nihao

Pan Nalin's debut takes us on an ambitious ride through many facets of man's life. I do not like to be spoon fed. The films visuals, its art direction, its costumes, its set decoration are really TOO MUCH. TOO PERFECT. They go beyond National Geografic, and end up near an ethnic VOGUE fashion shoot. The 'starring couple' are gorgeously repellent. The female lead is a local (?) answer to 'flavor of the decade' Angelina Jolie. The secondary characters are so expertly cast that you feel manipulated. This is a movie made for Americans. It is a Californian's daydream of exotic proportions. We are transported to something Disney would have loved to concoct, had he allowed sex to creep into his book-of-rules. what the film DOES succeed in, is in giving us a worthy 'finale'. A message which, after such a rally of clichés, comes as a welcome surprise. We hear a WOMAN's view-point! We learn a lesson. "You can and will find your spiritual path amidst people, in nature...just by LIVING." it is not necessary (or healthy) to retire to a temple, as a yogi, or a monk, in order to fulfill your spiritual aspirations. So, it comes as a pity that such a good message should be served up with cynical, glossy manipulation by the director. Bertolucci gave us a typically Italian visual overkill with 'Little Buddha', but Pan Nalin just couldn't resist giving the Indian Tourist Board a brisk business boost. All I felt is..."Oh God! More hordes of tourists will be squirming at home, desiring a slice of all that exotic, stylish Nepalese decor. More authentic plates, mirrors, instruments etc. will be sold off to N.Y. lawyers' wives for good $$$.... and , goodbye to what little is left of this wonderful corner of the planet.!" And Pan Nalin is , no doubt wondering how to pay his Mulholland Drive rent. His next film may give us the answer.

Injustice. This film deals with it, this film suffered it. Leone and his team never saw a single Oscar for what is, undoubtedly, one of the GREAT movies of film history. Supposedly the reason was that HIS version was far too long, and 'unapetizing' for the American public. Years later, this seems ridiculous. American cinema has topped the record for gore and 'unhealthy' material. And DVD finally gave us O.U.a T. in A. in its glorious entirety. And complexity. Yes, because this script is so perfect, so stimulating and so bewitching, that although I have seen the movie 3 times in the last 30 years, it still surprises me...adds nuances and revelations to it's original story. truly admirable! The facade of good ole, healthy America is severely battered by this story of unhealthy ambition, betrayal, revenge and power. 'Noodles' De Niro (the nick-name of our 'positive' protagonist reminds us that Leone was the king of 'spaghetti' westerns), returns, twice, to the site of past crimes... risking his life and ideals in the process. The savagely bitter finale remind us that he does so, simply because he is 'curious'. Because he NEEDS the truth. And this need, although painful, is necessary. Guilt, it is implied, is a powerful corrosive agent, however icy James Woods' character may be. There is , whatsmore, a sub-text which Sergio Leone works on here, and it is the role of DRUGS in society. In order to bear the injustice and treason, the violence and solitude that life has dealt out, Noodles resorts to Opium, as a source of relief; of contemplation. Could it be that the director is reminding us that Heroin's reign in Italy and in the U.S. during the 70ies and 80ies may closely reflect 'modern' Society's degradation? As always, Leone blends his political criticism of the American way with a strong misogynist vein. His women are few and far between in the westerns, but in the two 'Once upon a time..." movies they are increasingly present, and increasingly foxy. The are either prostitutes or cock-teasers with a strong masochist element. And it seems he prefers the 'honest whore'. This film could be reviewed by a psychoanalyst, a priest, a gangster or a politician , and all, I'm sure, would offer a different reading, as in Kurosawa's 'Rashomon'. But Leone is NOT a subtle film-maker. And maybe this reputation of his as something of a gangster in the, very selective Italian league of the 60 ies and 70ies, cheated him out of the credit he receives only now. Somewhat like Ken Russell in the British panorama, Leone's stylish but brutal approach to the realities of life, hurt the shyly hypocritical sensitivities of public and censors alike... let alone the distributors' in Hollywood. Technically the movie is breathtaking, especially Pescucci's wardrobe, Rochetti's make-up (the aging jobs are almost all superlative, and fundamental in helping us deal with such a complex game of 'flash-backs'), the Greg Tolland-style photography and shots by Tonino Delli Colli, the sets, editing and...of course, dulcis-in-fundo, Ennio Morricone's timeless score which, once again, is part and parcel of the film, an emotional bomb which Leone knowingly 'drops' in all the right moments. Deborah's theme is crushing. And the brilliant use of music and silence in Noodles' visit to his friend's mausoleum... comic and audacious. So, it's 9 out of 10, given that the perfect film may not exist (Jean Vigo's 'L'Atalante' ?), and the nearest thing to reading a GREAT novel, but with the whole 'caboodle' of the art of our time. Il Grande Cinema.

p.s. It is absolutely extraordinary that an Italian,a ROMAN, with a VERY limited grasp of the English language, should endeavour, and pull off, such an ambitious American fresco. His great talent, and that of Mr. Brian Freilino (who helped him coach and survey the realism of nuances in both languages), and of the dialogue writers, greatly surpass the occasional hiccups that we encounter, especially in the childhood scenes. and by the way, ALL praise to the young actors who unjustly precede De Niro and Woods, but only chronologically.

As the film unfurls...the viewer (this viewer) wonders..."Who put SO MUCH MONEY into a biblical film, these days?". The answer starts to appear. The film is a 'set the records straight' operation, funded by Jewish Hollywood, and is flying under a Spanish flag to avoid perception. Interesting. "But Christ WAS a jew!" is a highlight moment...and is screamed by the rabbis. True. What is actually amusing is just how virulent an attack on Cristianity the movie is. The Christian hordes are portrayed as ancient 'bikers', Hell's Angels (forgive the pun). The admirable costume designer, a very talented Italian lady, has opted for 'bandoleros' for the heavies... so that they sub-consciously remind us of the Spaghetti- western villains of 'For a fistful of Dynamite' and its likes... and I'm sure that if the Christians had received access to a fistful of such explosives, the film would have been a riot! The sets are breathtaking. Great taste and research. The Heraclium/Pompeii inspired palace frescoes, the Egyptian columns etc. etc. Stunning and VERY expensive. But the film's lack of subtlety is an insult to our intelligence, and makes us truly doubt that its script-writers have told us the REAL story. They have tried to cram a two hour box with hundreds of years of socio-political evolution. They have tried to write off the Jewish phenomenon as something that hinged on a specific day in the distant past. Quite childish. And then there is the casting. Abominable! Especially the males. Maybe the intent was to grab a young audience by using plastic faces more akin to the latter years of Disney than to facial characteristics akin to the era. Rachel Weisz does her very best to imbue her role with value. But, maybe, she is too pretty. Too 'Pretty Woman'. Her class would be drooling, not learning. A more believable , if less obviously 'becoming' actress would have given her character credibility. As I say, surrounded by such males, her plight as an actress must have been very arduous. I would have laughed, the secretly cried.... In short: a dubious, manipulative, ethically ambiguous subject, offered up in a sumptuous chocolate-box.