Anurag Kashyap’s odyssey “That Girl in Yellow Boots” stirs with potency

Minnesota Film Arts’ In Search of Asia festival opened on Wednesday November 3rd with “That Girl in Yellow Boots,” a drama by Anurag Kashyap.  At that hour, this was the film’s one showing.

Twenty-year old Ruth [Kalki Koechlin] is a mixed Indian-British girl amid a minor odyssey toward…whom else…her long since light-footed father, for which she finds perverse closure (naw, it ain’t that!) in the end. Ms. Keochlin also co-wrote this story.  On a student VISA, she makes her way as a masseuse, and actually does a few legit jobs sans “happy ending” – or handshake as she calls it.

It asks questions of love, which are as interesting as they are awkward, and taboo ones about sexual boundaries.

When she isn’t working as a soft-core hooker, she spars with and then spurns an Indian hustler boyfriend, who seems to only want same as her clients, but authentic intimacy.  Essentially she’s an illegal, white British sex worker, whose odyssey – outside from an exploitive and world-widening sojourn in Mumbai – is to pursue the Indian father, whose own figure and face is a mystery to her – and who abandoned family after older sister’s mysterious death.  That want for a dad wreaks a cornerstone of Ruth’s morose, exotic reality and lifestyle.

From Indian cinema we expect three-hour plus fantastical musicals where the color palette is often as boisterous as the music.  “That Girl in Yellow Boots” is a radical detour from that set of expectations.  While Ruth’s story is about love, it’s more about how she protects herself, cordoning herself from intimacy and keeps her control within her own clutches.

Late in her story, after her boyfriend writhes through his self-installed detox, he asks why she does massage; she blurts confiding “because I need somebody..!”  She does splendid and remarkable if also typical work of avoiding opportunities for that intimacy (or is it a reckoning) for which she’s hungry.

Her dad, Arjun Patel (which may or may not even be his name), for whose attention she yearns, married Ruth’s mother for perverse reasons different from love: those we know are awkward, those we learn of make our skin crawl, our jaws gape.  Her dad is the key to twisting the scimitar, which his abandonment had already shoved into her gut, into a hemorrhaging emotional gouge.

Ruth is in a toxic emotional situation, but she’s no Dorothy visiting Oz; she’s an impressionable youth, but also deftly politic and cunning:  She’s solidifying her Hindi in order that no one exploit her.  She also knows how and when to offer bribes so that she can work via her student VISA so she can work and avoid jail. Snarky people ward men off from women who have “daddy issues” because enormous messes lay in those women’s wakes. Chris Rock said that a father’s main job: “keep my daughter off the pole.”  Ruth’s mindfuck is at least as bad as that reality.

It’s difficult to name comparisons to this story.  For the scope of the taboos, which “That Girl in Yellow Boots” picks at hint at “Priest”, from 1994, the self-righteous polemic against Catholicism’s suite of shortcomings, for the rough, incendiary potency.  When it comes to director Kashyap’s twist in the final act, consider the ending to Adrian Lyne’s “Jacob’s Ladder,” from 1990, about “a traumatized Vietnam war veteran finds out that his post-war life isn’t what he believes it to be…” per imdb; that messed with your mind and messed you up!  That last jerk or twist of emotional perversion in the end here…is at least as profound as what we get from Jacob’s bodybag being zipped up.

Imdb and wikipedia provide some peculiarities and head-shaking confusions in regards to this drama: each describes Ruth’s story as a thriller.  I disagree: this is a drama that has brief segment of suspense, in the last act.  This falls well short of flirting with an Alfred Hitchcock sensibility.

If we were to rate this story: 4 – 4.5 out of 5.

Share

“Cell 211″ an uncommon prison riot film, with a love story

Cell 211 is a perverse melding of a charming love story, which turns wistful, and a prison uprising spanning one day, and which might remind you of the Attica prison uprising in 1971.  This day in Juan Oliver’s (Alberto Ammann) life can go down as the most absurd and tragic almost first day on the job.

Mistaken identity is at the story’s core: Juan’s injured by an accident, his tour guides, and future peers place him in a newly empty cell, 211, just at the moment that the inmates take the prison – That moment upturns his life.  The inmates, and their leader Malamadre (Luis Tosar) mistake him for one of them and he must play along in order to live.  If the consequences weren’t dire – death or worse – it would make a black comedy.

Juan and Malamadre in the beginning

This is a Spanish language film, by Daniel Monzón, with bits of Basque thrown in, and subtitles in white.  Cell 211 opens on August 6th, in Minneapolis’s St. Anthony Main, for Minnesota Film Arts, where it’ll play for one week.

The opening scene tells you that something awful, even grisly, has just happened. The story starts with a jaw-dropping scene where an inmate begins to mutilate his arms.  Most films particularly American ones start viewers off smoothly, this one was like, “eh, why bother?”  It sets the tone for an emotional, thematic thrill ride that Hollywood provides only every several years.  This came from Spain, so never mind.

Although Cell 211 isn’t a Hitchcockian story, it harkens to one of his stock themes and characters.  Juan is the ordinary person stuck in the extraordinary situation.  The story’s bizarre ironies and tragic twists are classically Hitchcock, making North by Northwest, from 1959, pop to mind.  Specifically a spy’s line, which describes Roger Thornhill’s situation: “It’s all so horribly sad.  How is it a feel like laughing?”

You’re plunked into a foreign situation, mistaken for the kind of person you could never be, which fills you with adrenaline as you make yourself a part of a den of murderers and worse.  No one wants to live that scenario, but it and this film are a heck of a ride.  Unlike in the United States, the prisoners here wear no uniforms, but blue collar, industrial clothing.  All Juan has to do to fit in with his new “peers” is to shed accessories that will reveal himself.

Juan after his breaking point

Cell 211 is far better than average for a few reasons: it boasts a semi-complex and refreshing structure, with traces of Japan’s Rashôman, from 1950, and a special use of mistaken identity that allows for perverse and tragic twists, which otherwise would fall flat.  The story alternates between three different locations and places in time, and between the tragic and the tranquil: Juan goes to the prison, his imminent workplace, to get his feel of the land.  After being injured, he’s caught behind his future “enemies’” lines, and accidentally mistaken for one of them.  This chunk of the film mixes with a segment from earlier that day, which builds up to a splendid, and utterly surprising, slight romantic subplot.  That’s his love story with his wife.  Before he goes to the prison, Juan and his wife chat, mock, and make love to each other.

A different, morose, but also slight subplot balances out the romantic one, where shadowy debriefings with a prison boss and a guard after the incident has passed.  The first is taciturn, the other empathetic: morose and shaken.  It helped viewers find closure to Cell 211′s chaos.

Now for a little math.  Many of the characters are interesting.  Five of them are important.  Three of those are pivotal: Juan, Malamadre, which sounds like Bad Mother, the inmate who leads the prison’s most violent section, and Elena, Juan’s wife, who plays a incidental, and passive, but pivotal role.  The men compete for the lead, at least in our minds.  Their personas are disparate, but compel our attention equally.  There is Juan, who should probably question working as a prison guard.  He’s an affable husband who might not be enough of an Alpha male, seems more like a library manager or a grocer than a prison guard.  He belongs in a suburb, mowing his lawn, not mowing down an inmate who has a shank poised against his jugular.

Juan and Malamadre. An incongruent team.

The leader of the uprising, Malamadre, while unsettling at least at first, is more rational and reasonable than we hear at the start.  Then again, Hannibal Lector could be a great conversationalist too.  Malamadre is quick with violence, but he’ll take the time to step back if talking or thinking will give him what he wants as easily.  He’s a brawny, highly intelligent, calculating criminal, with a goatee and a voice that’s so gravelly you wonder how long and intensely he’s been smoking.  He’s so well drawn, with such magnetism that, while this is Juan’s story, he and Malamadre become a surprising and unsettling duo.  Sometimes they compete for starring attention.

But the barely likely connection between Malamadre and Juan allows the story to broach a very subtle story about the fragility of a moral compass.  How easily it can be detoured or perverted.  A law man meets a vicious, daunting criminal, then a heart wrenching tragedy strikes and that moral man finds that the road to or line between the moral & legal and their opposites have grayed and frayed in his mind.  This, after circumstances put him off-balance and push him toward an abyss that’s darker and more of a hell than merely being caught among those who are hungry, rabid wolves.

As splendid as Cell 211 is, it has problems.

Specific ideas are sacrosanct in film:

  • You don’t remake Alfred Hitchcock
  • …or Martin Scorsese, and some others, and
  • You never have someone attack an obviously vulnerable person.  …Unless you do it deftly.  This film does it so.

Malamadre and Juan bond hastily and too slickly to convince us.  Malamadre’s reputation having preceded his first scene, foreshadows the sort of foe with which the bosses and guards must contend.  While Mal is smart, he’s there for a reason.  He’s hardened, vicious, and doesn’t mind killing someone, if there’s a purpose.  Juan is not.  Their bond is forced, but it’s drawn with such care that you won’t notice unless you love to think through or debate that kind of detail.

Few films are flawless.  Still, if you’re into grades: 4.5.

Share

A near romance lifts Benjamin Bratt vehicle, “La Mission,” beyond a mere after-school special

In San Francisco’s Mission district, La Mission, Ché Rivera (Benjamin Bratt) is an ex-convict, city bus driver and recovering alcoholic with a gay son, A–student, Jesse, (Jeremy Ray Valdez) who’s heading to college at the University of California–Los Angeles.  His son has no qualms about sexual orientation, except on coming out to Ché or the wider macho neighborhood.  Its emblem is its passion for old-school aesthetics and design: a low-rider car sub culture.  It is their manhood, their pride.

This small film, with 50 prints to spread out across the U.S., opened officially in April, and is still opening; this time in Minneapolis, at St. Anthony Main, for as long as people keep coming for it.  Before the screening, I spoke briefly to the producer, Alpita Patel, about various production trials, including filming in San Francisco. Something a little different, a little refreshing.

The complex and contemporarily awkward relationship that blooms between Mr. Rivera and Lena (Erika Alexander, maybe known mostly from her stint on The Cosby Show) lifts La Mission away from being “just another” Barrio, or gay coming-of-age movie.  Their stop­–frustrate & beguile–start rapport develops in an organic way, by clashing.  They do so as two mature and articulate, but head-strong adults.  After Ché has established himself as taciturn and bull-headed, he shows a warmer side, even though he hesitates.

Erika Alexander as "Lena"

Lena’s bike wheel breaks.  He offers to fix it. “It’ll take 10-minutes, tops!,” he says.  She visits later to find that he has stripped the bicycle, investing two hours in the work.  They’re thawing and gaining momentum with each other.  After Jesse is attacked by his classmates because of his sexuality, Ché seeks solace in Lena and the sensitivity that she represents.

With only a few words, “You know sometimes, Ché, you really break my heart,” from Lena and to a distraught, very proud man, they move to another level.

From this moment of vulnerability, they consummate whatever their relationship is.  They aren’t yet sure, so we sure as heck aren’t.  But beats later, when Ché confronts his son’s boyfriend, Jordan (Max Rosenak), with the brazen, brute violence that has been his main defensive reflex, and Lena witnesses this, she puts on the breaks.  While she enjoyed what they did together, she sees each of them as being too different, him being too content with violence, for them to make more from that splendid moment.

Father Ché confronts his son, Jesse, who embraces a different kind of manhood

The characters and the themes could have been treated greater nuance and complexity.  This lack doesn’t surprise, but does disappoint.  The ideas are treated in an elementary way, which suggests that the filmmakers presumed that we could or would want to venture only so far into the domains of Ché and Jesse’s complex personal politics.  This discord prevents La Mission from being as potent as some people might expect from Messrs. Bratt and their team.

Then again, with meager gay or Latino films coming out, it might be unjust to criticize this film when brown, black, and beige communities are just hungry for positive and constructive portrayals of their peoples.

The tone, pace, and look of La Mission stands out as a slightly better than typical feature-length after school special, if they made them that long; that isn’t an utter condemnation.  While the film has been marketed as a Latino, Barrio, or gay film, that bare description brushes against the story’s significance and power.  The film is surprising and pleasing also because it omits the typical and banal Hollywood affect: a sheen that implies that the characters reside in a slightly separate dimension from ours.  This contributes to an ambient motif of a warm, genial community that represents old-school dudes who just don’t get how men and mores changed so quickly, and behind their backs.

This unconventional look contributes to La Mission’s freshness: its atmospheric warmth & vibrant colors.  That homey vitality helps it stand out.  That immediacy of image also makes it resemble digital video, except that you can see the scratch marks on the film.  These details buff away the rough edges of this film’s community of men, specifically their antiquated ideals of manhood.

If we’re to rate this with stars: 3.5 out of 5.

Share

Modern thrillers: 50 years of mind games since Hitchcock’s “Psycho”

Alfred Hitchcock’s seminal suspense thriller “Psycho,” had its  New York City premiere on June 16 in 1960.  That was 50 years ago.  It was released nationwide that August.

It’s daunting to think back through five decades of psychological thrillers to ask yourself whether any of those that followed can rival this one.  Many filmmakers have dared to imitate Mr. Hitchcock’s instinct and flair; Gus Van Sant was delusional and egotistical enough to remake “Psycho” itself several years ago.  There are some stories that just ought never be tampered with.

So you gotta wonder: if you’re gonna reminisce about the best, most unnerving who-dun-it films, where do you start?!  But wait.  Before you lunge toward an answer, consider that approximately two generations, and a very different aesthetic, separate us from that which makes “Psycho” special.  The best thrillers emphasized suspense, not gore.  They are mind games.  A viewer’s patience was very important.  The experience is about foreshadowing, wondering, and worrying about that which lurks behind dark corners or overly gentle smiles.  The editing wasn’t nearly as fast with “Psycho” as we expect it to be in the 21st-Century.  It’s unfair to compare any film to Hitchcock; No filmmaker’s work wins against his.

There are those titles that you might dare to compare with “Psycho,” but which are so renown that there’s barely a point in doing so.  You could name Jonathan Demme’s “Silence of the Lambs,” from 1991, but it’s not like that had to crawl its way to a profit or renown.  Practically everybody knows it.  The film’s inspiration and source material shares common threads with the novel on which “Psycho” was loosely based.  Still, “Silence of the Lambs” is strong and distinct enough to stand on its own mind games with the audience.

I can help you catch him, Clarice.

David Fincher’s “Se7en,” from 1995, is in a similar situation.  While it may have earned fewer column-inches in newspapers and magazines back then, it won’t take many people very long to recall that film’s creepy and utterly grotesque crime scenes.

...The shower scene.

All you have to do is utter “the shower scene” to start a conversation about “Psycho.”  And that’s not necessarily the most gringe-worthy scene.  But there are a couple suspense stories that deserve your attention.

“Presumed Innocent” was adapted in 1990 from Scott Turow’s profitable 1987 novel.  It’s the tale of a sometimes happily married chief deputy prosecutor whose colleague and former mistress is found dead.  When his boss names him to prosecute her murderer, then all roads seem to point to him.  The truth is more complex, surprising, and shocking – it presents an ethical and moral dilemma that jeopardizes his family.

Here’s the trailer:

“One False Move,” written by Billy Bob Thornton and directed by Carl Franklin, is about Los Angeles police detectives cooperating with a small town Arkansas sherriff, in pursuit of a deadly and unstable trio of murderers.  The killers themselves  are on the trail of a drug score.   This is a thoughtful and smart take on a crime film that calmly considers questions of “race.”  At the time, this film’s major actor was Bill Paxton, who plays the sheriff, Dale.  He’s one of the most subtle and interesting protagonists.  He’s key to the pacing and the story’s simplicity.  “One False Move” is a little film.  It’s a subtle psychological thriller that grows far smarter and more complex, and more engaging than you expect.

While you can probably name good solid suspense thrillers, they might lack the taught pacing and well-developed narrative that these ones offer.

Share

“Winter’s Bone” A brave detective story with a tough, teen girl lead

Story:

“Winter’s Bone” is the refreshing story of a tough 17-year-old broad in the Ozarks, Ree Dolly, played by Jennifer Lawrence.  I could describe her in more polite or delicate language, but I doubt that she would.  Her story amounts to an odyssey as she locks horns with her rural, often criminal neighbors and family.  Her dad, Jessup, put their house up as collateral for his bond when he was put in jail on drug charges for making meth.  With his court date imminent and himself missing, Ree, hearty and hardened beyond her years, is saddled with fixing this.

Ree runs

Her mom can’t; she’s ill, seems catatonic.  Her brother and sister are too young.  In pleading for her neighbors’ cooperation, even empathy, she says, “they’re too young to even feed themselves yet.”  You might call this film is a petty detective story is worth your time is because of Ree’s fight against the dire consequences for the family.  This young broad’s story exemplifies a relentless love and commitment to her family, her siblings.

“Winter’s Bone” had its premiere, at least its Minnesotan one, on June 2nd at the Walker Art Center, where director Debra Granik introduced it and answered questions afterward.

Ree has to track down and deliver her father, even if it’s just evidence of his death, in order to keep her home.  She doesn’t want to step on anyone’s toes, but those are the least of her concerns.  She must feel like Harry Truman, a 20-century Missourian.  After President Roosevelt died he said, “I felt like the moon, the stars and all the planets had fallen on me.”  So, she’s willing to be denied, lied to, yelled at, bullied, and gang-beaten.  She won’t take “no.”  As long as her brother, sister, and mother are at-risk.

Location and culture as character:

Neither Ree, nor her family of sometime foes, are the only memorable characters.  South Missouri and its poor, and often criminal subculture, are characters as much as “Winter’s Bone’s” characters are.  The traditions dictate how people live their lives and treat one another.

In the introductory scenes, Granik, uses the sparse, poor kitchen where Ree prepares the breakfast to illustrate their poverty.  The local morning radio show plays in the background.  It plainly announces the community’s goings-on.  This illustrates the work-a-day attitude of the area where the criminals and innocents alike make their ways.  Soon enough we see the trailers and the shanty-like structures that the residents claim.

Ree comforts her brother while she has so little to spare

This ambiance reminds me of rural Nebraska, where a 1990s independent film,”Boys Don’t Cry,” takes place.  So few TV or film stories, or at least good ones, about poor, rural peoples’ lives have been done; it’s very hard to spotlight useful comparisons. That’s why this film is refreshing and thankfully it’s potent story and well-developed characters make it stand out.

During the Walker Art Center’s Q&A, Ms. Granik said that “there are enough ‘ands’” that none of the details or characters should come off as stereotypes or digs at Hillbilly’s.  By “ands” she describes social and moral contradictions; those people who are both tender and brutal, or aloof or cooperative, depending on the circumstance, or just how far down the wrong road their passions or uninterest have careened.

“Winter’s Bone” is memorable, maybe indelible.  But there’s a caveat: The most memorable scenes are also the hardest to take.  This is a world where the women’s strength must never rival a man’s.  Her neighbors and family would just as soon punish her, in a way straight out of a Yakuza movie, if she won’t take their gruff, plain-spoken, yet subtle hints to back off.  This is a world where contemporary gender equality is a foreign concept.

Ms. Granik describes the story and source of “Winter’s Bone” on the Sundance Film Festival’s “Meet the Artist”

Early on, when she presses her uncle, Teardrop, to stop being cryptic, but be straight with her, he grabs her up by her throat, as he might to discipline a hound, to deliver his insistent point.  Basically: “Shut up and suck it up!”  He sets the community’s tone and attitude toward her straights.   Finally after an elder’s convinced that she’s pushed too far, his wife – who had already abundantly established that neither of them is to be troubled – leads a small gang of women to beat Teardrop’s point home to her – barbarically.  It’s bloody.

And Ree pushes on.  Warily.

The film’s only flaw is a dream montage that stands out so much from the whole story’s style that it distracts you.  It’s very brief.  But I don’t know why it was there either.

It comes out in wide release on June 11 and an even wider on June 26, depending on where you are.

Why bother?

  • We have a strong, perseverant female lead character
  • It’s a refreshing, but simple, even innovative, detective story
  • The narrative and characters are thoroughly developed, as  adapted from the novel
  • We are introduced to, or reminded of, a very different way of life, in South Missouri

Share

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.