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 idea for the Greek film, "Chevalier", is a good one. After all, seeing a bunch of middle-aged men compulse about their masculinity can be rather funny. I should know, as I am also middle-aged and I know my wife and her friends laugh about me all the time! However, while this film is apparently a comedy, I never found myself laughing and I kept expecting more than it delivered. It's a shame, as the acting is quite nice.

A group of six successful Greek men are taking a deluxe cruise together. They scuba dive, ride about on Waverunners, eat incredible meals and indulge themselves. However, after a few days, a weird competitiveness comes out...possibly the result of boredom and their own inner insecurities. This is odd, as it should be the trip of their lives. Soon, one of them proposes a strange game where they would compete in a variety of odd and rather mundane ways...during which time they'll grade each other to determine who is the best. And, the best will receive a ring called 'the Chavalier' so that he can lord their superiority over the rest of them. Naturally, this brings out the hyper-competitiveness in them and soon they're doing some pretty stupid things to prove who's best.

It all sounds like a recipe for hilarity and insight into the male psyche. Yet, surprisingly, I found the movie was so low-key and slow paced that I found myself struggling to stay awake and interested. But as I mentioned, despite a disappointing script, I was thrilled with the acting as it seemed so natural...like real guys on a trip instead of just a bunch of actors pretending. The bottom line is that the film is well made...just not all that satisfying.

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.

Whoever thought this was good comedy material may need to think about other ways of making a living. The combination of writer, Efthymis Filipou and director Athina Rachel Tsangari (also co-writer) proves to be far from satisfying - other than for the easily pleased. How many times have we seen this stale scenario played out on stage and screen – a group of middle aged 'buddies' away on a luxury fishing trip who, begin to become bored with each other's company and decide to find ways of 'entertaining' themselves at each other's expense. The hapless viewer knows the superficial direction this is taking within minutes of playtime IE; Who of them is the best, the biggest, the most successful, the most, etc, etc,....absolutely nothing new here, in fact, it's all presented in a lack-lustre derogatory formula that drags on far too long.

Only self-congratulatory festival critics could rave on so about works of this caliber. If you're inclined to follow the trending rants of Sundance and other world film festivals you might have a chance staying awake through this lame offering. Either the director or cinematographer or both, waste the settings and situations with boring in-focus-out-of-focus on deck exercise machine discussions, not once but twice, as if they have just discovered the use of photographic depth of field. The cast of handpicked performers try to inject life into old situations but are doomed to morose failure by a suss script and heavy-handed direction. If this is supposed to be an intellectual character study then it sure needs a lot of explaining.

While some of the soundtrack music selections are good within themselves, they just don't suit the story. I have no trouble believing the comments made by the reviewer from the Netherlands who wrote; "The cinema they attended was packed for the beginning and half empty by the mid-way point" - the viewers voted with their feet. Only on SBS and the trash-fest of World Movies would you find this 'entertainment' non-event. Sorry Greece, if this is regarded as one of your years best you may have a problem.

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.