Le Scaphandre et la Papillon

“Nous sommes tous les enfants, nous avons tous besoin de l'approbation.”

Being locked in and hanging on to translation is just the beginning.

Julian Schnabel received rave reviews and the film was hyped up enough, so I figured it was time to see Le Scaphandre et la Papillon, or, for the English-only speakers, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. The film focuses on Jean-Dominique Bauby, the editor of French Elle who suffered a stroke and, subsequently, acquired a condition known as Locked-In Syndrome – he is able to understand and comprehend everything, but unable to talk. He can only respond to yes or no questions by blinking his eye. The film follows Bauby’s progression in writing his book, which was done by blinking an eye while someone reads him the alphabet.

There are both strong and weak points to this film. First off, the plot is somewhat dry, but the film is less about the story than it is the main character. That being said, I will make myself clear – if this film was trying to have the viewers feel sympathy for the cripple, it certainly didn’t work. The concept of the Locked-in man writing a book is certainly worth a spot on the news, but as a full film, it’s not very interesting.

So, what saves this film? First, the film is shot almost entirely as if it were through Bauby’s eyes. It’s interesting because you actually feel locked-in. I liked the perspective. In a way, it gave some needed colour to the pretence of the film. Second, although the film is more about the making of the book Le Scaphandre et la Papillon, there are many parts during which Mathieu Almaric, who plays Jean-Dominique Bauby, narrates excerpts from the book. Bauby, though sometimes a bit melodramatic, has some interesting and somewhat insightful things to say.

The main theme of this film is determination. That’s what reflects the title. The stroke and subsequent condition of Locked-in syndrome was the diving bell that brought Bauby down, and those who helped him interpret his thoughts with just the blink of an eye helped him be a butterfly, going up. It’s all very basic, and it certainly isn’t anything we haven’t heard before. But, the theme aside, this film has merit in mostly its style. I think just admiring the form of the film is a good reason to watch it. However, if you’re looking for something profound and, on the whole, moving, then look for something different.

On the whole, however, the film was entertaining and easy on the eyes. I give it a B.

The Dark Knight

“Why…so…serious?”

‘Memento’ takes an abrupt fall as Nolan’s magnum opus.

1I had waited for this film for over a year, and wanted see it even more when Heath Ledger died. But, due to working, I could not see it until the Sunday after its release, although my friends Jeremy and Jeb were kind enough to give me a 3:05 and 3:21 am greeting after they had gone to the midnight releases. So, naturally, I was psyched, and I had high expectations. But…well, there’s no but. I can’t figure out anything bad to say.

The film is a sequel to Batman Begins, which saw director Christopher Nolan turn the Batman series around from the George Clooney version (which I call the ‘Nipples One’) to something much more watchable. I am going to quote my friend Jeremy on the transition from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, evoking the name of Max Fischer – “Batman Begins was the short little one-act about Watergate; The Dark Knight is ‘Heaven and Hell’”.

The thing that impressed me most about this film was its ability to bring worldly themes into it. I wasn’t aware that a superhero movie was capable of it. The film in itself was less about Batman than it was about chaos. So, naturally, I was salivating. It was as if Lola Rennt met and had babies with Jack Bauer. We get little bits and pieces of free will, human nature, human chaos, suffering, and chance all put into a two hour plus package, all while sharing the screen with Batman, Two-face, and the Joker. Christopher Nolan has made this possible for the first time. Major snaps, Janie-faces, etc.

I’m not going to talk much about Christian Bale. His praise was used up on Batman Begins. And, although his performance was much more than satisfactory, he was dwarfed by three actors (in ascending order):

First, Gary Oldman, who played Lt James Gordon. I can’t discuss this in too much detail without giving away plot. So, I will just say that I wasn’t surprised because Gary Oldman tends to steal the scene in many films.

Second, Aaron Eckhardt. What a transformation from lobbyist Nick Naylor in Thank You for Smoking! Eckhardt plays Harvey Dent, who later becomes the murderous two-face. A few months ago, I would’ve said that only Hannibal Lector could outdo Chigurgh with a coin. Alas, I was wrong! I’d bet my life savings on Two-face over Chigurgh even if Two-face had his legs cut off.

Finally, Heath Ledger. Right now, Jack Nicholson’s Joker seems like a cuddly throw pillow that you keep in your closet until your ugly cousin is coming to visit. Heath Ledger delivers (hhem….delivered) a diabolical Joker who’s equally frightening as he is funny. You find yourself rooting for him just because his character is so strong, you want to become as evil as he is (hhem…was). I’m going to make room right next to the Hannibal Lector doll on the golden pedestal for the Joker doll. Yes…it was that good.

This is becoming a rare year. It’s not even the fall season yet, and already I’m giving away my second top grade. But, there’s no hesitation to this one. It receives a solid A.

Charlie Bartlett

"Viagra! Virgin! Vino! Vagabond! Vagina!"

A witty teenager garners 2008's first golden prize

On its surface, Charlie Bartlett appears to be just another teen comedy. In fact, many other critics have slammed it, one calling it “The poor man’s Rushmore”. If you look at the cover, I might have to agree. But I’m certain that particular critic didn’t bother to watch the film, because if he had watched it, he would’ve been hard pressed to even compare the two films. While Rushmore is, more or less, a coming of age film, Charlie Bartlett touches a much different surface; it is a mellow comedy that touches on the importance of youth and the imperfections of humans.

Charlie Bartlett follows the title character as he is expelled from his private school (which is something of a habit for him) and enters, for the first time, a public school, and his struggles, and ultimately, success in being accepted. This film does a fine job of elevating simple humour into something much funnier. I was trying to figure out where I had seen this kind of humour before, and it finally hit me – Charlie Bartlett is the comedic version of Hannibal Lector, with maybe the charm of Ferris Bueller and the wits of Daria Morgendorfer.

There are two important aspects to this film; the first focuses on the importance of youth. Edgar Lee Masters once wrote, “Genius is wisdom and youth”, in his magnum opus Spoon River Anthology. If such is the case, Charlie Bartlett emulates genius. The title character is very mature for his age, and, largely, has been unable to enjoy his youth, which is a major progression in the film. The second major theme is the idea of humanity. No one is perfect, and that is something that portrayed not only through the title character, but through almost every character with whom he interacts.

Anton Yelchin plays the title character, and I can’t say enough good things about this young star. He tackled this role, free of flaws. He made the character real, lovable, and memorable. I like him as much as Max Fischer, though comparisons really cannot be made. Yelchin also gets special snaps for a monologue that you must see to believe. If Yelchin were English, he would’ve been in very high demand to play in The History Boys.

This film had everything I look for in a good film. It had good light hearted humour, superb acting, simple, yet powerful themes, and lots of memorable quotes. I know fellow critics will shun this one, but, I am a shameless person, and I give films what I think they deserve: I give it an A-.