Chevalier

Divers return with their catch to a mega-yacht at anchor in the Saronikos Sea. These guys have riches, leisure, health and care-free lives. With this much testosterone in a confined space there is bound to be trouble. It comes in the form of a contest to determine who the best is at everything. The winner is awarded a trophy ring from the others. It doesn't take long for each paragon of machismo to morph into a man-child.

The men grade each other on skills, assets and accomplishments including such things as posture, teeth, cooking, politeness, virility, underwear and how quickly they can put together a shelf. Points are taken away for rudeness, bad singing, snoring or drooling in your sleep. The film began with so much promise. The location was fantastic, the theme was intriguing and the characters were interesting. It all was fabulous in the beginning. It just didn't come together very well or maintain its sway. The acting, scenery, depth, story and editing collapsed toward the end. Seen at the Toronto International Film Festival 2015.

The plot is that six friends all go on a luxury trip aboard a yacht in the Aegean Sea. They do all the things you are supposed to do like scuba diving, eating rich sea food and water sports, but they soon start to get on each other's nerves. Then one of them has an idea of a new game. This is to find out who is 'best' and this they will do by coming up with competitions with which they can collectively judge each other. By the time they hit port they can tot up the scores and the winner gets to wear the Chevalier ring.

Then the fun begins and these middle aged men soon let their inner demons out as competitiveness rears its ugly head and all too quickly it is every man for himself – in a very restrained way of course.

Now this is a comedy but for me it was long on good ideas but short on laughs. There are a few but not scattered liberally. The acting is all great and the crew are as relevant as the main players and indeed injected a dimension that keeps this from becoming 'becalmed' – to use a nautical reference. It did keep me interested until the end, but I still feel I am being generous with my score. In Greek with good subtitles – this is an original film that hopefully will float your boat.

The so called "Greek Weird Wave" returns with another entry, this time a comedy directed by Athina Rachel Tsangari (best known for ''Attenberg"). The co-writer of "Dogtooth" and "The Lobster" Filippou assists her efforts to make an unconventionally funny and somewhat disturbing comedy. As the jury in London Film Festival (Best Film award for the movie there) stated "Chevalier is a study of male antagonism seen through the eyes of a brave and original filmmaker. With great formal rigour and irresistible wit, Athina Rachel Tsangari has managed to make a film that is both a hilarious comedy and a deeply disturbing statement on the condition of western humanity". Well, that's accurate but the formal rigour in all (post)modern Greek movies is getting a bit tiring and the movie is a funny comedy but not really a hilarious one. Yet the film is probably a bit better that George Lanthimos' uneven last entry "The Lobster". So if you are a Greek Weird Wave fan you should check it out and a few good laughs are guaranteed.

Grade: B-

The film is about a bunch of men overtly engaging in comparing their status and worth. This sounds as comedic a premise as any, but the director is quite restrained and doles out the funnies in a languid tempo (although there is certainly a climax to the proceedings). The writing is very good, and takes care to provide details that deftly flesh out the characters: these are not rah-rah bros, the relationships among them are subtle and fuel much of the action. The actors are quite brilliant, always shy of hamming it up, perhaps tellingly so.

This is what I found most impressive about the film, the sense of director's control of the material. You could milk this premise for a lot of cheap laughs, but the film feels free to go broad or subtle, just hint at hilarious episodes, take the time to enjoy the view from the boat, linger a while at the harbour before going back home. At all times however the perspective is assured, the characters are never made fun of, and the viewer is invited to witness as much silliness as they like.

I am docking a bunch of points because all this restraint on balance does gets a bit draining, but I think that everyone will enjoy the time spent at the company of these gentlemen.

While I appreciated "Attenberg" - which was the somewhat complementary study of women behaviour as "Chevalier" does for men - this film left me wondering.

Entertaining it wasn't and even at 1,5x speed it felt like a slow chore to get to the end. A reviewer suggested this might be how women see men, and that might explain why I didn't enjoy watching it, nor understood its purpose.

It's therefore simply my male fault. Furthermore I may find women more interesting than men and honestly IRL I would have immediately avoided these men as soon as I got their attitudes figured out (making me the true best one? ^^). Attitudes which are an inconsistent mess of illusionary beliefs, kindergarten competitiveness and theatrical exibitionism while searching for examples, allies and subjects, bestowing piety for the weak and no mercy for the adversaries.

Are women really that different? I'm not sure; still the writer-director here thinks so and focuses on this side of maledom.

An opinable, well produced ethological "study" but not really my idea of a good movie.