BREAKING THE WAVES with Emily Watson

Emily Watson's performance in Lars von Trier's BREAKING THE WAVES is nothing short of remarkable. There is much that is good & intriguing about this film - but Watson's touching, mesmerizing portrayal of a young woman named Bess & her coming of age is the corner stone of this film.

Watson drew me into the psychological turmoil of the film in its first 60 seconds. The camera full on her face, BTW opens with Bess' longing for a new chapter in her life, a chapter involving marriage to a man she deeply loves and desires (a desire that is only just beginning to flower into sexual passion) is etched upon her starry eyed, hopeful, determined face. Without any contextualization, these opening moments of the film are all about the feelings, the desires, the secret thoughts of this young woman - shining like a beacon upon her face.

This intimate opening sets the tone for a film that, by its end, will follow its heroine upon her journey towards discovering her sexuality, her sexual desires, her passion for love and her determination to achieve these at all costs & according to her own terms. When all is said & done - BTW is a shocking, troubling, often morally disturbing coming of age film about a woman who is almost too unique to survive the cloistered, evangelical mentality of the small Scottish coastal town within which she has always lived. A town that will viciously turn its sanctimonious wrath upon her in her hour of most need.

Much to his credit, von Trier's handling of the sexual nature of the film manages to personalize, not trivialize or patronize, the sexual awakening of his heroine. In these scenes - the passion on display is Bess', not her husband's - he is just as much, if not more so, the object of her desire as she is the object of his desire. For example, it is Bess, not her new husband, who chooses the time & the place for her losing of her virginity. In this scene, von Trier & Watson do a remarkable job of exploring the wonderment of the sexual awakening of a young woman raised in a cloistered, puritanical environment. This scene is also frankly realistic in that it is only marginally romantic. In more ways than one Bess breaks through the shell of her former self in this scene.

The ending of von Trier's film is disturbing on many levels - visually & thematically weaving a bizarre, twisted morality tale about the often tenuous balance between sexual desire and love. BTW stuck in my mind for days after viewing it. Haunting me as I tried to decide how I felt about its ending & all it implied. I'm still not sure how I feel about the ending. It sort of made me mad. But - I think that was von Trier's point. Sexual passion and love do NOT always lead to a life of serene bliss & contentment.

Varda's LE BONHEUR

Agnes Varda's LE BONHEUR (1965) is a simple film. A gently paced, unassuming film. Or maybe not. A film's whose very simplicity, whose very idyllic nature almost MUST mean something complex. MUST be asking its viewers to consider meaning beneath its colorful, unassuming facade.

Quite simply - it tells the story of a man who is happily married to a woman with whom he has two small children - we first meet this family on a picnic. Then he falls in love with another woman. She agrees to share him with his wife. The man, always wanting to be honest, tells his wife - while the family is on another picnic - of his other love. He swears to her that the one love will never detract from the other. That he is still devoted to her & the kids. The wife, upon learning of the other woman, at first seems withdrawn but then quickly agrees that what her husband needs in order to be happy is ok with her. While their children are napping under a bush, the husband & wife make love under a tree. The husband then falls asleep. When he awakes - he finds only his children - not his wife. After searching - he discovers her drowned. After a brief period of mourning - he & the other woman take up their relationship again - she agreeing to mother his children - & they all go for a picnic. End of film.

What is so remarkable about Varda's telling of this tale is that she presents it all as if it was no big deal. There are no moments of tense conflict. All of the characters are likable. Neither the husband nor the other woman are villainized. They are nice people. The husband is shown to be loving towards wife & children. He is a hardworking man as well - a carpenter - responsible in his work. He is honest with both women - eventually - about the presence of the other in his life. And all of this happens within the same urban community - everyone living in close proximity to everyone else. One big happy family.

What is fascinating, then, is that while watching this film one begins to not-so-much like the husband anymore not because he is no longer a likable personality but solely because of his actions. In other words, Varda does not make it easy to simply feel dislike for the man because he is sleazy & rotten to the core - because he isn't. It is almost as if she deliberately conjures up her idyllic world in order to more intensely hint at the messiness, the murkiness lurking within it. In support of this interpretation is the fact that Varda deliberately repeats certain ideas - such as the family picnic. Even the actions of the characters in the opening picnic & the closing picnic mirror each other - driving home the disturbing image of the one woman so seamlessly replacing the other in the lives of her husband & children. Chilling. Easy. Yet Varda seems to be asking - should it be this easy? Even the colors of costumes match at various points in the film to again drive home the idea of who is aligned with whom - alternatively suggesting, perhaps, that perhaps characters are not really aligned just because they appear to be so.

As for the wife - we are provided with less insight into her character than into the characters of the husband & other woman. She is a loving & loyal wife. Perfect in every way. Interestingly - she also works - she is a dressmaker. We get glimpses of her multi-tasking - maintaining an idyllic home life while balancing husband, children & job. She is clearly shown to bear more domestic responsibilities than her husband - though she never complains. This is very typical of Varda's "quiet" feminist voice in her films. She tends to just put these ideas out there for consideration without deliberately commenting on them. To me - this is what makes her feminist voice so strong - its very subtleness.

As for the nice, loving, kind man who is both a husband & another woman's lover - he never offers to break off his affair for his wife. He never offers to break off his marriage for his lover. He fully expects life to allow him two women. Everything is about him. His happiness.

And, in the end, he gets it. Despite the shocking death of his wife. A death that the film does name a suicide yet it clearly is. A death - the responsibility for which - the husband never takes. He is never asked to do so by life. Life simply grants him another wife. Who will raise his children for him - alleviating him of that burden as well.

At the end of the film he walks off into the trees hand in hand with his new family unit.

A final tableau that is so idyllic, so peaceful, so loving - it hurts.

A Male Whore For Sale - SPREAD

SPREAD – starring Ashton Kutcher, Anne Heche & Margarita Levieva - written by Jason Dean Hall & directed by David Mackenzie – is a more intelligent film than its fluffy exterior may imply. A film that tells the coming of age story of a young man who callously sells his sexual prowess as a means of support, only to, in the end, find love & a broken heart.

Much of the publicity preceding this film (now playing in limited release) has focused upon the sexual content of the film – both its explicit nature & the sheer amount of it. Being a “student” of David Mackenzie’s films (all of which I’ve written about on this blog) I was intrigued. First of all, because of Mackenzie’s usually unique approach to both the filming of & the thematic nature of sex in his films. Second of all, because this particular film is of Hollywood – not the environment for the filming or producing of any of Mackenzie’s other films. I was, therefore, curious to see what the end result of a sexy Hollywood film directed by Mackenzie would be.

The result is – in many respects – vintage Mackenzie. A marker of a David Mackenzie film is that sex is not a uniting but rather a dividing force between couples. If sex ever seems to make anyone “happy” it is only ever fleeting at best. For the most part, the characters in his films are desperate for sex to mean something though they are incapable of making it so. Such is the case in SPREAD – a comedy that satirizes the sex trade & culture of Los Angeles. To drive home his Mackenziesque thematic approach to sex, Mackenzie chose to film the sex scenes in SPREAD in blunt, graphic, startling fashion – all eliciting a laugh from me – appropriately enough since this is a satire. The sex scenes – for all the publicity uproar – are very brief. What is startling about them is that Mackenzie does not lead into them with any semblance of romance or foreplay – kissing is rarely in evidence. Gentleness is even rarer. Rough, aggressive grabbing, thrusting etc. etc etc suddenly appears on the screen mid-intercourse – in a colorful array of positions - & then, just when we begin to take in the image of what the coupling couples are doing, Mackenzie quickly cuts away to the next scene. I suspect that in the hands of another director such scenes would have been all about lengthy moaning, groaning & orgasmic gasping & not nearly as pointedly clever &, thereby, satiric.

I confess to rolling my eyes heavenward at the one romantic coupling scene in the film – laughing to myself that it must have tortured Mackenzie to find himself filming such fluff - & I do mean fluff – this romantic scene is set on a beach at twilight, in front of a glowing log fire, with the waves crashing & sun setting in the background. Geez! I’m curious to know if the sudden appearance of a buzzing helicopter across this romantically & hazily glowing evening sky was Mackenzie’s attempt to somehow shatter the silliness of this scene. Perhaps not. Perhaps it was an accident of fate – if so – I thank the fates!

So – enough about sex. As for the rest of the film – the screenplay is both good & not so good. The idea is interesting but the seemingly enlightened satirical commentary often gets lost in murkiness, esp. when it comes to character development. However – to stress the positive – the film’s attempt to refashion certain gendered clichés is interesting. The whore of the film is a man – not a gigolo as publicity has described him – an offensive euphemism that seems to want to sanitize certain behaviors when they are perpetrated by men not women. Appallingly, IMDB refers to him as a serial womanizer! No way, folks! The guy is a whore. He sells his sexual services to support himself. Enough said. (I would prefer the word prostitute but the film itself uses the term “whore”)

Also – the successful rich professional person (lawyer) who sadly hires someone to service them sexually is a woman – not a man. An interesting twist. And – when a romance springs up – it is the man not the woman who strives to give it all up for love.

All of these plot elements - and more I won’t go into - had interesting potential. The film did make me think about how certain gendered stereotypes & plotlines are generally portrayed. I confess I was bracing myself for the female prostitute (whore) in SPREAD to redeem the male version of same, thereby becoming the cliched prostitute with a heart of gold underneath. Mercifully - she didn't. Again - the film does, to some extent, tweak certain gendered cliches which is always interesting.

As for the two female characters – I also appreciated that they were allowed to be true to themselves. So often films seem to compulsively want to ultimately sanitize female characters as the moral standard bearers of films. Not in this case. Both female characters are as willfully troubled at the end of the film as they were in the beginning & they are so by their own conscious choice. This I appreciated.

When all is said & done - a decent enough film that is often quite wickedly satirical. Kutcher's viciously offensive opening monologue is actually funny & sets the tone for the film's aggressively satirical approach to its subject matter.

A final note of thanks to David Mackenzie - as always - he manages to film sex scenes in an egalitarian fashion - without unequally long, lingering, lusting shots of female curves etc. without equal attention to the bodies of their male partners.

Marleen Gorris' CAROLINA

Directed by Marleen Gorris & written by Katherine Fugate CAROLINA (2003) is a film that champions the female point of view. It tells the story of 3 sisters (all with the same father and different mothers) who have been raised by their grandmother (Shirley MacLaine) into whose life their useless father (Randy Quaid) foisted them as very young children. Carolina (Julia Stiles) is the eldest of the sisters and she is now a career woman trying to carve out a life for herself while still being bound to her grandmother & sisters. Carolina is devoted to her family to the point of jeapordizing her own career & happiness. Her sisters look up to her for support. Her grandmother - well - she's a special case - an accidental matriarch who still desires to rule her grandaughters' lives while simultaneously encouraging them to be individuals. As the plot unfolds, Carolina struggles with the baggage of her past (her father) towards a fullfilling personal life in her present. All ends happily & quite predictably.

While much of the plot is incredibly formulaic, its female characters are its heart & soul. They are interesting women. They are engaging. They are not overly idealized. They are mostly genuine - I say "mostly" because they do at times seem a bit stereotyped by the formulaic plot. The male characters are the most narrowly drawn and the most stereotypical.

As for the message of the film - a bite trite admittedly - "the circle of life," "love conquers all." Yet, despite the overt sentimentality of the film & its ending it felt differently packaged to me than the standard, run of the mill, sentimental film about women. I think the difference is the strongly prioritized female perspective that this film insists upon. To Gorris' credit - as I watched her film I sensed that she herself was well aware of the sentimental formulaic overlay of the film and that she tried to comment on, to honestly own, this element of the film. As a result - I laughed at the predictable final scene instead of derisively rolling my eyes. I felt Gorris winking at me at in the film's final moments.

A final note - the cleverest dialogue & most enlightening scenes about the female perspective involve the grandmother - performed with relish by Shirley MacLaine. Her explanation about why its ok for her to date a married man is almost, well, sort of, reasonable!

MANDERLAY's Disturbing Point of View

The lesson of this post is - sometimes giving in to marketing is a good thing. Netflix kept telling me that I would like MANDERLAY (2005) based on Netflix's presumption of the kind of films I order (popping up its image on my sign-in page) & it was right. (It's a bit spooky to think that a software system has pegged my film watching tastes so accurately.)

Anyway . . . on to MANDERLAY . . . which stars Bryce Dallas Howard & Danny Glover.

A stunningly fascinating film. I could talk about this film ENDLESSLY & with gusto . . . but I'll try to be "post-like" & brief.

Conceived & directed by Lars Von Trier of Denmark, MANDERLAY offers a chilling view of Reconstruction-era race relations in the US. The success of this film's thematic dissecting of its topic, which it places under a blindingly searing microscopic light, lies in the fact that it is being examined by a non-American. In other words - the clarity of thought of this film, with its desentimentalizing of an emotional topic, is due to its detachment. It is a film that does not approach its topic with the point of view of - "What have WE done wrong?" but rather "What have THEY done wrong?"

Aiding this sense of thematic detachment is the stylistic detachment of the film. It both is and isn't realistic, simultaneously. The entire film was shot on a huge sound stage - a great big empty space and this cavernous space is consciously part of the film. It is somewhat reminiscent of BBC productions of plays that I use as teaching tools in my classes - not actual stage productions but not standard film-faire either - a work of art that is somewhat liminally placed between the two art forms as we traditionally understand them, claiming a wholly new artistic space.

There are many disquieting scenes in MANDERLAY, but the scene which I found to be the most personally disturbing was the one sex scene - a scene which harshly conjures ghosts of lynchings past - lynchings justified by unfounded hysterical reasoning grounded in the sanctity of white femaleness. The visual image created by this scene is countered by a detached, somewhat amused narrating voice. I can not help by wonder if Von Triers was fully cognizant of the bloody, gendered ground upon which he was treading at this moment.

In the end, the unfolding of MANDERLAY's tale persistently nudges its audience up an ever-increasingly slippery moral slope towards a shockingly reasonable conclusion.

As for this film from the feminist critical perspective - the lead character of Grace (Howard) is a true pleasure to behold. She is a fascinatingly complex female character.

I am now off to clutter up my netflix queue with more films by Lars Von Trier.

Coward's EASY VIRTUE on the Screen

EASY VIRTUE, directed by Stephan Elliott, is a charming film. It isn't a great film but it is an awful lot of fun. I smiled & smirked through the whole thing. Thoroughly enjoyable. Based on a 1925 play by Noel Coward - EASY VIRTUE is a biting satire of the British upper classes during the flapper age - Coward's favorite class & era for target practice.

The very strong ensemble cast of EASY VIRTUE is headed by Kristin Scott Thomas, Jessica Biel, & Colin Firth (Noel Coward is tailor-made for Firth's now trademark dry, sardonic manner). The loopiness of the plot and its characters is reminiscent of COLD COMFORT FARM - another gem of a film peopled by engagingly eccentric British characters in bizarre situations - though of the lower classes. The upper crust of EASY VIRTUE find themselves entangled in such mangled plot twists as the secret burying of a dog that has been sat upon, the discovering of sex in the hay of a barn, and a motorcycle participating in a fox hunt. Under Elliott's direction, all of this inane insanity moves along at a brisk place towards its somewhat provocative conclusion.

In the end - the British upper classes do not survive Coward's skewering very well at all. Assisted by screenwriters Elliott & Sheridan Jobbins, Coward makes his point with venomous relish - that the upper classes are quite simply too full of themselves to be worth bothering with.

AND - on a feminist critical note - I was interested to notice how irritating I did NOT find the usual gendered role playing (comedies tend to relish such stereotypes) such as upper class girls/women raised to be dutiful, virtuous wives while boys/men are allowed to sew their wild oats first etc etc etc. In fact, EASY VIRTUE actually offers some refreshingly enlightened commentary on the gendered role playing of this era. How very nice indeed. The film's conclusion pointedly turns gender stereotyping upside down. Terrific!

Gorris' Savvy MRS. DALLOWAY

Directed by Marleen Gorris, MRS. DALLOWAY (1997 - written by Eileen Atkins) is a gentle, yet firmly opinionated, film. Based on a novel by Virginia Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway tells the story of a woman caught up in gendered societal constraints in British society from the Victorian/Edwardian era through the era following WWI. I have never read Woolf's novel so I can not speak to the similarities or dissimilarities between the film & the novel. So - to address the narrative of the film itself - it is set in the present in the era following WWI. We meet Mrs. D as she is preparing to host a dinner party for London's rich, famous & powerful. Her husband is a politician. Throughout her day of preparations the narrative shifts back in time to her earlier days - before her marriage - allowing us to see the gendered self-fulfilling prophesy that her life's story as a wife becomes. I'm deliberately not referring to these narrative shifts as "flash backs." Gorris does not purposefully suggest that the shifts of narrative are a direct reflection of present-time moments of reflection by Mrs. D. A very interesting choice. It serves to keep Mrs. D at arms length from the audience - we are never allowed to know for certain whether we are actually privy to her heart's mind. As a result - we must consider her social environment in order to engage & understand her as a character.

Mrs. Dalloway is a decidedly feminist story, though it chooses to address the oppression of early 20th century British women gently. It's an easy going, reflective film. The film does not bang its feminist drum loudly. In fact - it astutely realizes that it does not need to. Early 20th century high British society - realistically portrayed - does a very nice job of condemning itself with respect to its attitudes towards women. It doesn't need any help.

Gorris' gentle direction is supported by a very strong cast - with a touchingly quiet performance by Vanessa Redgrave as Mrs. D.

ETERNITY & A DAY

Eternity & A Day (1998) is an intriguing Greek film that is more sentimental of mind than heart. Though its subject matter – a dying man, a poet coming to terms with lost opportunities with loved ones – is touching, the film does not allow its audience to peer too closely into the hearts of its characters. Instead – the camera keeps its distance – forcing we the audience to listen to & ponder the ideas expressed. By the end of the film I realized that I could not pick the film’s two main characters out of police line up to save my life. No kidding. Their faces were always at a distance – precious few close-ups – and their faces were often filmed from the side, at oblique angles. Having said all of this – the film is visually rich. While keeping his characters at a distance, the director (Theodoros Angelopoulos) does fully embrace the scenery through which his characters pass – thematically drawing the landscape of north western Greece into the film’s narrative.

The main plot – a man tying up lose ends before checking himself into a hospital to die – is largely narrated by a voice-over of the man’s dead wife – a wife with whom, he now regretfully realizes, he never fully emotionally engaged. However – for me personally – the subplot of the film is the most arresting. During the course of his last day before going to the hospital, the man meets a street urchin – an 8 year old Albanian boy living by his wits on the streets. With little success, the man tries to help the boy out of his destitute & vulnerable situation. The level of social criticism that this subplot rises to (aspires to?) is incredibly interesting in light of the poignant, intimately personal nature of the main plot. Having myself traveled more than once through this part of Greece I can attest to the continuing & deep-seeded prejudice of many Greeks towards their impoverished northern neighbors – a prejudice rooted in WWII & post WWII politics – a part of European history little known to Americans. The Albanian boy’s plight in Eternity & A Day is incredibly troubling with its implications of international child-smuggling & a Greek society unwilling to compassionately deal with Albanian child-refugees in its midst.

As I said – for personal reasons this subplot eclipsed the main plot in my mind.

All in all, a compassionate film – one in which two competing plot lines vie for attention whilst thematically striving to comment upon each other. Ultimately, I’m not entirely sure they do so successfully – but Eternity & A Day is a thoughtful, philosophical film well worth engaging.

[A quick note about the style of the film – it is a wonderful example of the genre of Magical Realism.]

Milani Explores the Human Spirit: TWO WOMEN

On the surface, Tahmineh Milani's TWO WOMEN (1999) appears to be a story about two women & their different fates depending on the men they ultimately marry. A story that thus allows us to see how precarious the lives of Iranian women are - their destinies controlled my their marital fates. In other words - a film rife with biting social criticism.

This is all certainly part of Milani's tale. Absolutely. However - overlaying this plot structure is a study of character & how an oppressive society can can almost completely obliterate the human spirit.

Briefly, the woman (Marila Zare'i) who marries a kind man who does not mind that she pursue her career leads a happy life. Her friend (Niki Karimi), however, is forced by her father into a loveless marriage with a raging, controlling, self-riteous husband. Significantly - she is forced into this marriage because of her daring to be stalked by a sadistic man - her fault, of course. Her father shows her no sympathy. He casts her off on a cruel husband in order to be rid of the shame she is bringing upon the family by being stalked. Sigh. Somewhat to his credit - he feels badly later but STILL refuses to help her out of her awful marriage.

This woman will bear two children by her cruel husband.

So far - the story of two marital fates. Now for Milani's character study.

When the film begins - the two women are at university together in the 1970s - until the Islamic revolution shuts it down. While at school, the woman destined for a career & happiness is a so-so student. Not terribly interested in her studies. Her friend - the woman destined for an oppressive existence - is extremely bright & industrious AND extremely ambitious.

Years down the road - when the tales of their separate marriages play out - we encounter the former woman as happy & ambitious - perhaps because she is encouraged & supported by her mate? The latter woman is now, however, a shattered shell of her former self. She cowers into her black attire which graces her from head to toe. When in the presence of her old friend, she hardly dares look her in the eye but rather deferentially keeps her eyes towards the ground. A habit, an attitude cultivated by years in an oppressive marriage. And her outlook? She calls her old friend after many years because her husband - the unkind husband - is sick & she needs help getting him medical care. She is entirely focused on her husband. her children. No thought of herself. The epitome of the self-sacrificing wife/mother. There is barely a glimmer or a hint of the woman she once was in her face - her body language remaining a mystery concealed in swaths of black. Her old friend is crushed, saddened, horrified at the woman her university pal has become.

Both times that I have watched this film - this is what has stuck with me - the painful loss of a human spirit. A precious human spirit. Four times victimized - by a patriarchal society, by a stalker, by a father, by a husband. Throughout it all she fought back, trying to cling onto her sense of self. But, Milani seems to be asking, how much can a human spirit take until it is broken? Crushed. All in the cause of being dutifully female in a male centered world.

Milani's female characters in her films can tug at one's heart-strings as she strives to make her audience feel the awfulness of her women's predicaments. But TWO WOMEN, her carefully laid out psychological character study, to me, is her most successful in this regard.

Paper Grading Season - Alas

It's that time of year again - slacker blogging & film watching. It's end of the semester paper grading season!

Oh my.

I shall return.

Anna

Tallulah, Tallulah, & Tallulah (LIFEBOAT)

Tallulah Bankhead is one of the most fascinatingly infamous actresses of stage & screen. The stories about the woman are the stuff of legend - some even true! On stage she is best remembered for her numerous performances in various productions of Noel Coward's Private Lives. On screen she is best remembered for her performance in Alfred Hitchcock's LIFEBOAT of 1944.

Tallulah plays the typical tough dame of films of the era. Smoking cigarettes, periodically checking her lipstick, casting condescending glances at whomever dares to enter her personal space, & simultaneously intimidating whilst alluring any manly-man who dares to stray into her sphere of consciousness. And yes, her character is & does all of these things all the while stranded on a lifeboat in a vast ocean, courtesy of a Nazi U-boat which sunk her ship. Joining her on said lifeboat are an eclectic assortment of characters & types. The particulars of her tough-dame in this film are that she is a merciless journalist who' s seen it all with a heart of stone & is determined to continue reporting the human misery of the war with cold detachment - until, that is, she begins to experience a bit too much of the misery of war up close as it seeps into her personal space.

Her crusty exterior finally caves in - right on cue - by the end of the film when she & her manly-man sparring partner (who has managed to spend much a the film bare-chested) finally give in to the "what the hell we may all drown tomorrow" mentality & fall into each others arms. Yes - a bit cliche-ish now - but it is right on formula for films with tough dames in the 1940's. However - after her trist - she is right back to her gutsy, brassy self. Gotta love the tough dames of this era!

Hitchcock's film is a gem. Overwrought situation. Overwrought characters. Overwrought performances. A hint of the sinister in the air. Quite simply - GREAT STUFF!

And Tallulah does the tough dame bit in this film as well as any screen actress of the era.

Lone Scherfig's ITALIAN FOR BEGINNERS

Danish film Italian For Beginners (2000) is an unpretentious film by an unpretentious director – Lone Scherfig. Also written by Scherfig, her film presents us with an ordinary group of folk – lonely folk – many of whom stumble across each other at an Italian language class. And – by the end of the film – they are less lonely – pairing up with their romantic interests & even long lost sisters.

During the course of much of the film’s telling of its individual & interlocked stories, the film deliberately avoids over sentimentalizing or sensationalizing either its situations (some of which are quite serious) or its characters. In many respects, this film is a calmly presented study of human interactions & longing at their most basic, most ordinary level. The dialogue is sparse, sometimes awkward, as characters struggle to communicate. They are all thoroughly likeable people. By the end of the film – when they all impulsively troupe off to Venice – the resolutions of the various romantic possibilities are largely predictable. But, in the end, this is meant to be a feel good sort of film so predictable is just fine – if perhaps a bit sentimentalized in the final scenes.

The other interesting – very curious - thing of note about this film is the style of its camera work. At first I found it a bit hard to get used to its seemingly amateurish “home-video” camera work & picture quality. But eventually the style began to blend with the unpretentious, simple nature of the film’s story & its characters - everything ultimately working together as an artistic whole.

As for a feminist perspective on this film – Scherfig’s Italian For Beginners is joyfully free of heavy-handed gender stereotyping. It isn’t “hyper gender conscious” in anyway. How nice! The characters are just people

Easy-going, fun, uncomplicated, & simple.

[To explain the picture on the poster - the woman is a hairdresser & she is washing a client's hair. As she does so, they mutually develop a sudden attraction for each other - they reconnect later at the Italian language class . . .]