Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself (2002)

Directed by: Lone Scherfig
Written by: Ms. Scherfig and Anders Thomas Jenson
Starring: Adrian Rawlins (Harbour), Jamie Sives (Wilbur), Shirley Henderson (Alice), Lisa McKinlay (Mary), Mads Mikkelsen (Horst) and Susan Vidler (Sophie).

On a tip from Joe Morgenstern the film reviewer from The Wall Street Journal, I rented Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself. It sounded like just the kind of movie this blog is about: those obscure, often foreign, films that you never hear about but are just really good. And even if you do hear about them, there isn't enough on the internet to tell you if it is good or not. So that's where I come in.

It's hard for me not to like this film, first of all because it is set in Glasgow and I love Glaswegians almost as much as I love saying that word. Second, it manages to make a whimsical film out of the relationships between one suicidal brother, his terminally ill brother and their mutual love interest, an unemployed single mother.

The eponymous Wilbur, played by Jamie Sives, does in fact try to kill himself throughout the movie. Either in front of the gas stove, slitting his wrists in a bath tub or hanging himself from the ceiling of his brother's used bookstore. Danish director Lone Scherfig (Italian for Beginners) doesn't explain why he's suicidal (except for an allusion to his mother's death when he was five) nor does she necessarily have to.

There's something about Sives, who kind of reminds me of Robert Downey Jr., that makes him believable as one of those people that treats everyone like shite, but certain people tend to love them anyway. Despite his flippancy, he has an unintented charm that is most effective on women and children. Wilbur actually gets kicked out of a suicide support group by the other members for his smartass comments. When a nurse asks him, "What do you think would happen in a broad sociological sense if we all went around killing ourselves?" He replies, "There'd be no more group." Later, that same nurse later asks him to move in with her.

He also works in a kindergarten but seems to hate all of the kids. When a boy asks him if he can hold his hand on the bus ride home from the museum, he tells him, "F__ off, nancy boy!" But somehow the kids all love him and crowd around him whenever he is around. When he finally quits the job later in the film, his co-worker tells him, "It will be hard to find a replacement who's as lousy with kids as you are."

In another scene when a woman comes on to him and leans over for a kiss he says, "You licked my ear. I'd have bought a dog if I wanted my ear licked."

But I think the film was just as much about Wilbur's brother Harbour who is played by Adrian Rawlins. Harbour had played a larger role in taking care of their father before he died and took care to keep the the information about Wilbur's suicidal tendencies away from his father, who he says loved Wilbur very much. But there is no doubt the Harbour loves his brother very much, taking care to keep him safe from himself every step of the way but without ever seeming to get frustrated with his brother for working at cross purposes.

Despite the trouble of keeping the sinking ship of their used bookstore afloat, which he claims that his father had willed to Wilbur, Harbour has some luck of his own when he meets and marries (almost that quickly) a regular customer and single mother named Alice played by Shirley Henderson.

Henderson played the homely sister in the disappointing Intermission, which had a decent cast but just tried too hard to be clever and edgy to be believeable. Henderson isn't pretty but in this film she is very attractive. A cleaning woman at the hospital, she is sacked for arriving to work late too many times (she keeps falling asleep on the bus and the bookstore) and for bringing her 8-year-old daughter played by Lisa McKinlay with her. (This was McKinlay's first and so far only film but judging from her performance here I think she's got a brilliant career ahead of her).

Alice keeps coming to the bookstore to sell books that she finds at the hospital. She and her daughter Mary are trying to save up money, but one suspects that she is finding excuses to see the brothers.

"The one in the collar [Wilbur, who has to wear a brace after trying to hang himself] is a bit of a nut case but the other one is worth getting to know," Mary tells her mother.

The scene after Harbour finally leans in for a kiss is the wedding reception held at a Chinese restaurant. After Alice moves in with Harbour, their lives revolve around reorganizing the bookstore and keeping Wilbur from killing himself.

I know I haven't said much about the story but to tell you anything more would be to give it away. However, I will say in more ways than one, the brothers trade positions and what is most interesting about Harbour is that although you could come away that he got betrayed, you can also look at it as him getting everything that he asked for in life. Anyway, he's not the kind of guy that would ever complain about his lot in life.

Needless to say, this film is all about its characters who aren't exactly eccentric (okay, not counting the suicide attempts) and not exactly outcasts, but enough of both so that they find community with each other. They've all drawn their lots in life and have come up short but have found their fulfillment in each other.

In that sense, it's a lot like The Station Agent, which is really important in a film. In Shadowlands, a character tells C.S. Lewis, "We read to know that we are not alone." I think the value of films like Wilbur Wants To Kill Himself and The Station Agent is that by observing these unique relationships the viewer also enters that unlikely community.

V for Vendetta (2006)

Directed by: James McTeigue
Written by: The Wachowski Brothers
Starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry, John Hurt

There seems to be a trend these days, if you can call two instances a trend, of attractive young acresses shaving their heads for action roles. It's kind of like what John Stewart said at this year's Academy Awards about attractive older actresses like Charlize Theron "hagging it up" for Oscar nominations. In this case, the first example of the former trend was Bend It Like Beckham's Keira Knightly in the Tony Scott's atrocious Domino, which rivals Oliver Stone's Alexander for most inept treatment of potentially interesting characters (both were based on true characters).

The second film is Natalie Portman in the Wachowski Brothers' V for Vendetta. Fortunately, it wasn't as appallingly bad as Domino. Actually, I wouldn't exactly even call it a bad movie.

Set in England in the near future where a big brother-like dictator takes over the government and the United States is again embroiled in a civil war. Portman plays an assistant in a news office named Evey who is saved from the thuggish morality police when she is caught out on the streets after curfew by a masked man (Hugo Weaving) who calls himself V.

The mask he's wearing is a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the English Catholic who tried to blow up Parliament on November 5, 1605, in order to kill among others in Parliament, King James I who would later authorize the first official English translation of the Bible, which Catholics at the time were opposed to.

Evey is thus implicated, albeit unwillingly at first, in V's campaign to overthrow the English dictatorship, which will come to a head the following Fifth of November a date you will no doubt remember after the movie.

As a Friday night, blow $10 on a movie with some friends, action flick it worked though at 132 minutes it was quite longer than your typical Friday night fare. As an action movie, I did like the atmosphere, no doubt because it was based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore who also wrote "From Hell" and "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and the Guy Fawkes motif really worked for an action hero (despite the fact that I don't care much for the historical figure).

I was disappointed, however, that Natalie Portman didn't fight. I had a friend express surprise that I expected her to fight at all. She shaved her head, she might as well fight. Keira Knightly did it. Natalie fought in Star Wars, why not here?

So as a dumb action film, it was all right. The only problem with that is that it tried to do more than that. And I just didn't buy it intellectually.

First, the writers obviously don't know much about living in a society without the freedom of speech. There is a scene where a TV personality lampoons the dictator. After watching the program on TV in the comfort of his own home the secret police break in and arrest him. The problem with censorship is that the censors would stop the program before it went on the air. That's what censors are for. This kind of mistake seems typical of the kind of people that blather on and on about how there isn't any freedom of speech any more and you wonder if there wasn't freedom of speech how come you keep hearing about it all of the damned time. You almost wish a real dictator would take over just to shut them up.

Second, the writers fall down a slippery slope fallacy when they try too hard to make connections between contemporary events and their dystopic future. A war that America starts will inevitably lead to dictatorship in England it seems. Guantanamo Bay will inevitably lead to doing biological tests on prisoners. The Wachowski Brothers obviously aren't working with nuance here. They portray the Koran as contraband in a Christian theocratic dictatorship but there is no mention that without the war in which the dictator will inevitably rise to power, the Christian Bible could just as easily be banned in England the way it is in Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, are they portraying England as becoming a Christian Theocracy? That's like horror movie about French people working a forty hour week. Like that's ever gonna happen.

I have to admit, I've never been all that impressed by the Wachowski Brothers intellectually. I may be one of the only people in the world that thought The Matrix was overrated, which may sound like heresy. But maybe I can't take seriously any movie that Keanu Reeves is in. But I don't think the premise of the real world versus the perceived world was all that profound. Didn't Descartes cover that in the 17th Century? Cogito Ergo Sum, anybody?

Finally, there is the whole glorification of anarchy. I don't see much value in it. Maybe I've spent one too many nights in Barcelona, but I just think about a bunch of able-bodied kids living on the street shaking cups of change at you and calling that work. That's not how a society should be run. And I must admit that as somewhat of an anglophile, I was a little offended that that the destruction of a certain London landmark (think Chevy Chase in European Vacation) would be hailed as a good thing.

However, there must have been something about how it worked worked as an action film that despite the appalling final scene and the bad logic involved, I wouldn't call the filmg as a whole appallingly bad.

So Portman's still got one up on Knightly in that category.

Inside Man (2006)

Directed By: Spike Lee
Written By: Russell Gewirtz
Starring: Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Willem Dafoe, Chiwetel Ejiofor Christopher Plummer, Kim Director and James Ransone

Watching the trailer for The Inside Man, I knew I had to see it in the theater. Not only was it a heist movie starring Denzel Washington and Clive Owen, it was also directed by Spike Lee.

I did notice though, that the trailer didn't go out of the way to advertise Lee as the director, and I am sure it is because the studios were worried about what people perceive as a Spike Lee movie. And though, like The 25th Hour, it did appear to be a departure from Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X, it does aim at making provocative social commentary and its dialogue still portrayed lots of racial tension.

Clive Owen plays Dalton Russell, the leader of a gang that enters a bank disguised as painters and after they have taken all of the employees and customers hostage they make them dress up in identical painter's outfits, presumably to confuse the police if they choose to raid the bank.

Denzel Washington plays Keith Frazier, the detective assigned to the case, despite a corruption investigation, takes charge of the situation but soon realizes that Russell's demand for a 747 is nothing more than a way to buy time. But he can't figure out for what.

Further complicating his job is Madeline White, a freelance problem-solver played by Jodie Foster who is seen at the beginning of the film helping one of Bin Laden's nephew buy a condo in Manhattan. The bank's president and founder (Christopher Plummer) hires White to surreptitiously recover the contents of one of the safe deposit boxes without letting it get into the wrong hands. This requires her to work against Frazier's interests while appearing to work with them.

I know Spike Lee has been hit or miss, but so far I've only seen his good ones. Do the Right Thing, Malcom X and The 25th Hour. But no one does New York movies these days like Lee. Watching The 25th Hour made me nostalgic for New York, even though I watched it in a theater in the East Village. At one point in Inside Man, a few cops begin arguing about whether any train lines pass through Grand Central Terminal (which is the train station, Grand Central Station, they know, is a Post Office) or if all of the train lines stop there. It's an argument only New Yorkers could have. In New York knowing the infrastructure is a credibility issue.

All of the performances in Inside Man are excellent. Washington plays his usual cocksure character. And although he doesn't have the reputation that his costar has, Owen is a great actor. I remember first seeing him in the BMW films and then later in a great modern noir film called The Croupier, which like Double Indemnity reminds you that you don't have a detective to make a good film noir.

But in the end, Inside Man reminded me of Gosford Park, the seemingly typical 1930s-era English manor whodunnit (think Clue and Colonel Mustard in the Parlor with the Candelabra) where by the end of the film what is most interesting is not whodunnit but why did they do it. The same is true here, it is not as important whether or not Russell will get away with the money (the important question in a Heist film) but why is he doing it.

I won't say the payoff was completely worth the set up, I was a little disappointed, but the idea was ambitious and of course as is typical with Spike Lee movies (or should I call them joints?) is that it leaves you with more questions than answers after the credits start rolling. However, this time I think that you can guess what Lee wants you to think. That all money, if traced back far enough, is to a certain extent blood money and that we all have blood on our hands. Even Frazier, is implicated, not only in the corruption investigation but also using White's connection to the Mayor to get him a promotion and finally in a decision he will make shortly after the last scene.

Whether or not you agree with Lee's conclusion, the impressive performances, the atmosphere and the twist on the heist genre make it worth seeing . . . at least on DVD.

Antoine and Colette (1962)

Directed by: François Truffaut
Written by: François Truffaut
Starring: Jean-Pierre Léaud, Marie-France Pisier, Patrick Auffay, Rosy Varte, François Darbon, Jean-François Adam

In this second installment of the Truffaut's semiautobiographical series, Antoine Doinel is 18 and is living on his own working for the Philip's record company. He's finally away from his family living the independent life that he craved in 400 Blows. While attending a classical music lecture he meets a girl named Collette and falls in love. Despite his efforts, they remain friends -- I can relate to that -- and he goes so far as moving into an apartment across the street from hers.

Strangely, in Antoine and Colette and Stolen Kisses, Doinel seems to get along with his girlfriends' parents better than he does with the girls, and unlike in 400 Blows, adults -- at least these adults -- seem to admire the independent youth, despite all of his shortcomings.

I actually liked Antoine and Colette more than 400 Blows, because they both had the same grittiness but Antoine and Colette's had a more focused story -- probably because Truffaut works with shorter narratives.

I enjoyed this film because, to a certain extent, it lives out a fantasy for me, in that Doinel is the type of person I would have wanted to be at 18, living on my own in the city. It does a better job of portraying him as a rebellious intellectual -- somewhat like Dean Moriarty from "On the Road" -- than the previous movie did and it also captures the environment of what I think living in New York in the 1950s would have been like, when kids actually had intellectual (do kids go to classical music lectures anymore?)

As far as I am concerned, it is an ideal example of literary Romanticism on film.

400 Blows (1959)

Directed by: Francois Truffaut
Written by: François Truffaut and Marcel Moussy
Starring: Jean-Pierre Léaud, Claire Maurier, Albert Rémy

Well, I am starting out this blog because I wanted to post a record of all the films I've been watching. After I returned to America after living in Spain for a year, I thought how great it would have been if I kept a blog while I was there. My best ideas come after it's too late. I've rented a lot of great (and not so great) films from Netflix that I would have liked to comment on in the last year, but fortunately, it's not too late because I will still be renting some more.

Anyway, I am taking the name of the blog from the last film I saw, Francois Truffaut's film Stolent Kisses the second (third if you count his short film Antoine and Collette). The special feature's chapter was called "The Doinel Agency," a reference to the main character, Antoine Doinel's job as a private detective.

Doinel, director Truffaut and actor Jean-Pierre Léaud all had their debut's in 1959s 400 Blows, which was a major step in France's New Wave Cinema. Noted for being largely autobiographical it told the story of a young Antoine Doinel (played by Léaud who was 15 at the time of the shooting and had actually run away from his boarding school in order to attend the casting call, a fact that impressed Truffaut).

Throughout the film, Doinel is always in trouble with either his school or his parents or both. Although all of the authority figures see him as a trouble maker, the viewer gets the feeling that he is earnestly searching for his place in the world and ditching school, lying and stealing are only byproducts of his confusion.

At one point, his teacher penalizes him for plagiarizing Balzac in one of his essays. I don't know what they read in French literature classes, but if I were a teacher, I would have been impressed that a student knew enough about Balzac to plagiarize him. Anyway, a more skilled teacher would recognize that he had potential as a writer, after all, didn't T.S. Eliot once say that "A bad writer borrows, but a good writer steals"?

The film is more episodic than plot driven, and although I usually get bored with films that don't have a strong narrative drive, Truffaut manages to make each of the episodes interesting enough to keep my attention until the final scene that seemed to give meaning to the rest of the film.

In the final scene, Doinel escapes from the juvenile detention center where he has been sent for attempting to return a typewriter that he had stolen from his step-father's office. Earlier in the film he had remarks that he has never seen the sea and his mother requested that he be sent somewhere near the coast. So after slipping under the school's fence during a soccer game, he runs toward the beach.

What, to me, is remarkable about this scene, is that he knows he is going to get caught soon after he reaches the ocean. So the point of running wasn't escaping. It was a personal need that drew him to the sea, and we see that everything that happened before had internal motivations none of the authority figures in his life could recognize.

The film ends with a famous shot of his face looking at the camera with an expression that seems to be saying, "I've done it, now what's next?"

The answer to this question we hope will be in the following editions of Truffaut's Antoine Doinel series.