fortywood

A few days ago I started watching and was immediately drawn in. At about the 4th episode (Season 1) I came to IMDB to check some names, that's when I found out the scheming.girl with the funny curly hair is played by Christina Ricci. What a transformation, wouldn't have recognized her in a million years! Some afterthoughts... 1) I was really surprised that when the first kill was being dissected, no voice of disgust was raised by someone in the group. No vegans back then? 2) The actors appeared well-fed with plump cheeks. Stranded in the wilderness without food but without weight loss? Hmm..***

Good cop gets accused of being a bad cop, good cop gets angry, hands in badge, goes out on his own and gets all the bad guys, including the really bad guy (naturally, he goes down last), dodging all the bullets and saving the day (and his nephew). Heard that one before? I'm sure you have. So have I. Been there, done that.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the gun manufacturers in the USA finance movies just to show off their arsenal of weapons - especially when there's a scene in the back of a low-dive bar where all sorts of weapons are on display, shining like diamonds, for the good cop to choose from. I think the only smart phrase in the whole movie is when good cop meets naughty daughter at the detox center and addresses the recovering folks: "Remember, work the steps because the elevator is broken". Every other scene and piece of dialogue is deja vu all over again. No smart twists in the plot, nothing. Pity, because I like Danny Trejo - his ragged looks, his style, the characters he portrays. I just think he stands out more in supporting roles than as the man in charge of operations.

Movie made in 2012, the year is 2013, and there is not one single post on the message board. No wonder. There is nothing to discuss! What about..? A film that seems to have been made as filler-time between commercials, where the actors speak slower than the heroes of a documentary on dyslexia? Or the constant flashbacks that after a while become so predictable and useless? Can't even sympathize with the protagonist. His actions (and lack of reactions) are so moronic that you wish he dies, so the film will end sooner. Not a bad story, except it fell in the wrong hands. I wish a quick recovery to anyone who watched this. I'm still recuperating.

I like to watch movies. All kinds of movies. I'm especially drawn to alternative, independent, low-budget films where I don't know what to expect and the actors/actresses are new to me. Often, those films turn out to be very pleasantly surprising. Or surprisingly pleasant. It was with this thinking that I chose to take a chance with "Lea". My instinct failed me.

Rarely do I come across a protagonist so unsympathetic. The plot follows the struggle of a girl in her twenties, trying to make ends meet. A girl that lives with and looks after her grandmother, works as a waitress in a strip club and has high aspirations for her academic studies. Not sure if it's the lack of talent in the acting department or the lack of surprises in the storyline, but after a certain point I stopped caring if anything would happen to dear miss Lea. Good or bad.

The biggest surprise - if you can call it that - is that the waitress becomes a stripper. Other than that it's like watching a documentary on the daily life of a bored (and alas, boring) small town French girl. She seems to be unhappy in everything she gets involved with - her nightclub work, her morning studies, her relationship, the college parties she attends. Perhaps under a different director, with a different actress and a more intriguing plot, it could have been an in-depth case study of a provincial character. This film however does not allow us to get a glimpse inside the leading lady's mind. She's constantly troubled, yet it's impossible to identify with her. No explanations are given. A troubled childhood? Lack of compromise with society? Confused personality? The viewer needs strong reasons to sympathize with her pain but Anne Azoulay under the direction of Bruno Rolland gives us none. Null.

So simple and yet so complicated, as often life can be. Normal houses and plain faces on your block often conceal mini dramas. A cul de sac, to be precise, symbolic perhaps of the impasse that certain characters in "Broken" have reached.

Hats off to the director (and editor?) for the way certain sequences were handled. You would see a scene - the conclusion of certain events - and at the right moment (when you'd start wondering "when and how did this happen?"), the action would rewind itself and everything would make sense. From effect to cause...

I guess this movie is not for the "Batman" crowd. No jumping off roofs, no wild chases, no gunshots, just bleeding. The real kind that could happen to your sister or brother or parent or child. Or to your neighbour. The kind that you might read about in the newspaper the next day. Bleeding external and bleeding internal. Of the lip and of the heart.

The acting was very convincing. Not the kind that sticks in your mind forever, but that's exactly what I consider to be one of the film's main assets: the lack of exaggeration in the delivery of the lines is what makes the story plausible, real, as if though you're witnessing events unfold outside your window.

And hats off to the new kid on the block. Eloise Laurence is a natural. I'd love to have her for my daughter too! Or sister. Or neighbour. I have a feeling we'll be hearing more from her. And from director Rufus Norris. The chain must not be broken.