Movie Reviewlet: Antonia's Line

The Preacher in Ecclesiastes said, "There is nothing new under the sun." I've found this to be true in the realm of fiction as well, whether it be in books or films. Two or more authors might start with essentially the same plot or at least use the same plot point -- the real interest lies in what each does with it. (For instance, read Robertson Davies' Fifth Business and John Irving's A Prayer for Owen Meany).  I've come to notice this especially in films. For instance, there's the plot "Working Class People in Difficult Circumstances Find Redemption Through Art": The Full Monty, Billy Elliott, Greenfingers, Brassed Off are some examples. (True, in Greenfingers it's the art of gardening, but still).  Then there's "Simple Village Folk Outwit Outside Forces": Tight Little Island, The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down A Mountain, Waking Ned Devine, for instance.  (Feel free to comment with more examples, I do enjoy this plot!)

Back in the dear, dead days when I belonged to a book club, I came to realize that, although we read quite widely, both contemporary fiction and classics, books written in English and translated from other languages, there was one theme that seemed to crop up over and over. It was the theme of people creating their own families in unorthodox ways.  I'm not sure why we liked these books so much, since we were all "family women" (no one says that -- it's always "family man" -- hmmm).  But there you go. The book with this theme that stands out for me is Keri Hulme's The Bone People, but I know there were many more.  Last night I watched a DVD of Antonia's Line, a Dutch movie which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film 10+ years ago. It had the same theme: the formation of a family by several mostly-unrelated people, all of whom are also marginalized in some way, but end up supporting each other in the same way that families do.

Antonia (the movie is just called Antonia in Dutch; I wonder if the title was changed in English to avoid confusion with Willa Cather's book?) returns to her native village in the Netherlands shortly after World War II, daughter (who doesn't look completely Dutch) in tow, just in time to witness her mother's death. Antonia and daughter take over the farm, and Antonia renews her friendship with Crooked Finger, a student of existential philosophy who has become a bit of a recluse, never leaving his home.  They also strike up a friendship with a local, widowed farmer who "has only been in the village 20 years" and so doesn't quite fit in. Further events transpire, not all pleasant, and the group of people around Antonia grows and grows. I won't continue describing the plot, but I will say that without knowing very much about the Netherlands, I felt this film was probably very Dutch in its assumptions and sensibilities.  I would definitely recommend it. I'd be interested to hear what you think if you see it! (As with nearly every movie I see these days, it's available on DVD from Netflix and probably, since it won an Oscar, most video rental services/stores).

A Trio of Movies

With Sisterfilms in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area for a few days, far from theaters and DVD players, I thought I'd fill the gap and say a little about three movies I watched recently -- two well-known and the third much less so.

The first one, THE DAY OF THE JACKAL, (1973) was based on Frederick Forsyth's Edgar-award-winning novel. I've been reading all the winners of the Best Novel award, given by the Mystery Writers of America each year since 1954, for about a year now, and have reached 1977. The book in question won in 1972 (published in 1971) and was filmed the following year. As a rule, I prefer to see the movie first and then read the book, as I've so often been disappointed by film treatments of books I liked. This time, though, I reread the book first and then saw the movie, which I'd missed the first time around. I can't say I was disappointed at all. There was only one major plot change that I can recall, and it was probably made in order to keep the film at a manageable length. Fred Zinneman's direction was just what was needed to keep the suspense going, the casting was excellent, and the setting in 1963 was spot-on. As I'm not a real cinema critic (haven't taken any film classes ever), the only cinematic device I noticed was the frequent shots of clocks. Nearly every location had its clock face with time ticking away -- an especially subtle choice because, until the last few moments of the film, the hunt for the Jackal is not a matter of hours or minutes, but days or weeks. Apparently there was a remake in 1997 which should be avoided, but the original film is excellent.

Next, we received from Netflix CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR (2007). Starring Tom Hanks, who's come a long way since BOSOM BUDDIES, this is based on the true story of how Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson called in enough Congressional favors to covertly supply the Afghan mujahedeen with sufficient arms to defeat the Soviet invasion, and, some say, to bring about the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Philip Seymour Hoffman turns in an amazing performance as maverick CIA agent Gust Avrakotos (it's hard to believe, seeing him in this film, that he played such a believable Truman Capote!) Whatever your politics, this film will give you a lot of food for thought about our foreign policy failures and successes, and entertain you as well.

Last night, I watched a Canadian movie that isn't so well-known. ALL HAT (2007) is based on a novel by Brad Smith, who also co-wrote the screenplay. I happened upon it because I'd read a mystery (BUSTED FLUSH) by the author and wanted to see what else he'd done. Then I saw that not only were Luke Kirby (SLINGS AND ARROWS, a brilliant Canadian TV series), Graham Greene (DANCES WITH WOLVES and many others), and Gary Farmer (POWWOW HIGHWAY, one of my favorite films) part of the cast, but also Cordeliaknits' junior high and high school classmate Rachael Leigh Cook! So I had to see it, and enjoyed it very much.
ALL HAT is a sort of modern-day Western, set among the horse farms and burgeoning subdivisions of Fort Erie and environs in Ontario (across the Niagara River from Buffalo, NY). As you might guess, the farms and the subdivisions don't mix, and the villain of the piece, rich boy Sonny Stanton (played by Noam Jenkins), is trying to force all the farmers out so he can make a killing on a casino/golf course development. Luke Kirby's character, Ray Dokes, has had trouble with Sonny before, and at first has a fatalistic attitude that "the money always wins." But a fortuitous horse theft (not by Dokes) gives him an idea of how to give Sonny his much-deserved comeuppance. Rachael Leigh Cook plays a jockey with some issues of her own; Keith Carradine is a father-surrogate for Ray and perfect as the over-the-hill Texas cowboy with a constant flow of dry wit. Fine performances by all concerned and a satisfying plot combine with a beautiful setting to make an enjoyable film that raises some intriguing moral questions. (Unfortunately for youth group leaders, it's rated R for some sex and violence and a lot of rough language.)

My Son, the Fanatic -- thoughts on a movie

Last night I watched My Son, the Fanatic, a short (hour and 20 minute) film based on a short story. In a north of England mill town, an Indian immigrant (Om Puri) is a taxi driver with a dissatisfied wife and one son in college. He is nominally Muslim, but assimilated to the point that he relaxes after work with a drink and Louis Armstrong records. Many of his taxi clients are local prostitutes. From the opening scene where Parvez and his wife are meeting their son's English fiancée and her parents, through the inexplicable (to him) changes in his son's behavior and beliefs, we see the disintegration of this small family. Parvez is hired as a driver for a visiting German businessman and becomes his procurer of women, especially "Bettina" (whose real name is Sandra), played by Rachel Griffiths. In their taxi rides together, Parvez and Bettina become friends. Meanwhile, his son Farid has discovered his Islamic roots and, disgusted by the prostitution, pornography and general meaninglessness of the English life as he sees it, slides further and further into fanaticism. (In this 1997 film, the fanaticism takes the form of protests against prostitution which turn violent). Father and son cannot understand each other. I won't recount the rest of the plot, but I wanted to note some of my thoughts on the film.

The theme that struck me in this film was the status of women in modern British culture and in Islamic culture. Except for brief scenes with the English fiancée and her mother, the only English (non-Islamic) women we see are the prostitutes. Minoo, Parvez's wife and Farid's mother, longs to return to Lahore and readily adopts a more Islamic style of clothing when her son becomes observant. Yet she is not a subservient wife. Farid (and the other fundamentalists) take out their anger at the sex-obsessed culture they see around them on the prostitutes, failing to see that the women are the victims. (Bettina/Sandra explains her choice of profession in economic terms.)

Parvez seems to be the only man in the film who views women as human beings. Although his relationship with his wife is crumbling, he is shocked and angry when, during a visit from a Muslim spiritual leader, she is made to eat separately, behind closed doors in the kitchen. And although he is sexually attracted to Bettina, there is far more to their relationship than that, and even his interactions with the other prostitutes are friendly and do not objectify them. Yet, he is still complicit in their being used by the German businessman.

This movie was billed as somewhat humorous, which it really isn't at all, though it's not a complete tragedy either. If you have seen it or do in the future I'd be interested in your ideas.