Paris, Texas

The pace is slow going at first, but the drama is dynamite.An ultimately uplifting story of a man's quest to restore his broken family.

Oh, it says heartbreaker on that poster. There's a few ways you could read it, I guess.

You can also get it in formats other than videocassette nowadays.

Enough stalling, here's what this movie is about: a man is wandering through the desert in Texas, and runs out of water. When he makes it to a salon he manages to swallow a mouthful of ice before collapsing.

The mans name is Travis, we learn when Walt, his brother, comes to pick him up. Travis has been missing for four years, and has an 8 year old son now in the care of Walt and his wife Anne. Travis has amnesia, but slowly begins to remember his life before he went missing (though exactly where he went and what he did remains a mystery). He begins to develop a fresh relationship with his son, Hunter, a bright kid with an adorable charisma about him. Hunter's plans are equal parts childish and silly, and mature and useful. He functions as a kind of therapy for Travis, drawing him back to sanity after his bizarre long absence. Slowly, Travis becomes more and more fatherly to his own son.

Eventually, Travis decides that he needs to search out his wife, Jane. Walt and Anne still don't know what happened between Travis and Jane, or why the pair both went missing separately. I don't want to spoil the second half of the movie, because it's brilliant. Although the first half can drag at times, it builds to a powerful sequence in Houston, Texas, and a thouroughly satisfying conclusion.

The title; Paris, Texas, is a running 'joke' of the film. Inverted commas, because for Travis it's much more serious than a joke. His mother was from a town called Paris in the state of Texas, and his father would always hesitate before the word Texas; allowing them temporarily to believe his wife was French. It speaks to a broader motif of the film; of imagery, facades and deception. Walt's business is billboard construction, his wife is actually French, and the most apparently perfect character in the film. The town itself is never visited, only shown in a photograph... of an empty block.

It's a deeply layered film, its message delivered in the subtleties of the film making. It's beautifully shot, with characters who are well acted, but more noticeably well fleshed out. Every person in the film seems to act entirely within reason, and you can fully comprehend exactly why they act the way they do. None of this Hollywood villain crap; just real people, with real issues.

Alright, there are some pretty crazy issues, but they all seem to be in the past. What I took away from the film is the impression of a man who has made mistakes, and is trying to bring his family back together. To do so he must break the facades - or run away from them if necessary. His love for his son is evident in the lengths he goes to deliver him a good life; I found their relationship sweet and invigorating to watch (despite some sad moments).

Paris, Texas takes its time, but delivers with some extraordinary answers to its plaguing mysteries. There's a lot you could take away from it, but by the end of it, I was happy.



Seen Paris, Texas? Want to? Won't?
Leave a comment, start a discussion :)

Anonymous

The story of the truth about the greatest poet who ever lived... is dragged down by bad writing. The irony?

Well, it's about time I reviewed a film I flat out didn't like. Most of what I watch I choose because I expect it to be good - or because my class work demands it. Once in a while, though, it's fun to go into a film with no idea what to expect beyond the poster and the premise.

So... was Shakespeare were a fraud?

That's the question this film boldly dares to ask. And its a really nice idea. One that's surprisingly passed over in the world of film, considering the popularity of the speculation (although most scholars agree that Shakespeare was indeed Shakespeare). Shakespeare's work has been adapted hundreds of times over, dating way back into the silent era of film. Can you imagine watching Romeo and Juliet without sound? I can't, but they did it. But the historic figure of Shakespeare himself, has that ever been tackled? I can only think of Shakespeare In Love, which I haven't seen, but apparently is a very effective story about Shakespeare... well, falling in love.

Anonymous, though, asks the question: was he a fraud? It then answers "Yes", and proceeds to tell an unrelated story of medieval intrigue. I'll start with what I liked the least: the character of Shakespeare. I guess I should have expected this going in, but Will Shakespeare in this film did not write any of the work that is credited to him. In fact, he's kind of a jerk.

Anybody who's familiar with Shakespeare's work will probably like Shakespeare - at very least respect his brilliance. He's the golden standard by which all English writing is judged after all. This film characterises Shakespeare as an illiterate actor; bursting with charisma and energy and ego and apathy. He's not even supposed to be in on this con, he just shows up and attaches his names to things. Every time I looked at the character I thought he seemed more like Jack Sparrow, minus the ability to act, or the charming humour, than anybody who could even pretend to have written the works of Shakespeare. The other problem is that he's hardly present in the picture. The film is less about him and how he pulls off this con, and more about these bizarre connections within the royal family, and how the plays are somehow connected to control of the throne.

But that's just a story choice I disagree with, I probably wouldn't have minded the place of the Shakespeare character if it weren't for two other more damning gripes: firstly, the film is confusing.

The movie jumps back and forth in time; I guess I can deal with that. The first scene is a modern day theatre in New York, where none other than Derek Jacobi is narrating a performance of the film we're about to watch. There is then a clever transition from the stage performance 'Anonymous' into the Elizabethan era, and the film proper. Ok, so far so good, I'm intrigued.

We see a character we don't know running from the law, into the iconic Rose theatre in London. He hides some papers in a box, and is arrested as the soldiers torch the building. Cut to five years earlier, with a helpful little title card. From there we are introduced to some of the main characters, including Elizabeth the First... who has a flashback to 40 years earlier. These flashbacks are given by many characters throughout the film.

Ok, so the movie is weaving about four different time periods in parallel  Other films have done this quite successfully, but somehow this film fails miserably. I think it's because so many of the characters look very similar, and the film doesn't work hard enough to connect young people to their older selves. Those handy title cards disappear after the first instance, and there is little differentiation between the Elizabethan past and 'present'. Sometimes the only way I could tell what year a given scene occurred in was by the age of the queen, but she doesn't appear in every scene.

So I was confused, but as the film dragged on I began to piece things together, reconsider what I thought was happening, and work out what I think went on.

Did I say dragged?

My second point: this movie is boring. The mystery of who wrote Shakespeare's plays is cleared up very quickly, and after that there's not much else to get invested in. There is the matter of who the crown of England goes to, and a lot of screen time is devoted to that, but the film is so confusing that by the time you figure out who's who and what they want, you'll have no time wonder, and no time left to care.

I guess the most frustrating thing about this movie is that there are so many good ideas in here. It's trying to be a grand tribute to Shakespeare's writing, imbuing it with the power to move people, shift nations. Sometimes, it seems to do that, especially when it deals with the character of...

Edward de Vere

... Sorry, I had to look up his name, because after watching the movie I had no friggin clue.

Edward de Vere is the nobleman who, on some historical theories, wrote the complete works of Shakespeare. And he was my favourite part of this movie. His characterization is great - from a talented (although disturbingly ambitious) young boy to an adult who flouts his responsibilities, and hears voices that urge him to write. We see parts of his life that directly reflect ideas in Shakespeare - like when, as a young man, he stabs a spying servant through a curtain. We see him use his wit and verse to seduce women; we see that wit crushed under the pressures of responsibility, and we see the wonder in his eyes as he watches his writings come to life, albeit with Will taking the credit.

It's a little disconcerting that nobody in the medieval world talks like Shakespeare - with his 'wherefore's and 'shalt's. I guess if they actually had the actors speak Middle English it would be too confusing for a modern audience. It does also mean that when Edward speaks he produces marvellous effect, but I couldn't help but notice that the writing in this film just isn't on par with real-life Shakespeare.There is a neat little third-act twist which takes after another classic play, which I found quite brilliant, although it didn't seem to affect any of the characters in any way, except that it ushered in the films conclusion.

There are lots of little references to Shakespeare and other theatre, as well as to historical figures and events.

The biggest flaw in this film is not the writing; I think it's the direction and editing. The film feels unfocussed, and confusing. I didn't think of Shakespeare as a fraud, I though of Will as Captain Jack, and Edward as Shakespeare. For all the dilly-dallying about the crown of England, I didn't care, I just wanted to see more of Edward, and understand what the film was on about.

Once Upon A Time In Anatolia

Revelations come slowly, and lack the dramatic punch that you might expect of them, but this film flaunts the stunning beauty of the Turkish countryside, as well as some fine acting and filmmaking.

A police chief, a prosecutor, a doctor, a driver and a suspect are driving through the countryside in the middle of the night. They stop, look around, ask the suspect to identify landmarks, argue about routes and the lay of the land. It becomes clear that they are looking for a dead body. The suspect has killed him, and buried him somewhere, but he can't remember because he had been drinking, and his brother was asleep.

What you see above is among the first shots of the film; before we are introduced to any characters, we see their convoy pull over, and people get out and talk. We hear their conversation from afar, but the camera doesn't budge; the entire scene plays out in one still shot, and we are left to ponder what we've heard, its relevance unclear until later on.

You should be able to tell from this image: this movie looks beautiful. Much of its time is spent driving through the country at night; director Nuri Bilge Ceylan photographs it with such vivid colouring and careful framing, it evokes a fairtytale-like quality that matches its title.

It is an interesting blend though; the film is mostly very realistic, actions play out in real time, and trivial issues concern characters as much as grander ones. Occasionally  the film breaks its strict reality to play out a surreal sequence. Two men have a conversation without moving their lips; one man sees a ghost; a woman appears like an angel to all the men... These sequences flow seamlessly from the main thrust of the film, and give a richer sense of the characters while also adding to the air of mystery that pervades most of the movie. I have no doubt that a second viewing would be very rewarding, given the context of each character in these dreamy sequences.

This is a film that rewards patience. It plays out slowly, with generous screen time devoted to moments void of dialogue; the scenery, the sounds and the atmosphere allowed to sink in. If you like action movies, or fast-paced thrillers, perhaps this one isn't for you. If you like a good drama, or crime yarn though, you may get a lot out of it. For a long time nothing happens but driving, and talking. But as the plot advances, the stage is set for some great revelations that take place in the third act.

And here is my major gripe with this film - although perhaps it was just not to my taste: these third-act revelations are groundbreaking, and cast everything that has come before in a new light. But they aren't treated as such. They are treated just like any other dialogue or setup in the film. I felt as though the movie should begin to hit its stride when the party finally reaches the town; that everything should begin to fall into place, and the great mystery that's been constructed should be revealed, and the exposure of the truth should lead to some gut-punching dramatic beats that stick with you long after watching.

Well, everything did fall into place. The truth was exposed, and each character was given enough time for a substantial exploration. The film sticks with you after watching... I guess I just didn't get that punch in the gut. The big reveals happen slowly, and it's up to the viewer to figure out exactly what they mean. Once Upon A Time In Anatolia is a film I'd definitely want to see a second time. I'll reiterate: this film rewards patience. And it's a very rewarding film.

Capitalism: A Love Story

Moore is undeniably charismatic and engaging, even if his methods are manipulative and extreme.

Explaining the problems of capitalism in a nutshell, it's Michael Moore, known for many controversial works such as Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11. This film did not make as much of a splash as those though, probably in part because money isn't as interesting as tragedy, and partly because most people will agree with what this film espouses (at least, to some degree).

The film was made in the wake of the financial crisis in 2008, which resulted in the bailout of Americas biggest banks by the government. While I think it is by no means his 'Magnum Opus' (see the quote on the cover), it's interesting that this film seems to come full circle - he starts the film in his home city of Flint, Michigan, which was the subject of his first ever film, Roger & Me. Moore observes that the desperation and social decay that occurred there when the GM factory closed down years ago, is being repeated all over America with the growing power of the banks.

Mystery Train

Great characterization, clever narrative structure, and very entertaining. This film takes its time, but the world and the characters will grow on you.

Jim Jarmusch is an American independent filmmaker, whose name most closely resembles 'muscular', according to my spellchecker here (if you look at the guy though... he isn't.) What he is is talented, and Mystery Train demonstrates why.

The film follows three groups of characters, and their experience of one night in the city of Memphis. First, a young Japanese couple from Yokohama. The girly, Mitsuko, is bubbly and excitable and totally obsessed with Elivis; the guy, Jun, is quiet, aloof, cool, and prefers Carl Perkins. After exploring the town for a day, the two settle into a hotel for a night,  The second story follow Luisa, an Italian woman stranded for a night in Memphis; she flees some creepy strangers, and ends up in the same hotel. In the lobby she meets Dee Dee, who has just broken up with her boyfriend and needs a place to stay. The two agree to share a room together. The final story follows Johnny, Dee Dees former boyfriend, and Charlie, her brother. Through a complex chain of events, the two also end up crashing at the same hotel.

Days Of Heaven

A phenomenal film, partly for its charming cast and tragic story, but mostly for the absolutely stunning visuals. It's an experience, worth embarking on twice, and it's also one damn pretty picture.

Terrence Malick is possibly the most interesting filmmaker working today. His first picture was Badlands in 1973, which garnered him critical acclaim in America and internationally. It took him five more years - until 1978 - to finish his second film, Days Of Heaven. After that, he moved to France, and stopped making films for twenty years. In 1998 he came out with The Thin Red Line, again to wide acclaim. Since then he has made The New World (2005), The Tree Of Life (2011), and To The Wonder (as yet unreleased).

What's fascinating about him is that despite garnering such critical and commericial success - and being known even by artsy European directors as a great director - there's reletively little known about him. He doesn't seem to do public interviews, or offer comment on puzzling aspects of his films. He just makes them, and sets them loose upon the world.