raraavis-2

OK, the settings are beautiful, the women are attractive, the dresses very good... and that's about it. The film is totally unreal, it's impossible to believe the characters are French: their attitudes, their movements, their expressions, are totally Anglo-Saxon. The film is unbelievable at all times, there is an excessive use of music (a Hollywood trademark), the acting is wooden... This film is as close to 19th century Paris as a Las Vegas reproduction is close to Venice. For example, the main character - Bel Ami - sports trendy stubble, something that would have got him thrown out of any respectable house at the time.

I found myself yawning and wondering how long until the film ended. And my wife fell asleep for a short while And - let me add - we're both film buffs.

If only the French had made this movie... as it is, my instinctive dislike of Hollywood movies was more than justified by this one. A waste of time, except - as I said before - for the visual enjoyment provided by Uma Thurman and Ricci.

Late Bloomers sounds like a good idea: a film about growing old, treated with humor. A director with a well-known name – Gavras – and actors such as Isabella Rossellini and William Hurt. The ingredients are all there and yet the final dish is unappetizing. What has gone wrong? I saw the movie at a special showing in London, with Ms. Gavras present. The theater – Cinema Lumière, at the French Institute - was absolutely full. After ten minutes, I knew it was going to be a struggle to stay to the end. Nobody was laughing. On screen, what should have been rapier wit turned out to be blunderbuss jokes. The approach was obvious and the humor was primitive, to say the least. Isabella Rossellini is Hurt's wife. She realizes one day that they have become, well, old. And she starts a campaign to minimize the effects of old age: she has handicapped kit installed in their bathroom, she buys for her husband a telephone with large, easy to see buttons, etc. This is supposed to be very funny. Worried that the suffers minor memory losses now and then, she follows her doctor's indications and goes to water aerobics, where lots of people in a swimming pool jump up and down, following an instructor's indications. She is out of step and jumps up when everybody else is jumping down. Again, supposed to be very funny. The whole film suffers from "in your face" attempts at being funny, which it ain't. When it ended, we had been told Ms. Gavras – the director – would appear on stage to answer questions and talk about the movie. Half the audience left the theater in a hurry, including my wife and me. We talked to a few of the people leaving the place and they all told us "It was bad enough to watch the movie… who wants to talk about it?". If only somebody like Woody Allen had directed this

This film recreates quite well 1936 Spain (or so it seems to me, not having been alive at the time). Leaving aside the plot, which is explained elsewhere, the problem is that the film's director had a clear political agenda: all left wing people are kind, lovable, intellectual, charming, intelligent and reasonable. All right wing people are brutal, ignorant, bigoted, thick and aggressive. More than a film, this is a piece of propaganda, designed to rewrite history.

1930s Spain and the 1936-1939 civil war are complex subjects. No side or political party was totally good or totally bad. The black-and-white view presented in this movie constitutes intellectual manipulation and assumes that the film's spectators are going to be gullible and naive, devoid of any capacity to appreciate the endless shadings of historical events.

Other than that, it is well made and easy on the eye. Pity that its central idea should be so biased and false.