mi-rakel

Who is Jane Fonda? Even as you're watching this documentary, it's difficult to determine. This is supposedly why the format is in 5 acts, five sides of Jane. She's an actress and perhaps she's been acting her whole life - acting as a survival strategy. Acting to fit the role as Henry Fonda's good daughter, as Roger Vadim's sex bomb wife, as Tom Hayden's politically radical partner. She says herself in the film that she did let herself be defined by men. I find it rather strange that the film in a way endorses this by naming the first four acts after the men that has shaped Fonda's life in different ways. Or else it's honest... I would have liked to see more focus on what drove Fonda's political activism, because although the film chronicles the events, you never really got a sense of her motivation. The focus on her relationships takes away from really showing her political passion.

Everyone knows that documentaries are never fully objective and this is why I question the way Fonda is portrayed in certain aspects more than other. For example, in her "Hanoi Jane" phase, the focus seem to be more on her weaknesses, her mistakes, feeling lost, struggling with eating disorders. I'm not suggesting that Lacy should've ignored or covered up those issues, but I'm sure there's another side to the coin, which was sort of left out of the lime light. Empowerment, political awakening, independence, inspiration - those are the things that could've been more highlighted to portray Fonda as a strong person, rather than a lost and insecure person. (And I believe that both can be true of a person).

Fonda seems to have lived many lives in one lifetime and in fact, her evolution quite mirrors that of the 20th century. From housewife to political awakening to settling in to a degree of comfort (compared to the 70s).

Henry Golding's character has the personality of a lamp. Never seen such a one layered character, but in a way it makes sense as he turns out to only be a fantasy. I guess it's a nice role reversal as women are usually stuck in those tropes. But it doesn't make him anymore fun to watch! All the love scenes are so cheesy and bland that it makes you want to strangle yourself with some Christmas fairy lights. So thank god for the twist at the end! If it had turned out to just be that bland as beige love story I would've actually strangled myself...

There is so much more chemistry with literally all the other characters apart from the lead couple. Santa and Kate, Kate and her mum, even the two police officers! If there was more of that and less of Henry Golding's blandness it might have worked better.

The problem with having a twist like that at the end is that even though it saves the film, you spend most of it going "really??"

And those flashbacks of their romantic moments at the end after the big revelation really weren't necessary either. It seems that the film makers were trying to satisfy the hard core romcom fans - which they are never going to do anyway since it being a story about a woman who takes control of her own life and happiness is deemed "too sad" by said fans.

The potential was there but it didn't quite hit the mark. Emilia Clarke was charming and there was a few funny moments.

I was really looking forward to seeing this film because I was hoping to get an insight into the world of Orthodox Jews in north London, which is a world I know little about and a world that isn't really open to people that aren't already a part of it. Sadly is seems like the director Sebastián Lelio knows as little as me about this world. What we get is not an inside perspective of either the orthodox Jewish community or a lesbian relationship. The two main women in the film are always viewed through the male gaze. The whole sex scene between the two women which is completely cringe and stylised and seems to be screaming: look omg two women are having sex and they have all the same parts!! (Like the shot of hands in matching pants). And Esti's climax which according to a quote on IMDb's trivia page is very important for the story. I can agree with that but not with the way it's shot; in profile, slowing zooming in on her face. It's very stylised and obviously an outside perspective. It's not her own POV and it's certainly not Ronit's. It's the voyueristic male gaze. And of course, in the end they don't get to be together, as in all lesbian love stories coming out of Hollywood. The highlights of this film is the acting from Rachel McAdams, she has a few brilliant, intriguing moments. Alessandro Nivola's acting is also very good. Rachel Weisz's characters is so cliche she fails to ever become very interesting. As for the rest of the cast (well-known British faces) they just come across as Brits in wigs rather than members of the Jewish community.

The story has so much potential but sadly, the film falls short. Perhaps if they had chosen a director who was either Jewish or a lesbian they would have had better luck...