of Bali with a british engineer who'd settled out there. He'd spent most of his life in south east asia working for multinationals and, single and not someone who fitted easily into society back home, when he retired he decided to stay in Bali. But being both restless and generously hearted he decided he wanted to help the most deprived people in Indonesia. He scoured the country and to his amazement found that as good an example as any could be found in the hills of Bali itself. So he went to the village and gave them a proposition. He promised to make their lives better but they had to agree to follow the plan he proscribed for them. Essentially he asked to be an enlightened despot. The elders went away for three days to discuss it and then came back and agreed to it. And he was true to his word. They now have running water into the village. They grow a far more varied and productive range of foods. The youngest kids all go to school and have spread their numeracy around the rest of village. As a result they don't get mercilessly ripped off when they go to sell their stuff at market anymore. It's all good and they just have to do what he says. I have no idea what has happened to it in the two years since they last visited but I am hugely curious about the relationship he has with it. And After the Wedding has done a great job of reminding me of this. Something you almost never see in films.
That's probably the reason it reasonates for me so much but I think anyone who's ever had to deal with family secrets will find something in this film. I reccomend it as much as any film I've watched on DVD this year.
And the essence of all this fine craftsmenship is that you get to concentrate on the story itself which has the capacity to surprise and intrigue in a way that I did not quite expect of it.
It begins in India with Jacob running an orphanage in India but being summoned back to Denmark in order to persuade a vastly wealthy potential benefactor to save the orphanage from closure. He is a typical developing world project man of a sort I've seen a fair bit of. He's amazing with the kids, passionate, kind and devoted to the project. These attractive qualities make him an attractive man but he has no real time for anyone and although he is immersed in India he is not quite of it. But he has no wish to leave because he does not want to go home. He despises the rich comforts of home and this anger drives him to be good at what he does. It also means he doesn't always make the right choices. A distrust of the wealthy and a belief that there is some purity about not thinking too hard about money has meant that most of his projects have come unstuck. It hurts him to acknowledge it but he needs to engage with the smiling face of capitalism if he is going to really bring about the good he so desperately craves.
And there are not many more smiling faces of capitalism than Jorgen. Fat and jolly and enjoys nothing more than coming home to his enormous mansion in the countryside to read nursery tales to his two supremely scandanavian looking twin boys and then putting his dear mother to bed before joining his wife in the bath fully clothed for a canoodle and a discussion of their daughter's wedding. He is someone who presents a picture of captialism completely at odds with Jacob's simplistic view of what the wealthy are like. He's caring and generous and wants to do give away some of his vast, vast self-made fortune.
This in itself was a promising start as far as I was concerned. It dealt with things I find hugely interesting and aren't discussed enough. Particularly the relationship between charities and their donors. But if it has stuck there it would have possibly lost itself in among the preaching. It doesn't. It moves through a range of revelations which dissect issues of disclosure and trust and the nature of love. In particular it looks at how people try to take care of others by hiding things from them and concocting plans without consulting those involved. It's about personal skills that are so effective in one arena can be so useless in others. And perhaps most of all is about the idea of responsibilities.
I don't want to divulge too much but one aspect that really interested me is the sense that when a westerner settles in a developing country they're always expected back. At some point, despite everything, it will make sense to go back. You are not of the world you live in. Your world, whatever your relationship with it, is across the seas and you can't truly leave it behind. The film is brilliant for the way it depicts India slowly leaving Jacob the longer he stays in Denmark.
This obviously becomes less true when they marry and have children but the point about development work is that you are dealing with people so much less blessed than you. No one does aid work unless they're educated, healthy, well-travelled rich (comparative to the local population and usually far from poor back home either) and free of responsibilities. The people you work and live with are none of those things. And while you can do so much to help them you can't make them your equals in terms of opportunity or knowledge. As a result you are in a strange and, to my mind, hugely interesting personal situation.
My parents spents a weekend in the hills of Bali with a british engineer who'd settled out there. He'd spent most of his life in south east asia working for multinationals and, single and not someone who fitted easily into society back home, when he retired he decided to stay in Bali. But being both restless and generously hearted he decided he wanted to help the most deprived people in Indonesia. He scoured the country and to his amazement found that as good an example as any could be found in the hills of Bali itself. So he went to the village and gave them a proposition. He promised to make their lives better but they had to agree to follow the plan he proscribed for them. Essentially he asked to be an enlightened despot. The elders went away for three days to discuss it and then came back and agreed to it. And he was true to his word. They now have running water into the village. They grow a far more varied and productive range of foods. The youngest kids all go to school and have spread their numeracy around the rest of village. As a result they don't get mercilessly ripped off when they go to sell their stuff at market anymore. It's all good and they just have to do what he says. I have no idea what has happened to it in the two years since they last visited but I am hugely curious about the relationship he has with it. And After the Wedding has done a great job of reminding me of this. Something you almost never see in films.
That's probably the reason it reasonates for me so much but I think anyone who's ever had to deal with family secrets will find something in this film. I reccomend it as much as any film I've watched on DVD this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)