Derecho de familia

I found the film quite disappointing. I felt the film lacks focus and intensity and the script is quite flat, almost a soap opera. The film is described (and accordingly so named) as the struggle of Ariel Perlman (Daniel Hendler) a Law professor addressed as 'Doctor Perlman', to realize his own identity from his father, 'Doctor Perlman', an established, sharp Buenos Aires lawyer. Unfortunately the movie has no real focus on this, nor on other aspects of Ariel's life (we see a bit about his role as a teacher, a bit about his family life as husband and father, a bit about his social life, and a bit about his relationship to his father, but no strong story or drama links all this together).

In particular I am not too excited to see this movie as the Argentinean candidate for the Foreign Language Oscar nominations for 2006, as I think it will not compete well with high quality submissions such as 'Water'.

In many ways, "Derecho de familia" can be considered as the highest point in Daniel Burman's filmography; it's very different from his previous efforts. Thematically, it leaves aside the Jewish feelings of "El abrazo partido" and "Esperando al mesías", which constructed most of the humor from the religion; visually, it shows the beginning of a more experimental phase that would culminate with "El nido vacío".

That the film doesn't revolve around Judaism-even when its main character is Jewish-, is an advantage to see Burman exploring relationships as they are and free of stereotypes. The movie begins with a narration by Ariel (yes, again) Perelman, a lawyer. It's one of those narrations that continue to appear throughout the film and never seem intrusive; a perfectly displayed element that you wouldn't if it were used all the time.

Ariel, played by Daniel Hendler (yes, again), tells us about his father Perelman Sr. (a great Arturo Goetz), also a lawyer; and his, when we meet her, future wife Sandra (a brilliant Julieta Diaz). Again here, as we are used to with Burman, there's no more defined story than a father/son relationshio; we just see life as it is. As we become familiar with this family and their daily routine, we start sensing Burman's presence differently. There are doors that open and lead to somewhere other than the expected place, like if the characters refuse to see the real location; connection between scenes and repetitions of some frames. Cinematographer Ramiro Civita (from "Whisky Romeo Zulu") takes it so seriously that we feel a change.

It's very strange that Civita didn't work again with the director in "El nido vacío", which really seems to present a continuity of the visual style in this film. But what about the humor in "Derecho de Familia"? Don't forget that Burman is also a gifted writer and-I repeat it proudly-he manages to stand far away from the religious scenarios and traditions that made us laugh unexpectedly in previous pieces. Here, we laugh because of the mere personality of the characters, because of what they say in a masterfully shot lunch conversation and because there's a little kid named Gastón (played by Burman's son) that wins everyone's heart.

The pallet of characters Burman presents here is richer than ever and it's wonderful to listen to Ariel telling us how he won Sandra's heart, because we could never imagine them together. Actually, we could never imagine Ariel with someone, just like two of his students tell him more directly than indirectly when they see him in a bar with his son.

Anyone who says Daniel Hendler always does the same thing is being completely unfair. Yes, he has a preference for introverted roles, but his Ariel here has nothing to do with his Ariel of "El abrazo partido", or with his Ezequiel of "El fondo del mar" for that matter. However, it's true that Hendler has difficulties when it comes to chemistry with female co-protagonists. This is why Julieta Díaz' performance succeeds on its own, as Hendler's; because they are fantastic actors.

There's drama too in "Derecho de Familia", as we could expect from Burman, but this time it represents the weaker part of the whole. You see, one of the great qualities of Burman as a director is that he works hard to achieve the balance between what everyone will definitely like and a few risks. The price to pay is that some things become predictable.

Luckily, nothing ever ceases to be believable.

Even the great cinema masters, including Bergman, Kurosawa and Fellini, reached a point where rehashing the same old stories in new containers became old and boring... Too bad that a promising young Argentine director has reached such a place in so few years. What a boring, mindless movie... What a lack of story, what a lack of feelings(and the lack of feelings was no purposefully described).. how little to say None of the characters has been developed; we can't and don't care much for anybody... maybe the best actor, or at least the one with whom we can connect is the 2 or 3 yrs old child... otherwise, the movie is fairly boring... cute in a vacuous sense. I hate to do this: not worthwhile to go to the movies... nor rent.

I liked this movie because it's refreshingly different from Hollywood fare. It doesn't slam you in the face with obvious, hackneyed comedy or drama. It doesn't pontificate or send us strong signals from the belly of existential angst, although that is one of its underlying premises.

The problem with the film is that it's pretty static; it doesn't gather momentum, it doesn't draw us in with any kind of a solid story. It's a would-be philosophical offering about father and son lawyers (Arturo Goetz and Daniel Hendler respectively), and how a son can aspire to be like his father, but never can. Despite our connection by blood, we can never replicate our parents.

In Daniel Burman's film, we must do some thinking, which is fine with me; thinking about a movie is getting rare these days. We fill in a lot of blanks with this film, which is guided by minimalist techniques. Enter another problem: when we don't really feel like filling in the blanks, when the film just isn't that engaging to make us WANT to fill in the blanks, then we're left dangling.

'Dereche de Familia' is interesting because it's off-key and unpredictable. Other than that, it doesn't have much going for it. There is a lot of potential for dramatic or comedic character development, but it just keeps falling short.

I was perplexed when Hendler (the son) married a gorgeous pilates instructor (Julieta Diaz). Despite this, we never really see Diaz's hard body, and there is only a hint of sexual activity. If Diaz is set up as a sexy 'other,' why is she just physically ignored?

Somebody had to be crass and state the obvious. Welcome to my world.

I have looked at seven new films from the video shop during the past week* and found that I liked only one - Family Law - which I watched on Sunday evening. So now, here I am on Monday morning trying to get a little said about this charming little movie before I have to begin, again, my preparations for an influx of relatives arriving mid-week in celebration of the commencement of my niece's husband from Catholic University Law School.

I guess it is a bit of an irony that this film deals with family relationships considering its arrival in my life at this particular point in time. The relationships - particularly between fathers and sons - explored in Family Law are loving but sometimes painfully distant. The film is narrated by the son who experiences, by the end of the film, recognition of what it means to be a father and a son for in the film we see three generation of Perelmans. The grandfather is a popular attorney who doesn't shy away from shady deals. He has an "in" almost everywhere in the system and uses it to the advantage of his clients. The son - Ariel, our narrator - is also a lawyer and professor of law who holds ethics as his highest esteem.

Ariel becomes attracted to a student in one of his classes and sets out to woo her. Ironically, he is finally able to do so by seeking his father's help in a law suit in which his love is involved.

Skip ahead a couple of years and Ariel is now a father but not a very good one. His approach to child rearing is like something out of the 1950's. Through a series of circumstances, Ariel comes to fully appreciate his father and gain the knowledge of how to be a better father himself.

This is a story that has been told and retold, so what's so special about this film? It's the acting and direction. Daniel Hendler plays Ariel with quiet introspection to reveal emotions both painful and joyous. The charming, exuberant grandfather is played by Arturo Goetz giving us a man we have to love even though some of his dealings are not exactly kosher. The grandson has a face that makes you want to go, "Ahhhhhh." He is played by Eloy Burman. I could not find whether or not he is related to the director.

The women in the lives of these three are Ariel's wife, Sandra, and the grandfather's secretary, Norita. Sandra - played by Julieta Díaz - is a modern woman who doesn't give much quarter to her husband's quirks (such as sleeping fully dressed with tie and all) and his failures at being a better father to their son. Adriana Aizemberg gives a heartfelt and touching performance as Norita, the loyal secretary.

I had worked really hard all day Sunday in preparation of the coming "invasion" but was then treated to this great little flick. It was the perfect reward for me. I think that you, too, would find this film rewarding.

*For those who wonder, the seven were Fun Down There, Short Stack, Does God Exist?, The Dead Girl, The Fountain, Seraphim Falls, and Family Law.