KNIFE IN THE WATER

After some slim pickings in the previous couple of Astor calendars, I was very happy when I received the latest calendar and saw that they were doing a mini Roman Polanski retrospective.  Over three weeks they were showing five of his classic films and what made it all the more better was that three of the five titles I had never seen on the big screen before.

The first film they screened was Polanski’s debut feature “Knife In The Water”, and it was one of the titles I hadn’t seen on the big screen.  As much as I enjoy “Knife In The Water”, it has never been one of my absolute favourites.  That said however, there is no doubt that this is a stunning debut from Polanski.

“Knife In The Water” starts with a married couple in a car, bickering, while on their way to their boat for a sailing trip they had planned.  While on the drive, they pick up a hitch-hiker and once they reach their destination, the husband asks the unnamed stranger if he would like to come aboard and join them on their journey.  As soon as the hitcher is on board, the husband, Andrzej, embarrasses him by showing him just how little he knows about sailing.  This angers the hitcher but he doesn’t retaliate in a violent matter, instead he tries to show off (in front of Andrzej’s wife, Kryztyna) in different ways such as climbing the mast to the top barefoot (something that Andrzej obviously cannot do), until the two men are constantly trying to one-up the other.  I’m sure all of this is done to try and gain the attention of the only female on board, but ironically she pays them little attention.  It isn’t long during these one-upmanships that the hitch-hiker reveals that he is carrying a large knife, and suddenly the atmosphere changes and it becomes more suspenseful.  You just never know whether these games the men are playing will erupt into violence and now with the addition of a knife on board, the tension is palpable.

I must admit that my own memory of “Knife In The Water” was quite a bit off in regards to what actually happens in the film.  I was sure that the knife did come into play, and quite violently, at the end, but this is not the case at all.  In fact the suspense comes from another place all together when the hitch-hiker is “accidently” knocked overboard.  From the beginning we know that he cannot swim, but with all the male posturing going on, Andrzej refuses to go in after him, because he is sure that the boy is lying.  When the hitcher does not resurface, Krystyna begins to taunt her husband (after being sick to death of the games the two men have been playing), and asks if he will truly be a man and go to the police and report the death, or will he pretend that the young boy did not exist and go on living his life.

The highlight of the film is the incredible script which was written by Polanski himself along with another Polish filmmaking heavyweight, Jerzy Skolimowski.  It tackles its subject in an interesting and quite subtle way, more in the form of these tense conversations rather than the actions of these two men.  It is interesting to note that “Knife In The Water” seems like the typical debut film, which often deal with limited characters and very few locations, in an attempt to keep budget costs down.  All this is true of “Knife In The Water” except Polanski being Polanski had to make it different and harder by shooting his debut film on water, which you would imagine would have been extremely difficult for an experienced director, but such is Polanski’s talent that he pulls this off amazingly.  The decisions he makes with some of his shots are brilliant and unexpected, showing very early in his career just how talented he was at composing his shots.  I must admit that I love shots where a character is in close-up in the foreground while there is action happening behind them in the background, and there are quite a few shots like this in “Knife In The Water”.

The actors all perform their roles adequately although I was a little shocked to learn that both Jolanta Umecka, (who plays Kryztyna), and Zygmunt Malanowicz, (who plays the hitch-hiker), were dubbed by someone else in post production.  However I am not shocked to learn that the hitch-hiker was dubbed by Polanski himself because when I was watching the film, I actually thought that his voice was so similar to that of Polanski’s.  Apparently Jolanta Umecka was very hard to work with, because she was not a trained actress and she found it very hard to emote.  However, ironically, whenever you ask anyone about “Knife In The Water”, she is the first thing they remember (which is no doubt due to her striking looks).  Interestingly, she created a first in Polish cinema too, because with this film she was the first actress to disrobe on camera in a Polish film.

Speaking of Poland, the film was not a success in Polanski’s homeland, in fact it was attacked quite brutally due to the fact that it was a new kind of film and it wasn’t like everything else being made there (most films of that time dealt with the atrocities of the past war).  Feeling unwelcome in his own country, Polanski left Poland after the failure of “Knife In The Water” and to this day, he has never made another film there, which ultimately was great for the rest of the world, as this was the catalyst that saw Polanski head down a path that would give us such classics like “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown”.  Who knows if these films would have existed if “Knife In The Water” was a success in Poland and Polanski choose to stay there longer?

Overall, while it is a fantastic debut film, and extremely well crafted (only the jazzy score really dates the film), this is not my favourite Polanski film, but anyone wanting to see the beginnings of a great cinematic talent and how he came to be, must not miss the chance to see this film.

3 ½ Stars.

BURLESQUE

Guest Review: Written by my wife.

I asked my husband if i could write a review for Burlesque because I loved it, and he hated it. He said no. So i've ignored him and written it anyway :)

As is so often the case in Hollywood these days, Popstars want a piece of every pie and cinema is at the top of the list. Christina Aguilera makes her cinematic debut in “Burlesque”, and while i’m not sure if the role was written for her, it’s hard to imagine any other ‘Actress’ with the pipes to pull it off.

Beginning in the small American town of Iowa, we meet Christina’s character “Ali” in a diner where she is a waitress. Desperate to get out of the dead beat town and move to the big city, Ali walks out on her job and buys a one way ticket to LA. Sound familiar? Of course it does, probably because we’ve all seen this movie before. Coyote Ugly anyone?

Ali is looking for work and stumbles across a Burlesque Lounge to which she is immediately endeared. She meets bartender “Jack” (Cam Gigandet) who directs her to club owner “Tess” (Cher) in an effort to get a job. Ali wants up on that stage!

This is the crux of the story and really all you need to know before seeing it. Burlesque is so much fun, it makes my heart sing. The colours, the music, the dancing, the atmosphere – it all makes me want to be a Burlesque dancer when I grow up.

Aguilera’s acting is fine, it’s not great, but it’s not terrible either. Her stage presence however, is amazing. I found her mesmerising and loved every single minute that she was on stage. I’ve heard the movie being described as a 2 hour X-Tina film clip, and that maybe so, but if you get caught up in the story, as I did, it’s not an issue.

A massive highlight for me was the always amazing Stanley Tucci. He plays a gay costume designer/right hand man for Tess, and his on-screen relationship with Cher was so fun to watch. They really looked like they were best friends – who knows, maybe they are.

Cam Gigandet is gorgeous. Eric Dane is charming. Kristen Bell is unremarkable, however I think that’s her role and not her fault. Peter Gallagher got all us old “OC” fans excited, and Cher was...well, Cher. Her voice is unmistakable and she definitely has a screen presence, however her relationship with Tucci was her highlight for me.

There are 2 scenes in the film that just don’t work. Both of them being impromptu performances by both Aguilera and Cher. They are totally unnecessary and have obviously been done just because they are who they are. My mum told me that she read somewhere Cher had threatened to pull out of the movie if they didn’t keep her song in the final cut. Whether or not that’s true, I don’t know, but the scene definitely felt wrong.

Overall, Burlesque was so much fun. I saw it in the cinema 3 times (once with a girlfriend, by myself and then my mum!) and loved every minute of it. Don’t take it to seriously or expect any Oscar performances and you’ll have a good time.

If you love Glee, you’ll love Burlesque.

4 Stars.

MANON (1949)

 

Made in 1949, this was only Henri-Georges Clouzot’s fourth film, and his second since his two year ban from filmmaking.  The film is about the doomed love affair between a young girl named Manon and a soldier named Robert in post-war France. The couple first met when Robert saves Manon from having her head shaved by a mob of women, as punishment for her “collaborating” with the Germans.  Although he saves Manon from the head shaving, Robert is still disgusted in her and with her dealings with the enemy and arrests her, explaining that she will have a fair trial for her crimes.  Manon does what she knows best and proceeds to flirt with the soldier in an attempt to be released, but Robert will have nothing of it.  However when his superior comes looking for Manon to take her away, he finds himself hiding her, claiming that he let her go.  Knowing he will be in serious trouble for this act, both Robert and Manon flee and end up falling in love.

All this is told in flashback, as the film begins aboard a boat which is smuggling Jews into Palestine.  While hiding the Jews on a lower level of the boat, the sailors come across an extra two stowaways, Manon and Robert.  The captain of the ship quickly realizes that Robert is a wanted man for murder and detains him.  However, with nothing to do until the boat docks, he listens to the lover’s sad story.

The story continues with the couple living in Paris, working low paying jobs and barely surviving.  Manon refuses to live in poverty and as such, cheats on Robert constantly with rich men in return for money or gifts.  She is still in love in Robert, but she convinces herself that this is survival, and she continues down the same path as when France was occupied by the Germans, doing the same thing now as she did back then to survive.  Initially, Robert seems to be oblivious to all of this, when one night Manon comes home with a huge ring on her finger, obviously worth more than they could ever afford.  This arouses his suspicions which only get stronger when he goes to visit Manon at her workplace one day, only to be told that she hasn’t worked there for two months.  Not knowing how Manon spends her days anymore, Robert decides to follow her (in a scene very reminiscent to one in Clouzot’s aborted project “L’Enfer”).  He follows her all the way to her new workplace – a brothel.  He is furious and wants to kill her, but ultimately his love is stronger than his hate, and the couple stays together.  However, this becomes a regular cycle in their lives with Manon cheating and Robert forgiving her, just so he doesn’t lose her, but when Manon finally decides that she has had enough and attempts to leave, it results in Robert murdering a man who is trying to detain him long enough for Manon to be able to escape.  After this brutal act, Manon actually sees this as a symbol of just how much Robert loves her and finally gives herself over to him completely, once and for all.  From here on in, the couple is doomed.

It goes without saying that Henri-Georges Clouzot is one of my favourite French directors (very close with Jean-Pierre Melville) and prior to seeing this film I had heard a lot about it, with some people claiming it to be Clouzot’s masterpiece (a bold statement of a director who has both “Les Diaboliques” and “Wages Of Fear” on his resume), so my expectations were high.  Unfortunately these expectations were not fully met, although the problem has nothing to do with Clouzot himself.  His direction, as usual, is superb, it just looks and feels like a Clouzot film, and the story of this bleak post-war world where no-one is truly innocent anymore, suits his style perfectly.  His use of shadows and strange camera angles create an amazing sense of doom, where you know that this story is not going to end happily, and it is dark to the very end.  Even the scenes of love have the over-riding feel of dread looking down upon them.  The main problem with the film is Cecile Aubrey’s performance of the title character.  She just doesn’t impress at all, as she makes the character seem a far too lightweight.  She needed to portray Manon a little stronger, especially in the scenes when she is cheating on Robert.  As mentioned earlier, Manon is engaging in these sexual acts as a way to survive, and in a sense she has to create a wall around herself and not let the real world (or emotions) in or the reality of what she is doing will break her.  This is why I feel Cecile Aubrey needed to harden up Manon in these scenes, but unfortunately she comes across very airy-fairy, and almost innocent.  Once Manon lets that wall down, and lets Robert in (as well as the rest of the world, thus sealing the couple’s fate), I feel that Aubrey’s performance is more in line with the character.  However, considering that all of the other performances around her (Michel Auclair, Serge Reggiani, etc) are so well done, it is a shame that she stands out so much.

What also stands out in “Manon”, and this time in the positive (and what may be the reason it has such a good reputation), is the amazing final ten minutes of this film, which is where Michel Auclair is giving his opportunity to shine. (BEWARE THAT FROM HERE ON, I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE ENDING OF “MANON” SO IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE IT YOURSELF, PLEASE SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH).  After reaching Palestine with the smuggled Jews and having to cross the desert to freedom, Manon and Robert share their only moment of happiness together when they come across an oasis, where they separate from the group and spend a quiet five minutes together.  It is such a beautiful moment and one Manon wants to last forever, however it is not to be, as they must continue their trek across the desert, which ends very quickly when they are attacked by marauding Arabs.  Through all the gunfire, while attempting to flee, Manon is hit in the back and dies.  A shattered Robert picks up his wife’s lifeless body and continues to carry it through the desert.  It is here where the film is absolutely amazing and Clouzot is at the top of his game.  The finale of “Manon definitely ranks as some of the best work he would ever do in his career.  As Robert gets more and more distressed, as well as thirsty and exhausted, he starts to see the cactuses as ghosts from his past.  It is like they are looking down on him and taunting him.  He eventually starts to imagine that his wife’s corpse is talking to him, which is both so romantic and heartbreaking.  Eventually, he faces facts and realizes that he cannot go on and survive while carrying Manon on his back, and he decides to bury her.  The way that Clouzot shoots this scene is so gorgeous and emotional, as Robert cannot bring himself to cover her face.  The image of Cecile Aubrey totally buried in the sand, with the exception of her face, is forever burned into my brain, it is such a stunning and beautiful image.  It is also at this moment that Robert realizes that this is the only time that he has had Manon to himself.  It is the perfect finale to this tale.

As I mentioned earlier, this was Clouzot’s second film since he was banned for making films for two years.  The reason behind this ban, was because of his “collaboration” with the Germans, when he made the film “Le Corbeau” which was funded by a German company during the time of the occupation.  It appears that because of his own persecutions, “Manon” is a very personal film to Clouzot and he wanted to show the world how during and after the war, no-one is innocent.  Overall, while I did not love this film, I did like it and as is the norm with Clouzot’s films, it is expertly put together.  The end of “Manon” is one of his greatest achievements and it is a shame that I didn’t feel the same about the film as a whole.  Still this is a Clouzot film, so it is definitely worth checking out.

3 Stars.