Sin Nombre Film

5 out of 5

(in Spanish with English subtitles): Sin Nombre is a gorgeous movie that packs an emotional punch as it follows the immigrant trail from South America to the USA. The film, like its name works on multiple levels. “Without a Name”, what was intended to be the temporary title for the film ended up being a permanent one as it worked on multiple levels – the alienation of immigrants coming to a new country, the reinvention of a person when they join a gang, and perhaps a movie that wanted to leave the moral judgments for the audience to make themselves.

The film traces two independent story lines – one of a young man who is part of a gang and another of a young girl who joins her father and uncle to immigrate to America. Eventually, on a train that represents one of the most dangerous immigrant journeys and has claimed many lives in reality, these two characters meet. But assuming that this is a clean romance, would be wrong. The director had more in mind than a simple love story about two people coming together.

Instead, the movie is more complex. Love is an element of the film, but not its main focus. Lost love, future love, the love for one’s family, or for friends who become like a family are all examined in turn. As is infatuation, and the mistaken love for authority which embraces violence and cruelty. But the film does not stop there. It realistically depicts two of the bigger challenges of modern day South America – the plague of gangs and the ambition of immigration to America – both solutions to the social, economic, and political problems that many countries in that part of the world face.

There are some difficult moments to watch and to face. There is violence, often pointless and cruel. There are also tender moments, some of which you can hardly believe exist, in a background of situations that are so difficult to deal with, that they seem to strip all humanity out of humans. A heartfelt and emotional mix of tender and cruel, this film is a gem. Backed by convincing acting by the two main leads – Paulina Gaitán and Edgar Flores, the struggles of the characters in the film stay with you long after.

Overall, Sin Nombre is a highly recommended film that is worth seeing for the gorgeous cinematography alone.

Where the Wild Things Are Film

3 out of 5

Based on a children’s illustrated book by Maurice Sendak, Where the Wild Things Are is the story of a young boy and what happens when his loneliness and inability to connect with his family turn inward towards his imagination. Reminiscent of the classic film “The NeverEnding Story” with various furry creatures, this movie surpasses its predecessor in many ways. But in some, it falls short.

The film is technically brilliant with the beast characters being quite convincingly playing alongside the human boy. The landscape of the majority of the film is beautiful and defies reality. Coupled with some excellent music choices, the atmosphere is set for an interesting ride. However, there is an uneasiness of the film that stems from the confusion of whether it is for adults or for children. There is a hint of “Lord of the Rings”-style events happening in the background, if the main character and his wild things are left to their own devices.

The film stops short of blood and gore, but that’s partly due to the soft animal aspect of the wild beasts. Instead of blood, their “stuffing of feathers” comes out when they are hurt. Yet, there are still some scenes which feel too mature for children as they are a bit unnerving even for adults. The emotional issues that Max has, stemming perhaps from his loneliness or the usual challenges of growing up are never fully addressed. His own violent tendencies, the casual [violence that he is a victim of by his sister’s friends, and the mild violence that the wild things also display without too much of a thought are all disturbing. And that uneasy feeling does not go away during the film, especially since none of these tendencies are really explained or resolved.

What is also a challenge in a movie such as this is the line between reality and imagination. A line that is very fuzzy with the viewer left to assume what has and has not occurred and what is a symptom of something else. With modern day eyes, it’s easy to go down the slippery slope of analyzing the movie the way perhaps a child psychologist would. And that further complicates this film, which already is trying to juggle multiple audiences and messages.

Overall a pretty film that lacks a focus and an audience. Perhaps by trying to appeal to a wide audience, it ends up confusing the adults and scaring the kids. Despite this ambiguity, the film’s imagery and soundtrack are stunning.

Bright Star Film

5 out of 5

One of the most beautiful and dreamy films of the year, Bright Star explores how one of the most well-known British poets, John Keats, developed a relationship with a neighbour girl, Fanny Brawne. The film is gorgeously shot with beautiful colours streaming from costumes and lighting to the outside locations, including an enlightening blue forest landscape. But the stunning visual beauty of the film doesn’t take away from its emotional impact.

Just as John and Fanny begin their encounter as questioning and individualistic people, so does the viewer. But slowly, we all become seduced by the beauty of John’s poetry and passion and Fanny’s outspokenness and tenderness. Slowly but surely, we fall in love with them both just as they fall in love with each other. The passion of their relationship plays out for the viewer, with multiple obstacles being removed. Societal norms are discarded as is the advice of friends in the face of emotions that grab hold of John and Fanny. Or so we imagine. So we hope. As any movie based on a historical real life person and event, quite a bit of the movie may be fiction or pure imagination on the part of the screenwriter and director. But ultimately that does not matter. Any questions about authenticity do not dilute the emotional experience of watching youth brazen with the creative spirit and zest for life find someone who they cannot help but completely become lost in.

The movie is certainly a romantic story. Few viewers can not be seduced by the passion of John and Fanny’s relationship. But without being too obvious or saccharine sweet, the film takes a sour turn, as life so often does. The result of which is one of the best and most emotional acting displays by actress Abbie Cornish. Utterly brilliant.

Just like real love, the movie will inspire, enliven, and ultimately tragically break the viewer’s heart. But it is certainly a journey worth taking and watching. For days afterward, the words of John Keats and the magical music that accompanies the film will stay with you.

If you like Bright Star, watch All the Real Girls – a modern take starring Paul Schneider, who plays John Keat’s best friend (Charles Armitage Brown) in Bright Star.

An Education Film

3 out of 5

Exploring the maturation of a young ambitious girl in 1960s London, An Education is not an easily-digested film. Nor is it a film which wraps up its message in a neat box for the viewer, despite an ending which erroneously tries to do so. Focusing on a relationship with an older man, the film subtly is informed by the reality of being a young woman during those times – the choices, the limitations and the realities. This is a time when feminism was very much in its early stages and the decision between a career and a husband seemed to be a mutually exclusive one. When the choices for women seem to be either to have a career and no personal life, or sacrifice your personal ambition leaving you completely vulnerable and tied to the man in your life. Not an easy decision, and one with which the main character, Jenny, played by the fantastic Carey Mulligan struggles with throughout the film.

Interestingly, the film also explores the morality of love and bending the rules when you believe you are doing so for all the right reasons. Whether it’s love or excitement or blind rebelliousness, it is difficult to judge any of the characters too harshly, even the older man who takes advantage, the usually underrated Peter Sarsgaard.

For all the moral qualms and ambiguous choices that the characters in the film have and all the ambiguous choices they make, the film errs in trying to make a complex story cleaner and simpler for the audience to digest. It would be easy to label the characters of the film as right or wrong. Stupid or smart. But to do so would be to miss the point. Ultimately all the people have their redeeming qualities and have made peace within themselves with their choices – some moral and some less so – but that is compromise that we all make. A compromise that is sometimes quite compromising in the name of excitement or love.

The movie accurately portrays the sometimes painful experiences of growing up. It is sometimes said that growing up first means killing the ideas and restrictions of your parents, gods, and teachers. Only then are you free from preconceptions and are able to formulate opinions and make your own decisions – right or wrong. And that is ultimately what Jenny does in the film.

Ultimately, a quality movie examining a complex situation during a time that was quite different from ours today. However one that doesn’t move the emotional needle of the audience too much in either direction – no need for tissues.

Tate Modern: John Baldessari: Pure Beauty and Pop Life: Art in a Material World

One of the best parts of living in London is the amount of fantastic art galleries and museums showing some excellent and inspired work. To many Londoners, that is one of the reasons to look forward to the long and dark winter – the respite we can get by visiting one of the capital’s many exhibitions. Yet, this winter was disappointing and it wasn’t just the bad weather. It was the choice of exhibitions at the Tate Modern, which thankfully is currently being changed out for spring shows that holds much more promise. The Tate Modern has held a prominent place in London’s art scene for a long time and rightly so. Bringing often fantastic shows to Londoners and tourists alike (Frida Kahlo, Cildo Meireles, and Gilbert and George come to mind), it’s rare for the Tate to miscalculate its choices. If at least one of their two simultaneous exhibitions had been inspiring, I could have overlooked the one that left me emotionally cold. But this was not so.

The two exhibitions shown this year during the winter season were John Baldessari’s Pure Beauty and Pop Life: Art in a Material World. Both were supposed to be radical, shocking, thought provoking, and monumental. And yet, they were not.

Continuing a tradition of presenting lesser-known artists to a wider audience, the Tate Modern held a retrospective of California-based American artist, John Baldessari. Some art critics have said that he is one of contemporary art’s foremost conceptual artists. Well, he certainly has had a long career as an artist, being not only a creator of art, but also a teacher of immense influence. He is sometimes credited as being one of the first artists to incorporate the written word into his artwork, helping start a worldwide movement. Was he visionary for his time? Did he radically change the face of art? Was he able to influence the artistic landscape the way very few other modern artists have? Perhaps.

Yet, disregarding all the explanations, history, and biographies, his art falls flat. When taken out of context, his work seems to lose most meaning. The cleverness or wittiness that perhaps was amusing, challenging, even radical and shocking at the time, is no longer so. Now, it just feels tired and overdone. Can we appreciate Baldessari for being at the forefront of an artistic movement and for the contributions he made to modern art – of course. But that does mean that we cannot critique his work.

Truly great art should be able to withstand the challenge of being stripped of its place in the timeline of art history. When viewed in a vacuum, it should still do something to the viewer. Often, that “something” is inspire or uplift. Sometimes, it is cause the viewer to question or wonder. And other times, it’s to cause the audience to turn away in pain or disgust. But art should inspire a feeling in the viewer. Any feeling will do. Unfortunately, Baldessari’s work does not meet this challenge. It’s too simple, too obvious, and not interesting enough to keep my attention. I simply walk on by.

Even if he is rightly credited as one of the first artists to incorporate words into his work, then my response is a tacit, “so what?” Just because it was different at the time and perhaps even radical, doesn’t make it long-lasting and good. Some use of words in art is great and fantastic, and some is less so. It’s a bit like cheating on a maths test with a calculator when you’re supposed to do long division. The idea of art is to impart a feeling without words, but rather with images – that’s what separates artists from writers. That’s why many artists choose to leave their work untitled, for fear that adding a title would unfairly influence the viewer’s reaction to the work. In the end, Baldessari may be all the things that some art critics believe he is – a revolutionary and long-standing figure of the American art world. Yet, I believe we can all agree that this doesn’t put him above criticism. And in this author’s view, the criticism is not that his work is too radical or not radical enough or too beautiful or too ugly, but that ultimately it didn’t make any feelings stir.

Unfortunately, the Tate Modern’s other winter show, Pop Life: Art in a Material World, was the other extreme. It tries to outrage audiences with the usual tactics, namely explicit images. But not all shocks are shocking. And not all explicit images are worthy of being called art. Some are just pornography and do not deserve the respect afforded artwork. Indeed, this debate of what is and isn’t art is an ongoing discussion throughout the centuries that will thankfully never end as new ideas are incorporated and society changes and adapts.

The purpose of the Pop Life exhibition is to show the work of artists who became pop starts by embracing the media in a way that their predecessors had rarely done. Does this intimate relationship with mass media dilute art? Certainly. But that’s not always a bad thing as it also makes it more accessible in many ways. I take less issue with art’s exploitation of the media mass market, partly because it’s simply reversing a sadomasochistic relationship that has been around for a while – except now the usee becomes the user. What I do take more of an issue with is the reliance on explicit images as avenues for artists to shock their audience. Of course, not all explicit images are inappropriate for art, and what is too explicit for one person may not be for another. But in the final analysis, just like the use of words within images, not everything which is shocking is good and it often just cheats the image out of meaning and the audience out of an experience that they deserve.

While the Tate Modern has indeed been a disappointment this winter, other venues and outlets have picked up the slack, in more ways than one. Here’s to hoping for a beautiful spring and some exhibitions that will inspire us in 2010.

Saatchi Gallery - Abstract America: New Painting and Sculpture

Ending after a six month run at one of the world’s most influential public art galleries, a show dedicated to abstract American art produced a mix of reactions in its audience. Spread out over three floors, the exhibition plainly entitled, “Abstract America: New Painting and Sculpture” was the Saatchi Gallery’s attempt to expose modern American art to a wide audience in one of the major art capitals of the world – London.

At the end of all this, what did we learn about the range and quality of American art and how it is classified and viewed outside the US? Well, for one, we learned that not all of the artists shown by Charles Saatchi, the owner of the gallery and one of the most powerful and recognizable art collectors, are visionaries and contemporary geniuses. This is not to say that there is a lack of talent exhibited, but it is to say that some artists don’t display the shock and awe factor that truly great art can have on its audience.

Gallery 7 is the clear winner in the impact category. The exuberant colors of the pieces in that room jump out at the viewer. The mix of styles and influences comes as a welcome surprise. The room showcases the fantastic and imaginative colour combinations of NY-based duo Eric and Heather ChanSchatz whose collaborative approach is simultaneously all that is wrong and right in modern art. It also includes the tribal inspired paintings of Connecticut-based Baker Overstreet and the whimsical and insightful creations of Miami duo Guerra de la Paz. But even in this room, which is easily the most joyous and inspired of the whole show, something is missing. Some grit. Perhaps imagination. With a dash of a rebellious streak. In short, the type of stuff you find in Juxtapoz (http://www.juxtapoz.com/). What is missing is the art that leaps off the wall, smacks you in the face, then offers you a drink and gooses while telling you about the virtues of street art and all that could be improved to make America a better place. But no. The work in this show sometimes entertains, but doesn’t provoke any further insight or examination.

Often, visitors to the USA say that it is a land of extremes. This large country not only provides a wealth of diversity in landscapes, but more importantly in people. This fundamental part of what contemporary American art is all about should have been at the center of this exhibition. It should have driven the decision to display a wide variety of art from various genres and geographical locations. Yet, it barely scratches the surface. There are some notable exceptions to this – Ryan Johnson’s towering figures, Mark Bradford’s mixed media collages, Carter’s paintings, Jedediah Caesar’s mixed media tiles, and Agathe Snow’s post-apocalyptic crucifixions. And then there is the other extreme – the art that tries too hard and ends up looking foolish. The type of stuff that spends so much time trying to be clever and provocative that it ends up punching the viewer in the face in an annoyingly obvious way. Just like puns in literature, not everything that seems clever to the artist actually translates across to its audience, bushes and box-eating snakes included.

Two of the artists that were chosen to have a whole room dedicated to their work reflect what European opinions are of American art rather than truly the best contemporary American art. Kristin Baker’s work certainly has the advantage of scale and colour. There is an interesting interplay between reality and imagination as you’re not quite sure what you’re looking at, since it seems to change depending on the angle. Yet, it feels too familiar. You’ve seen it or something like it somewhere before. Close but no cigar. In contrast, Amy Sillman’s work has a positively Renoir-esque element to it. American abstract it certainly is. Yet, confusingly, it is rendered in a colour palette that reminds me of paintings of lawn tea parties and flower wallpaper that your grandmother would like. Not quite what I think of when I think of modern day America.

In the end, we must go back to our original question – what have we learned from all this. We’ve learned that showcasing art that is supposed to represent the best of a contemporary art landscape in a country as large and diverse as the USA is difficult – very difficult. Yet, the decision to showcase barely any art that punches you in the gut or at the very least opens your eyes is confusing. It lacks courage and a sense of reality. Next time, perhaps the Saatchi Gallery should take a look at Juxtapoz to get a real slice of contemporary American art that truly shocks and awes the shit out of its audience. In a good way, of course.

As a message to the artists included in its show and a caveat to all reviews, the Saatchi Gallery has posted on its website, “apologies for some of our art critics in the UK. A number of them know very little about contemporary art, obviously. But they do sometimes get there eventually, usually by the time the art is no longer very contemporary. 20 years ago they gave the thumbs-down to our Warhol, Judd, Twombly, Nauman, Guston, Marden exhibitions, that included many of their greatest works - if that's any consolation.” This statement certainly rings true. Unfortunately, it can not only be applied to reviewers of art but also collectors, curators, and the audience. And of course, writers. Well, there’s always a next time.

Things I Love

1. Time Out Magazine / website (although sometimes their recommendations are completely off)

2. Coffee (Monmouth's or Cafe Vergnano 1928 or Cafe Italia)

3. Tea (haven't found a fantastic tea place; there are many in London)

4. Movies - Curzon Soho, BFI, ICA amongst others

5. Art - the Tates, the Photographer's Gallery (recently moved), the National Gallery (& Portrait Gallery just to mix things up) & Estorick Collection (tiny but awesome)

Gomorrah Film

Title: Gomorrah

Rating (out of 100): 90

Mood: contemplative, sad, tragic

Website: http://www.gomorrahmovie.co.uk/

Timeout / Culture Critic: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/85793/Gomorrah.html / http://www.culturecritic.co.uk/cinema/gomorrah/

(Italian, with subtitles): Sort of reminds me of an Italian version of Boyz n the Hood showing the difficulties of growing up and living in a society where corruption and crime are so intrinsically tied to every aspect of life. This movie examines how life is in a society, where people are forced to make compromises yet struggle with the same emotions of all humans (the desire for self-preservation, family honour, and the ambition of youth). A fascinating, if scary and harrowing, study of several intertwined stories of various people in Italy and the choices they make when faced with such rules. Aside from the story line, which is dramatic and compelling, tragic and occasionally uplifting, the film is visually stunning. From the beginning sequence in the tanning booth to the sequence that is shot from above of a man walking through corpses, the film’s muted colours work. An overall depressing movie, but one that is very enlightening (especially the end of the movie that gives some statistics on organized crime in Italy as context).