“Bride Flight” is a great romantic drama about three disparate 1950s brides who reunite in 2000s

“Bride Flight” is an engrossing, dramatic romance from the Netherlands, and director Ben Sombogaart.  According to the film’s website, the story was inspired by 1953′s Last Great Air Race, from London to New Zealand.  Three eligible & engaged women meet on the bride flight, and in the process are touched and beguiled by a magnetic outdoorsman, Frank de Booy (Waldemar Torenstra when young, Rutger Hauer when old).

Marjorie (Elise Schapp) is photographed for record-breaking posterity (courtesy Music Box Films)

Each is bound to meet a man, other than him, who is all but a stranger to her, and choose between doors one and two à la “Let’s Make A Deal.”

This plays at the Edina Theater for a week starting on June 17th.

The flight’s turbulence ensures moments that attach each of them to the other for a generation to come, and more, whether they think they want to or not.  That’s where they click with one another; the flight leaves them shaken and stirred!  It sparks fears of flight, mortality and other equally profound personal qualms and questions.  Each of these beauties and their stories is drawn and portrayed fully, beyond being simply one-offs of archetypes or stereotypes.

Frank de Booy (Rutger Hauer) beguiles each woman while marrying neither of them (courtesy Music Box Films)

We find a sheltered, pregnant and buxom blonde beauty Ada van Holland (Karina Smulders when young, and Pleuni Touw when old).  who’s also sweet and provincial.  And she’ll find a polite, self-righteously religious man who’s morality is rigid.

Another bride is a pretty, flamboyant fashion designer, Esther (Anna Drijver, when young, and Willeke van Ammelrooy when old), She’s an independent-minded Jew who lost all biological ties in WWII; her persona and sensibility are out–of–time and –place for mid-20th-Century New Zealand – or anywhere.  She finds an affable, but conservative conformist.  Quickly she knows that, as he chafes her, she will him – much more so.  She ditches him and gets into “trouble” as pregnancy was called then.

This leads to a complex subplot with the final woman, Marjorie (Elise Schaap when young, and Petra Laseur when old), a beautiful, cheery brunette who hasn’t yet any backstory or baggage.  It’s she who winds up with the most conventional path.

This is a story more about the detours that these women’s lives take incidentally, than whatever plan that any of them had laid out on a map.  They get to know Frank better than they do either of their fiancés; Frank shuffles the playing cards in their minds.  As John Lennon once said, “Life is what happens when you’re busy doing other things.”

This film makes images from 1994′s “Legends of the Fall” and 1995′s “The Bridges of Madison County” bubble up in our minds: Frank is both the disrupting and uniting force in these beauties’ lives, like Tristan Ludlow in “Legends of the Fall;” Ada is like Francesca Johnson in “The Bridges of Madison County,” which takes place around the same time.  She’s cruelly torn between obliging love for her children, and erotic love for that flight connection.  Like Ludlow, Frank is the rock that each of these women though broke themselves against.

Esther (Anna Drijver) and Frank (Waldemar Torenstra) remain connected despite life's storms (courtesy Music Box Films)

There’s a power in the details, the nuances, the moments, which tell what dialogue, no matter how precise or eloquent, can.  It shares this with Robert Redford’s sensual and attentive visual style.  For example: the glances and body language between Ada and Frank.  In a scene where she tries on Esther’s wedding dress in the plane’s bathroom, and he walks in to check it out (airborne bathrooms must’ve been roomy then!).  This’s a great, chuckle-worthy scene.

In another, later in the flight Frank dozes off seated beside Ada, with has hand resting in a lewd spot.  When she wakes up, she blushes but doesn’t budge it.  In addition upon landing there are moments between Esther and her betrothed, which show they are clearly mismatched!  The mismatch is subtler between Ada and hers.  When she meets he and his father, one of her blouse buttons is unfastened.  The flight was rocky!

That rockiness leaves us wondering about and hoping for a continued spark between Frank and Ada beyond the airport.

After the pivotal flight, Esther and Marjorie make a poisonous pact, creating a dilemma.  On one end, when Esther is pregnant and her daring goals preclude her from keeping it; and on the other, Marjorie yearns for a child, but finds troubling news, that it’ll nary happen.  She and her husband take on Esther’s baby, but she holds chip on her shoulder because of how they got it.  That grabs us and creates a key subplot.  But when Ada’s story comes back in to play, after having begun with plum gusto before our characters land, it feel like when need to ask why this cherry star-crossed romance was put off.

The climax comes up as an afterthought – flacid – against these women’s great dramas.  But that criticism is petty against a strong drama with the quality of characters and portrayals that we receive, and the glimpse that “Bride Flight” gives us into the bounds of women’s opportunities in the middle of the 20th-Century.

“Applause” deserves a round. Paprika Steen shows an actor’s humanity within the tumult of redemption

“Applause” is an almost feature-length movie from Denmark, and director Martin Zandvliet.  It’s about a well-known, middle-aged actress, Thea Barfoed (Paprika Steen), who’s struggling to move beyond her toxic personal life.  She’s a recently divorced, recovering alcoholic who yearns to see her children again after having literally struck fear into them.

Paprika Steen needs "Applause" to keep up appearances

“Applause,” showing at the Film Society of Minneapolis/St. Paul from June 10th, is good.  You feel for Thea even when you don’t want to.

We see her in two settings: as an actress on-stage arguing with an unseen foe and as a mom off-stage fighting addiction and fighting to spend time with her two sons, William (Otto Leonardo Steen Rieks) and Matthias (Noel Koch-Søfeldt).  The bits we see of her performance on-stage are deftly used two-fold: to show her power as an actor and to show how that performance can reflect her broken, needy “former” self.  Because while she plays someone else, that character is no fiction, but her as she was before daring to recover.

She’s angry, bitter and has a lot of regrets or at least a few big ones.  She keeps those reigned beneath a skilled mask of friendliness that she struggles to hold still.  Her ex-hubby Christian (Micheal Falch) is wary of her, and weary after having left her and taken their sons away from her violent hands.  But he knows she’s made progress.  This story is about what unfolds after a key conversation.

Even if you’re won by the poster or DVD case, you might underestimate “Applaus” if you see how brief it is; you might assume that such a brief story would be mediocre.  85-minutes is as a short as a film can be and still be a feature.  This film could be short and succeed because it’s about the woman, and those in her immediate life.  The characters, other than she, her ex-husband Michael and their sons and his new wife, are minor.  As she’s a constellation – they don’t matter.

As she tells Christian that, away from the stage (where she isn’t herself) she sits or paces in her apartment, she has nothing else – no anchor, apart from alcoholics’ meetings, for her life.  She’s a mess.  Her life’s a mess.  Having contact with her sons would give her a life – or a reason for one.

Thea clings to her ex's new wife, and hopes of time with her boys.

Most movies are concerned with placating, and amusing, but not challenging viewers.  Maybe the messy movies are the most potent.  The story’s strong as are the performers.  Most people know someone just as screwed up as Thea.  They’re probably related to their own version. Those stories, which put us off because they’re too close to reality, they make us shift in our seats.  That’s good.  Why not?

“Applaus” is simple in many ways.  The best stories have simple premises.  It has a petty problem: its look.  Maybe it’s not a “problem,” but something literally foreign to North American viewers.  While the lighting is awkward and even off-putting, you can’t ignore the look – definitely indie.  But you get used to it.

Share

Behind-the-scenes with “The First Grader’s” director, Justin Chadwick Pt 2

Now, let’s finish the conversation with the man who put “The First Grader” on-screen.

W: According to the Walker Art Center’s program you thought “it was a really challenging movie to do.”

The challenge now is to actually to get the film to play to audiences.  We’ve got distribution across America, which is absolutely wonderful.  Because films like this, that’ve got just as good of production values as bigger movies, just as beautiful stories, that aren’t necessarily the “Thors” and “The Pirates of the Caribbean,” the –

W: The blockbusters -

There has to be a place for smaller films – not smaller in their kind of scope, but in terms of their machine behind them.  Because audiences like to go the cinema, to sit in the dark, and go through these emotional stories, and there has to be a place for it.  That’s gonna be the challenge.  Getting them to the cinema, because we haven’t got posters on every single bus going by, we haven’t got advertisements in the papers.  Audiences need these stories.  There should be a place in the modern cinema.

Justin Chadwick directs his "First Grader" (courtesy National Geographic Films)

W: What has you really jazzed about this story, this film that journalists haven’t asked about?  “This is a really cool thing, but nobody ever asks me about it…”  Do you have something like that that you wanna get out there?

Before we were making the film, I talked to the creative team, and we talked about those hardened critics that want to see a certain kind of film, a feel-good movie, it makes you feel celebratory when you come out, make you laugh, makes you cry.  What we wanted to do, what’s unusual about this story, coming out of Africa, where so many African movies have to do with huge issues: genocide, famine.

W: Corruption.  Violence.

All of that.  This felt like something different; this one was a celebratory film, A film about hope – in the true sense of the word.  It wasn’t sugar-coated.  Because those scenes actually happened.

We don’t want the film to be like spinach; you know this film is really good for you.  We were very, very aware of that.  I think it’s very easy to dismiss the film.  It’s come out of Telluride, the snowball of the film festivals, and the audiences who’ve seen it.  It’s very easy to dismiss it as a little, tiny film, but actually it’s not that at all.  Again, there has to be a place for this in cinema, but it’s getting harder and harder because blockbusters are so all-consuming of the territory, and the cinema space.  It’s hard to get your movie through.

Just like the majority block specific history lessons, making knowledge hard to get through, only now the UK newspapers are covering recent headlines about “found” and damning Mau Mau records.  Throughout April 2011, the “Times of London” ran almost weekly stories on the “discovery” of damning files previously thought to have been long-ago lost or destroyed.  They’ve a paywall just like the “New York Times,” so providing a link would be foolish.

Kimani Maruge whose story goes toe-to-toe with flashy summer movies

W: As “The First Grader” raises the topic of the Mau Mau rebellion, that reminded me of a documentary that Bill Cosby made, “Black History: Lost, Stolen or Strayed?”  I thought, considering how English folks were barely taught this, and how some modern-day Kenyans and Kikuyu might not know even the basics of the Mau Mau situation, was it lost, was it stolen, or did it stray?  You mentioned you weren’t told much of this when you were in school.

Not at all!  It was the stuff that’d been in the press at the time; the stuff about the Mau Mau going into people’s houses, killing them while they sleep in their beds.  You didn’t hear that 1.2 million Kikyyu had been tortured, had been incarcerated, had been rounded up in concentration camps.  There was many, many camps across Kenya filled with young and old men and women from the Kikuyu, and that story has never really surfaced.

This documentation has come to mind just recently.  There’s not many of the Mau Mau veterans left.  K’mani was 89.  When they talk about compensation or acknowledgment it’s too little too late.  At least the truth will come out now, with the missing files that’ve been discovered.

As an aside I mentioned, to Mr. Chadwick, my having sat near a Kenyan woman, a Kikuyu, at the screening at the Walker Art Center, who had few criticisms about the film, but wished that the tribalism would’ve been less mentioned.

The BBC were very concerned about me going there.  In everyday banter and everyday conversations tribal divisions would come up.  And yes they are trying to move on; I do say that.  Everyday on the radio the DJs would be talking about the differences of the tribes.  I know where she’s coming from.  A lot in the Western press of the tribal differences in Africa are always negatively drawn.

Jane Obinchu says, in the film, we’ve moved away from that.  I had a young cameraman saying “you know, everyone says on the surface that we’re all moving away from it,” but he said “you know it’s still very, very much present, and if you speak to anyone, the younger generation, it’s still very much present.  I would pick it up from what I was hearing on the radio, from the Kenyans I was working with.  And there’s a lot to celebrate about the different tribes.   I heard all the time around me.  It’s a Kenyan story; you can’t shy away from it.  I mean Maruge himself wasn’t a perfect man by any stretch.  It’s been a very one-sided story.

W: I was skeptical about what seemed to be indulgent, cheesy lines at the climax: “Maybe one day a Kenyan will be in the White House.  Yes we Can!”

So 2003, exactly when Kenya announced free education, Obama went as a Senator; I heard this like three weeks before we started shooting. (In reality, Mr. Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, taking office in 2005.)  And also I was hearing on the radio from a guy, who talked to everybody.  And so Obama came here as a Senator; this is why every time I was going somewhere on a bus, somebody said, “Obama sat here;” Michelle and him had been on this Mutatu bus.  This radio DJ who was the voice of the people.

Basically because as a student I saw “Do the Right Thing,” loved that film.  Sam Jackson was in that film; Jackson was hysterical!  He was this voice; it was a brilliant, inspiring film for me.  I saw that in Manchester.  I remembered that.  And there was no real humor in that film (First Grader.)  So I managed to track down the guy; he’s called Churchill.   He was at the African MTV awards.  He brought the house down.  I managed to track him down.  I said, “Listen.  I’d love for you to be part of this film.”  He says, “I know Maruge.  He was on my show!, on my breakfast show.”   He said, “I’ll definitely do it.  Are you gonna say about Obama?”

“I always said he’d be the headmaster of the world; I always said it, from 2003, he was the headmaster of the world.  And he said, “I was the one, right from the beginning, and that’s why he’s in the White House!”  And he said, build me a little studio just outside of where I’ve got my radio show.  Be there, and I’ll give you a half an hour.”  So that’s where that came from, from the true source.  Everywhere I went, once I got Churchill involved, they said “We always knew Obama was gonna be President.  Even way back in 2003, when they came, we knew, we just knew he was gonna be President.”  That’s why I put that in there.

Share

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.