Spanish Indie 23: suggesting the best national acts

Another round of stunning national discoveries! A trio of wonders who are in love with synths and keyboards but also with a very open-minded concept of pop. Enojy!

Murciano Total. Hailing from Molina de Segura, Murcia (of course) this peculiar band began in 2012, almost as a joke, under the nickname Lena y Sema, but behind the project are José Lozano, former member of Automatics and Universal Circus and his partner Elena Molina. First demos, appeared on lyric-video format surfaced that same year, igniting the buzz and grabbing the attention of our dear friends at El Genio Equivocado, who quickly signed them. With diverse collaborators from bands like El Estudiante Larry, Perro, The Yellow Melodies, Alex de Klaus&Kinski and even Jota from Los Planetas, the duo compiled their work on the limited cassette 'Demos 2012-2013' in December 2013. After a two-hours sold out 7" on early 2014, now we can enjoy their first album, 'Quereres y Dejenes' out since February. Vintage synthesised pop, devoted to OMD or Gary Numan, but with a genuine knack for melodies and twisted lyrics, also recalling the hunt for the perfect pop tune that make Murciano Total closer to national legends like Family. Cult band on the making.

Espiritusanto. Hailing from Madrid and formed around 2010, the origins of this quintet, now sextet, have to be traced from the ashes of the band Portonovo, as two of their founding members were part of that melancholic, moody pop group. Their first reference (all the forthcoming releases are self-released and name your price download at their bandcamp) arrived in January 2012 with the digital EP 'Nadar a Crol', which includes a version of 'I Give You Two Seconds to Entertain Me' from the great Northern Portrait, followed that April by 'No Volvamos Aquí Nunca, No Será tan Divertido' EP. Two more EPs had been released to date. In May 2013, 'Femenino/Masculino' and, in February 2014, 'El Fondo del Aire es Rojo'. Their intricate, lush and ambitious view of pop place Espiritusanto on a unique position within the national scene. Male/female vocals, noise pop with a kraut envelope, sweet dreampop with hints of a darkness... A whole pop experience you shouldn't miss.

Antiguo Régimen. Coming from Valencia, this quartet formed at the end of 2011, although their sharp post-punk sound got defined around September 2012. On February 2013 they released their debut 7" single 'La Formación de la Sombra' on Burka For Everybody / Discodrome / Flexidiscos, followed in April 2014 by their first LP, 'Política de tierra quemada'. Like a flawless record found on a long-time forgotten vault of the post-punk 80s here's the chill, icy and desperate sound. Echoes of The Sound, The Chameleons, The Wake or, going back to Spain, Fasenuova, Nudozurdo or Décima Víctima. Menace and mystery.

These Go to 11: interviewing Linda Guilala

Keeping the love for Galizian bands! Discovered this year, and loved them at Indietracks. So we are extremely happy to count with Linda Guilala answering our questionnaire. These Go to 11! 

Ivan Juniper, Linda Guilala 

Linda Guilala, pop in the middle
 of the storm

Hailing from Vigo and born from the ashes of Juniper Moon in 2005, Iván and Eva began their new project propelled by their love for electricity and old, bizarre Japanese sci-fi movies. A year after, the duo came out with their first self-produced demos, grabbing the attention of Spanish radios. In 2009 their debut album 'Bucles Infinitos' arrived on Elefant Records, followed in 2011 with 'Paranormal' EP. This year, and transformed into a trio, the group has released another EP, 'Xeristar', out since March. A tremendous example of noise, electric shocks, very few boundaries, shoegazing blasts, and a fond love for iconic bands like My Bloody Valentine, Black Tambourine, Pale Saints or The Jesus and Mary Chain. Storms and dreams shaped into fantastic songs. Here we go!

1. First record that you bought (be honest)
'In Utero' by Nirvana.

A-HA, couldn't be more 80s than them

2. First and last concert you have attended (be honest too!)
Although I'm not sure 100%, I think it was Manta Ray in the 90's, at Cafe Edesa Theatre in Ponferrada. What I do remember is that it cost me 300 pesetas, a drink included. The last one is Musculo, the band that played with us in our last concert. Lately, we play a lot in Linda Guilala, so the concerts that we see are the bands playing with us.

3. Guilty pleasure (song/band you shouldn’t like but you do, yes, it’s the embarrassing question)
My guilty pleasure is A-HA.

4. Most precious music item you own (collector mode on)
This is very complicated, I value a lot my first "pressings" of The Vaselines. 

Antonio Galvañ,
love makes noise 

5. Favorite lyrics (not yours)
My favourite lyrics are the ones from the album of Family and Antonio Galvañ from Parade. Usually, I don't like much the typical love songs and that sort of stuff, I think they are pretty rubbish, drivel. Although I have to admit that I have some songs like these in my own repertoire.

6. Musician/s you would like to meet (should be alive, for obvious reasons, but you can choose a dead one too)
Alive, David Keegan. And dead, Ian Curtis.

7. Favorite artwork album (not yours)
That's indeed complicated to answer. I like a lot almost all The Stone Roses 7'', but you know, that's today and tomorrow could be another, completely different thing.

Cinemascope's sci-fi

8. Books or movies? Depending on your answer recommend us one (trick: you can choose both) 

'Forbidden Planet' is my all-time favourite film, and in a more experimental context, 'Pink Narcissus' from James Bidgoog.  

9. Release (of yours) you are most proud of
None, I never hear Linda Guilala nor any of my other groups, Because I suffer a lot hearing them, and I always find all sort of defects.

10. What does it mean indie for you? (yes, the “serious question”)
Sure it's serious for me, very serious. I'm indie, and I'm proud of it. I have no problem of saying it openly and confront whoever prostitutes the term. It's a way of doing things and a way of life. I try to get involved in as many "indie" things as possible: I schedule concerts, record and collaborate with groups and I always do it with the same spirit of independence and self-sufficiency. Above all it's about being faithful to the things I believe.

11. Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

Well, I see myself doing exactly the same. Playing in some band, looking for second hand albums, strange films and B-movies, collecting Tin Toys and, above all, listening a lot of music and being happy about it.

Zillion thanks Linda Guilala!

"Jeff Who Lives at Home", quirky feel-good fun

Jeff Who Lives at Home

Feel-good movies is not exactly a film category, but there are so many out there I'm convinced it deserves a genre entirely of its own. And the vast, immense majority of them are awful, bland and phony numbers. That's why, despite its flaws and shortcomings, one doesn't want to be very tough (there are also some personal reasons, as where and with who I was watching it)  with a movie like "Jeff Who Lives at Home". A feel-good film that is not embarrassing? Hey, these are surprisingly good news, folks.

Indeed, there's nothing to be ashamed of in "Jeff". Mark and Jay, the Duplass brothers have penned a quirky little movie, mixing comedy, an off-beat and surreal sense of humour, with some pretty serious issues, like relationships, familiar as well as sentimental, or our definition of "what's normal and reasonable"... oh, well, the meaning of life, you know. Not shy on ambition, ehm? Honestly, it had all the elements for being insufferable, but you know what? It is not. The film is really enjoyable. Although sometimes moving on a very thin red line, shifting from almost slapstick scenes to utterly dramatic moments, "Jeff"'s  awkward, nearly impossible script works, also offering a vital, positive message with charm (and without being too cheesy).

Such and odd-ball couldn't work without committed and credible actors. And in that sense Jason Segel deserves a separate mention. He carries the whole film of his shoulders. He turns Jeff, a 30 years-old slacker-loser by definition, into a fragile, sweet and collapsed adult that is going to be the major force on a series of life-changing situations for him and his family with compelling freshness. Extraordinary job. In comparison, the other main actors, Ed Helms, his brother, and Susan Sarandon, his mother, are just ok.  

Precisely, if "Jeff" fails short is on the parallel stories of Pat and Sharon, leaded by Helms and Sarandon. The first one lacks verisimilitude because the drastic personality shifts on the character, which makes him hard to believe in what regards to the dramatic side of the story, around his failing marriage with Linda (played by Judy Greer). While the second is by far the less inspired, looking somewhat forced (the shower scene is a bit gratuitous). That unbalance on the stories, and the epic, bombastic finale makes "Jeff Who Lives at Home" a flawed film. But as I said, thanks to Segel, the originality in how the story develops and its comedy side, is nevertheless a recommendable movie that can endure with the spectator. A remarkable feel-good movie.

SCORE: 6,5/10 

"2 Days in New York", funny or irritating?

2 Days in New York

I wouldn't say that "2 Days in Paris" was a masterpiece or an unforgettable movie, but it was enjoyable, and what matters in a comedy, it had quite a bunch of funny moments. Unfortunately, this sequel in NYC seems to have lost all the charms of its predecessor.   

A clear attempt to follow Woody Allen's path, "2 Days in New York" aims to be a lightweight comedy about a smart, intellectual couple (he's a hip talk-radio host and journalist and she's a photographer/conceptual artist) that receives the visit of her French family, provoking all sort the disasters and impossible situations. Like "2 Days in Paris" the majority of gags are based on the possibilities of French-American culture clashes, plus a few neurotic behaviours (Chris Rock's obsession with Obama might be the funniest of the film). But with frustrating results.

Director and leading actress Julie Delpy (dying to see her again on Richard Linklater's "Before Midnight"), really fuels the film with a beating, energetic pace. Dialogues and chaos (the NYC apartment really looks like an invaded and devastated place once the French arrives) are two basic elements that provide some kind of realism to the whole movie premise. But while Chris Rock, his boyfriend on the film, opts for a more stark, straight performance that gives a much needed balance in front of the crazy visitors, Delpy decides to drawn her character amidst the disaster. In my opinion, with that decision she completely ruins the story tension and as a consequence, the film has no drive. 

It's quite sad, but without room for contrast (as I said, the only exception being Chris Rock) most of the gags, the farcical humour is doomed. To the point of being unnerving for the audience. Most of the "French family" is just insufferable, exhausting. But is Delpy's character who takes the cake. To me, she was annoying, irritating (and I can't buy the film's ending, that justifies her behaviour) and the major factor there's little fun on "2 Days in New York". The dynamic path, the chemistry between Delpy and Rock as a couple and a pair of gags make the movie watchable, but that's not enough. 

SCORE: 4,5/10

"Your Sister's Sister", relationships & talks

Your Sister's Sister

Something had gone really wrong with cinema if an audacious, brave and laudable idea is a film where all that matters are dialogues and actors. These are the pivotal elements over which "Your Sister's Sister" is built upon to develop a tale of human relationships that, for almost all its length, looks natural and refreshing.  Let's say it clear: this is an indie film (loved the Fleet Foxes/Band of Horses reference) to make the ever-present Hollywood romantic comedies pale in their dumbness. So, sorry blockbuster's lovers, never-ending action scenes' fans, digital/animation's hooligans. Nothing much for you to watch here, I'm afraid.

Unless you like stories about people behaving like people, instead of wearing strange outfits, masks and capes, that is. That's what director Lynn Shelton wrote for "Your Sister's Sister", with a quite simple premise, and filmed in only 12 days, with almost no funding. A house on an island, almost hidden in the woods by a lake, where Iris suggests Jack, her best friend, to go for some time to "reboot" from his stuck life, as he's still paralysed because of his brother's death, a year ago. There he will met Hannah, Iris' sister.

A couple of scenes aside, there are only three characters with screen presence. The lack of external factors (no phones, internet, work issues), and the peculiar, isolated environment in which the film develops helps putting the absolute focus on the trio, their behaviours, talks, connections, and the emotions that they bring as well as they hide from the table. Some feelings are as secluded as the island where they located, ready to burst. Love, friendship, sex, family ties (magnificent pillow talks between the sisters), pasts, all around tables and beds. Shelton revealed the script had only 70 pages, so around 75% of the dialogue was improvised together with the cast. I'm seriously impressed by that. The biggest triumph of the film is building such a solid trio of characters, making them credible, likeable despite its flaws, and understandable, despite their actions. The bonds and boundaries of their relations are brilliantly and naturally exposed.

Of course, to achieve such mesmerizing and engaging results, you need a formidable trio of actors.The three performances, Mark Duplass as Jack, Rosemarie DeWitt as Hannah, and (the gorgeous) Emily Blunt as Iris are excellent, individually and collectively. They are fun, fragile and touching. All in a natural way, instead of much drama or exaggerations they are capable of condensing their emotional and revealing "voyage" in their chats, gestures and facial/physical expressions. Bravo.

With so much praise from my side, you might be thinking "Your Sister's Sister" is going to be considered as a masterpiece on this review. Unfortunately not. When tensions and revelations finally explode (as I said, kudos for not being melodramatic), the film chooses a much more predictable path. Not to say disappointing, but conventional (despite its peculiarity) and pleasing one. There's too much exposed and needed to assume to accept that end in such a little time, in my opinion. It is wonderful that love between humans can overcome everything, but with characters so well constructed, some more time for their evolution would have been recommendable. Otherwise, its final part looks like a sitcom, and the film didn't deserve that resolution.

Overall, a really remarkable, fun, refreshing and charming film, with three actors excelling in their performances, that misses a bit of their potential to be unforgettable towards the end. But nevertheless, this is an admirable  proof that all that matters in cinema is having a good story to be told, and having the courage of telling it.

SCORE: 7,25/10

"The Skylab", pleasant family memories

The Skylab (Le Skylab, French original title)

All families are quite similar, and all family gatherings are horri.... just kidding. "The Skylab" uses that simple and recognisable plot to gather an impressive and diverse French Cinema cast, celebrating a family meeting in the summer of 1979, to build a comedy, with several hints of drama, that works also as a personal homage from writer, director and actress Julie Delpy to her family (in particular her mother).

"The Skylab" is built upon a flashback, so these are supposed to be the memories of the adult Albertine, remembering those days when she was 11-year-old and took part of a familiar get-together, celebrating the 67th birthday of her grandmother, matriarch of the clan. Getting picky, from a technical point of view, either the initial/closing scene and the whole premise are quite loose and obviously erroneous (young Albertine wasn't in every scene, so how can she remember them?).

But anyway, that's not really important for the film, who has one of its strongest points in the lack of pretensions and the aim to focus in a nostalgic, mostly kind and warm, take on those familiar days in the French Brittany. Delpy wants to portray her own family memories with affection, care, and a very natural sense of humour. She, thanks to the help of the ensemble cast and her talent for dialogues achieves that goal for almost the entirety of the film.

We all have been part of one of these never-ending get-together reunions, so it's no surprise to see silly/ridiculous situations, even sillier conversations (the one that involves NASA's Skylab space station that was going to fall somewhere that night gives the name of the film), some sex remarks, very different characters dealing with their own stories and trying to catch-up with the other quickly, many communication breakdowns, and the inevitable tensions, all while drinks and food are constantly served, even despite the capricious (and very funny) weather.

As this are Albertine's memories, childhood is a pivotal focus of the film, and Delpy proves she's got a very remarkable talent to recreate with artlessness that age, its revelations and traumas as well it provides several moments of laughs. First love (although she seems quite precocious for her age), death, arts (thanks to her bohemian parents), the transition from childhood to teenager period in particular mark Albertine's evolution throughout the movie. No, she's not a young female version of Woody Allen, although that wouldn't be the first time Delpy has the New Yorker director as a reference.

But I couldn't help thinking "The Skylab" has a couple of "issues" that harm its overall enjoyment as a whole. First, and a common one nowadays, its lack of balance, and directly linked with that, the excessive length: two hours might be necessary to present and expose such a long family and the developing situations, but there are some scenes clearly overlong (and not all of them can be justified as the film is the flashback of one person, therefore completely subjective) while other "matters" are presented just to disappear immediately. And second, when drama appears, in some selected scenes, the tone of the film gets really dark. Political discussions that could end heating-up too much are usual among families. But there's more than that here. These scenes are awkward considering the movie flows as a comedy, and with the aforementioned lack of balance, look also strangely isolated and disconnected from the rest. Maybe Delpy wanted to include too much.

Overall, a lightweight and quite pleasant film, one that you try to be even more indulgent with its flaws thanks to its undeniable charm, that works quite nicely as a nostalgic comedy.

SCORE: 6,25/10

"We Need to Talk About Kevin", maternity's guilt

We Need to Talk About Kevin

Proceed with care. One of the most sacred taboos in history (I assume in the majority of cultures, but I'm referring to Western tradition) is, without a doubt, maternity. Maternity is always linked, defined with tenderness, sacrifice, courage, sweetness, love, knowledge... and learning. But "We Need to Talk About Kevin" dynamites this taboo. Warning made. 

Director Lynney Ramsay, adapting the homonym novel by Lionel Shriver, explains us a maternity case that is a terrible process. Doubts, extreme pain, utter defeat and desolation. That's maternity for Eva Khatchadourian, played Tilda Swinton, a masterful actress that gives another lesson in an incredibly difficult role, dealing with a monstrous kid, Kevin. Swinton is the movie, and she carries the weight in her shoulders with fierce conviction. 

Ramsay's structures the film as a constant back and forth in time, but despite being confusing sometimes (especially during the first minutes) it makes sense. The focus is always in Eva's drama, and it largely takes place in her tortured, and isolated mind. From her now desolated present, she remembers her romance with Kevin's father, Franklin, played by John C. Reilly, her trips, but also how she got pregnant, how Kevin was born, how he grew up, and how she struggled, from almost the very beginning, in her attempt to understand his devilish son. Like the theme images, the tomatoes, the red paint, the blood, all is connected in Eva's mind, With the mixture of different periods of their past and the present, we soon realise the parents failure will have a horrible climax. We see that Eva tries to piece together her life after that, but one wonders if she wouldn't prefer to be dead instead. 

"We Need to Talk About Kevin" is disturbing, not for what is shows, but for the number of questions it poses and how unafraid it is to push the boundaries of maternity's preconceived notions. Intrigues the viewer, and removes something inside. Praise Ramsay for being that brave. And as I already said, praise Swinton to portray so well, so convincingly, the face (and physiognomy, that serves so well to her role) of the devastated mother. 

But not everything works in the film. Sure, Kevin is pure evil, so bad that, no matter his age (he's played by three different actors) he has such an evil look that makes any movie villain pale by comparison. Is that credible? And Franklin, the father. Can anyone be so clueless about his son? How can he ignore it? While watching, I had the impression he was the dumbest character I ever seen on screen, giving the magnitude of the disaster. A couple of relevant facts for the development of the story were also strange/ bad resolved for me. Foremost the aforementioned climax (leaves quite a lot to the simple acceptance of the viewer) but also, the trial, the cruel treatment of the neighbours (understandable just to a certain point) and office colleagues. And the resolution of the film looks a bit tricky to me (don't worry, won't spoil it). Yeah, maternity impulses, a collapsed mind through we see it all, and the willing to know the reasons can justify almost everything. But as the poor Eva, looking for answers, not many will come. 

Intriguing, thoughtful, brave, with a fantastic Tilda Swinton, but not fully convincing.

SCORE: 6,5/10

"West of Rome", the dog of John Fante

West of Rome- John Fante

I know that I will end reading everything published by John Fante and his son Dan. It's just a matter of time. So here's another one. John Fante's "West of Rome" is composed of two novellas, "My Dog Stupid" and "The Orgy". Both are excellent pieces of Fante's prodigious, straightforward, stormy prose, but they don't fit together. The book was a posthumous release, so I guess the idea, from an editorial point of view, was offering something longer (and then more expensive) than just one short book with less than 150 pages. What a sad decision from a literary perspective.  

Because "My Dog Stupid", the first and longer story is a wonderful piece of literature. Urgent, passionate and cathartic as his best novels, but adding an humorous and heart-warming edge that is refreshing and compelling. It is not that age mellowed Fante, the bitterness and drama-fated is there, but the older writer is capable of laughing about himself.

Make no mistake, reading this tale of Fante's new alter-ego Henry Molise battling against his children and sons in laws, the neighbourhood and their big dogs, Hollywood parasites and growing old while he dreams to escape to Rome is like reading another chapter of Arturo Bandini's story. The frustration and anger is intact, but our weary and tired anti-hero is also wiser, ready to look life in the eye, from time to time, and laugh about it. With the help of Stupid, his very peculiar and amusing dog, that is. What an excellent novella. 

With "My Dog Stupid" rating so high, "The Orgy" is quite a let-down by comparison. It is just a short tale that grabs you like a hurricane with a terrific start "His name was Frank Gagliano, and he did not believe in God. He was that most singular...", but never delivers. Only the immediacy of Fante's prose and the inevitable sense of danger along its pages saves it from being a conventional story about the lost of innocence of a kid. 

Anyway, "West of Rome" is a must read thanks to its first novella, where you will find all what makes reading John Fante essential: an uncontrollable passion channelled through words, a unique voice forged by toughness and a hunger for living that is bigger than life itself. Meet the dog of John Fante, you won't regret it. 

SCORE: 7/10

"The Descendants", familiy troubles of a back up parent

The Descendants

Let's face it. It has to be me. I guess I don't get Alexander's Payne movies. I wouldn't say I don't like them, but they leave me indifferent. Wasn't moved by "About Schmidt", found "Sideways" a lucid entertainment, but not the masterpiece many point out, and sorry, I can't add more than this sort of vague comments to the "The Descendants". An ok film, but not an unforgettable work, or a "movie of the year". 

To me, Payne's best works are still "Election" and "14e Arrondissement", the short-film included on the otherwise mediocre "Paris, Je T'Aime". That little gem of less than 7 minutes is really touching and emotional without needing to force any dramatic premise, even including a subtle dose of humour, as seen from the outside, life is full of comic situations.  

To my understanding, Payne's movies have a lot to do with literature. You can easily see how he cares about their characters, wanting to show the many sides we have as humans. I imagine (haven't read it) the book in which it is based has to be a detailed insight of the King's family, in particular of Matt King's, being, as he says at the beginning of the film, the back up parent, has to deal with parenthood, death, a poignant secret now revealed and heritage (that finally is left almost unexplored). But, being honest, I doubt he succeeds showing on screen all the complexities such detailed characters should require.  

Matt, despite the excellent performance of George Clooney, who does a lot without saying too much, is a blurred character. The spectactor has to assume he had a passive attitude in the past, regarding his wife and daughters. He is overwhelmed by the turn of events. He is confussed, appalled. And then, suddenly, he decides to almost "hunt" for someone (no spoiling). Sure, that drastic change of behaviour/decision, justifies the plot of the film, but really fits with Matt ever-present composure?

Then, we have the two daughters. Of course, every person deals with sorrow in a different way, but again, it was very hard for me to believe the role of Alexandra, the eldest daughter, played by Shailene Woodley. Both her previous, rebellious attitude, as well as her transformation towards a mature woman seems are pretty incredible for a seventeen year-old girl. Many other secondary roles appear, some rewarding, like Judy Greer's, others a bit insipid, as the youngest daughter, and finally, other that only exists to help defining Matt's character, as the one played by Robert Forster.

The tone of the film is also unbalanced. We could argue that being "The Descendants" an emotional voyage, the mix of depressing and pleasant moments is quite "real", but I'm afraid I have to agree with the occasional review saying they didn't feel sincerity on the emotions. I wouldn't say they are false, but they look a bit flat, a bit too polished, a bit off-beat. The whole film flows in a dull dynamic, as it it were "infected" by the peculiar "rythym" of Hawaii. This is, of course my personal opinion, but I couldn't see the grandeur of this film. It might be me.

SCORE: 5,25/10

"A Happy Marriage", love, death and everything else

A Happy Marriage- Rafael Yglesias
This is an example of a novel with the potential of being a masterpiece... that I couldn't really like. Author Rafael Yglesias exposes all, a brave and risky decision that has to be valued, and tell us the story of a marriage (not the most original thing to write about) in a quite refreshing way. But, at least to me, the book never takes off from being a very personal, intimate and sometimes even a bit morbid, take on a particular couple.

In what regards to style and structure, "A Happy Marriage" is an excellent work. Yglesias' prose flows with grace but without any pomposity, sounding real. The book combines two timelines, the first being how Enrique and Margaret meet and started their relationship, and the second, the last days of Margaret's life, as she is dying from cancer. That dual structure shocks at first, and I'm a bit undecided whether I like the brutal contrasts on the tone, from a more lightweight, with hints of comic situations during their first encounters to the depressing (and in my opinion, a bit too detailed) final days of his wife, but then becomes a very interesting and original approach for telling the story of a marriage from its start to the end.

But it is clear the book is more an autobiography of Yglesias' life (he was too hailed as a young masterful writer with his early novels, had success with Hollywood scripts and with a long marriage that ended with the death of his wife in 2004, due to cancer) than just a fiction novel, and to me, that takes its toll on the book. First, because this is, exclusively, the husband's point of view. Enrique Sabas is a pretty well defined character, and Yglesias must be praised to present his alter-ego as a flesh and bone person, with many defects and obsessions. But I can't say the same about the rest of characters. Margaret, the couple kids, her parents, friends, aren't very far from being sketches.

Second, and something that made me question even to continue reading the book a couple of times is the need of detailing everything. Do we really need to know everything about how Margaret’s deals with her terminal illness? Does it add something to the novel? Why is that relevant? Is not pure morbid curiosity? Sure, that's just my opinion, but I don't see the point of carefully writing about the colour of the food that can be seen through the tubes that Margaret is connected with. In that sense, a few passages of "A Happy Marriage" seemed to me "masturbatory". Sorry if it seems an angry criticism, but to me the whole point of such a personal book is to reach emotional impact through the identification of the reader with the characters and their situations. Cancer, love, disappointment, betrayal, loss... Familiar topics for many, but with "A Happy Marriage" I couldn't empathize with the characters, in particular with Enrique. And that builds a distance between the book and the reader. A distance that, like in relations, ruins the final result.

SCORE: 5,25/10

"Sukkwan Island", welcome to the icy hell

Sukkwan Island- David Vann

You know sometimes there's that sort of art that shocks you, beats you in a different way. That sort of situation after watching the ending credits of a film while asking yourself, did I liked it? And answering yourself "you cannot like that, it is too disturbing to use the word like". But you couldn't took your eyes off the screen. "Sukkwan Island" is that sort of art. It's a very disturbing novel. Hits hard, and there's no mercy or compassion on it. It seems that has something to do with the Spanish translation (the "Legend of a Suicide" stories have been excluded). There's no time for redemption, just to go deeper into this icy hell. 

David Vann's triumph is his ability to combine a sharp prose, without any rhetorical, with a constant presence of the isolated island where Roy and Jim, son and father, are planning to stay for a very special year. The landscape, and its relationship with the couple becomes the third character of the novel. These are the foundations from where the plot develops, first as a pretty distressing psychological thriller, where you can really feel the ever-present threat. The parallelism between survival in a hostile natural environment and survival between the two is brilliantly exposed. There's claustrophobia, anguish of open spaces and lack of preparation and equipment, but even more important, there's an enormous fear, child and adult, desolation, and guilt.  

Vann acknowledges the inspiration for Jim's character came from the figure of his father and his personal drama. That even scares me more. Because Jim is a self-pity monster, completely blocked and incapable of taking care of a kid that he is responsible of bringing to such a place. There's no child abuse or that sort of issue if you are thinking that... this is more about the absolute fracture between what and adult is supposed to do and the reality that shows the novel.

While reading, my mind recalled several times "Deliverance" the powerful novel from James Dickey that also had a pretty remarkable movie. Although nature and danger are always present, "Sukkwan Island" is more about an introspective and unbeatable struggle. But as happened on "Deliverance", when the brutal climax happens, you would like to run from shelter. Allow me to warn you before ending this review. You won't find any.

SCORE: 7/10

"Chump Change", John & Dan Fante: father to son

Chump Change- Dan Fante

We believe that dying is hard, but dying is not important. What is difficult is to live as everything dies around us.

After making a post about U2 songs that served me as an excuse to go back to some personal favourites from the Irish band, I finished this book. And I can't help thinking how much it reminds me to their tune "Dirty Day" from Zooropa.

"Chump Change" is the first book translated into Spanish of Dan Fante, the son of John Fante, the fantastic American writer, who was completely neglected on his time, long forgotten and surprisingly (thanks to writers like Bukowski who praised his work) recovered and recognized as he deserved only recently. This first book of his son doesn't hide a bit its nature (replacing Fante with Dante): an homage to the lost father, an a gut-wrenching tale of redemption.

Entertainment might be an option for some, but to be called real literature, to me it has to grab you. Literally. I do believe that John Fante would agree with me. And I bet his son does too, 'cause "Chump Change" doesn't need more than a couple of pages to have you diving in the story. From starters, you might want to surface, because what you under the dark waters is freaking scary, but at the same time you know you will keep reading. Even more knowing the story is real.

A big part of the impact of the book resides on how Dan Fante's writes. It could be defined as minimalism, but his prose seems effortless while at the same time is so powerful and clear. Think on his father, or on Bukowski, and you'll be close. Think on the so-called "dirty realism". But on the roughest, merciless version of it. Fante's talent to put into words this monstrous drunk nightmare is mesmerizing. Smell the booze, breath Los Angeles. Or better said, feel his suffocation in L.A.

Yet what makes the book stand-out is the ability of Fante of being compelling despite being so unbelievably raw. "Chump Change" doesn't create an heroic literary alter-ego, but a coward, one that might prefer self-destruction instead of confronting its fears. A very human coward, one that is scared of death, and that is afraid of, and going back to U2's "Dirty Day", "hold onto something so tight/You've already lost it". But time doesn't give second chances. John Dante's time is running out, and Bruno, the son, despite the bitterness, the failure and the disappointment they both shared ("there's no blood thicker than ink"), will have one last opportunity of showing his feelings and start life again. I would only add four more words to this: chapter 17, real emotion. Quoting U2 one last time:

A work that's never done
Father to son

Superb book

SCORE: 8/10

"The Fighter", boxing and family triumph by K.O.

The Fighter
Great surprise. Wasn't expecting much, because boxing has been overused by Hollywood, and so the topic of redemption/second opportunity through sport, which is on the verge of being a worrying cliché. But luckily, "The Fighter" offers a lot more.

To start with, because boxing remains on the background of the movie, and although it is based on the true story of "Irish" Micky Ward, a local hero from Lowell, Massachusetts, the film instead reveals itself as a familiar drama where there are far more punches at the emotional level that inside the ring.

During the first hour of "The Fighter", we saw a family holding on to nothing, struggling with the decadence of Dick Ecklund (Christian Bale), once a boxing local legend, but now a human waste, consumed by crack addiction. The family is sticking with him, living of the past glory, dragging his younger brother Mick Ward (Mark Wahlberg), who also tries to be a boxer, with them. There's no glamour in this portray, as director David O Russell shows us how poverty is around the corner, and how family and the familiar business boxing is, is disgusting and ugly.

Russell really manages to make us feel the suffocating environment in which Mick is trapped because of his family. He also is able to bring the outsider character into the mix, in the form of a girlfriend (played solidly by Amy Adams), someone really meaningful to Mick who has no fear in saying the things he cannot say to his mother and sisters. She's liberation for him, a reason to keep fighting, and deciding to walk his own way. 

It might be true the second half of the film is more uplifting, with a happier, friendlier tone with the characters. Being a true story I feel inclined to believe it, or maybe, by the time the second opportunity arrives, I cannot avoid to feel a bit compelled by it. But even then, the film has glimpses of harsh reality in a poignant dialogue, a gesture, or awkward situation where the unbalanced relation between the brothers still arises. This wouldn't be possible without the brilliant job of the actors, not just Bale's manic impersonation of Dick, which made him won a deserved Oscar, but everyone on screen. Special credit to Wahlberg's performance, carrying the film on his shoulders, sometimes with just an appalled face.

So, yes, this is another movie about underdogs trying to succeed. But this time the fight is for survival, there's real darkness, filthiness, consistency, and a remarkable honesty in the script, acting and direction. Overall, a knockout triumph.

SCORE: 7,5/10

"The Kids Are All Right", modern family issues?

The Kids Are All Right

Familiar issues, wether if they are between the parents or/and the kids, are not an original topic to deal with in cinema. But "The Kids Are All Right" aims to be a "turn of the screw" on the traditional approach on family, as director Lisa Chodolenko presents us a lesbian couple, that start facing problems when the two kids they have raised met their biological father.

My question would be: that's a modern approach on family or just an approach to a modern family? Because in my opinion we are in front of the second case. For the good and the bad.

On the good side, the acting. Having Julianne Moore (Jules), Annette Bening (Nic) and Mark Ruffalo (Paul) makes the work easier for sure, but still, the actors seem credible and human in their behaviours, something that is remarkable considering the material, and the tone of the film. Special mention to Joni's character, played flawlessly by Mia Wasikowska. Besides the cast, with a serious question mark close to the end, the film doesn't want to present a drama, an apology of lesbianism in front of traditional family, or vice versa. To me, is basically a story about communication and aging issues in different periods of life, from teenage years to a couple that has had a long marriage and faces an emotional turmoil.

On the not so good side, the tone. I said it is nice to see a film talking about serious issues without taking itself so seriously, but the mixture between comedy and drama sometimes crosses a thin line, making some scenes a bit ridiculous. This happens quite a lot, in particular between Nic and Jules. It might have something to do with the fact the two characters are a bit charicatureque in their opposing roles, but in a film that wants to be realistic, and that achieves some very refreshing naturality on dialogues and dynamics of the characters, it feels odd. And second, and much worse, is the conscious decission of the director, taking an unexpected and unnecessary side eliminating the masculine characters of her story (Paul and Laser), when they both have their own conflicts that have been showed to us before. Having the impression it was done on purpose, I have to say that shows a pretty conservative take on family, replacing the traditional male-female patronage for a female-female one. But with the same message (you, outsider, against us, family) as always.

Could have been a lot more, but still a fresh and entertaining film.

SCORE: 6,25/10