“Laughable Loves”, Collecting Bad Jokes

Laughable Loves (Smesné Lásky, Czech original title)- Milan Kundera 
“Sex is the most fun you can have without laughing” Woody Allen

Am I missing something? Because I just hated this book almost from the very beginning. Laughable? Funny? I must have a problem with my sense of humour then. "Laughable Loves" wasn't funny at all. Not in terms of style, and not in what regards to the stories that conform this forgettable (hope that happens soon, please, I want to forget it so badly) read.

First, let's talk about the style, which in my opinion poisons the book and makes it a serious struggle to read, despite being a collection of short stories and not having an extended length. It's not my first time with Kundera, so I was already aware of his prose, frequently saluted by many as philosophic, virtuoso, and enlightening. Plus, in this case, adjectives ranged from irreverent, graceful and ironic. But no, this is not ironic. It's just pedantic and boring. Sure, my preference, the literature I defend is the opposite from Kundera's style, the so called "minimalist school" (Carver, Yates, Wolff, Fante, Bukowski). But I also love McCullers, O'Connor, Fitzgerald, Cheever, and a long etc, writers that go beyond the "dirty realism" definition. Anyway, I don't believe this is an issue of personal taste. It is just a matter of Kundera "explaining us all". He is the narrator, superficially in third person, but also being omniscient to the extreme. The consequence is that the reader is unable to get into the development of the story by himself/herself. Kundera tells him what to understand, when to laugh and when to applaud the author for his wisdom. That's not funny, that's not wise. It's just annoying.

And annoying are also the vast majority of stories. Sex, love, friendship might be topics of the tales, but Kundera is not interested on his characters of developing what's going on. He just want to mock(?) about pretty silly stories to explain a paradox/contradiction. But why can't he just show it on a good story about personal relationships? Why does he have to dissect what goes on from scene to scene as if he were explain it to a baby? "The Hitchhiking Game", third tale of the collection and the strongest by far, might the best example. A young couple on holiday decide to change their "regular roles" to play a flirting game that subverts their usual behaviour, arriving to a pretty challenging, let me add depressing conclusion. The potential of the story is there, but Kundera completely ruins it by constantly shifting from one character mind to the other, to let the reader make no mistake of what he/she should think about what's going on. Same goes with "Edward and God", another interesting plot involving faith, devotion and communism as strategies to... umm.. to be clear... get laid. So, go figure what happens with the less remarkable stories: they are just weak and lame, like the tiring "Symposium" and the irritating "Let the Old Dead Make Room for the Young Dead".

A writer should not give lessons to the readers. The reader should do it by herself/himself, thanks to the quality of the story.

SCORE: 1,5/10

"The Runaways", girls who play electric guitars

The Runaways

Hush, hurry, do it quick, make it bigger, be the coolest... and leave a beautiful corpse. That could be the slogan of many bands over the course of rock'n'roll's history, and would be an appropriate subtitle for "The Runaways", a movie telling the story of the 70s all-girl rock band of the same name. 

The tale could have been disastrous, as the threat of being ruined by cliches is ever-present. Screenwriter and director Floria Sigismondi "paints" her movie in brush strokes, making the real story of The Runaways a burst, high on sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll out of control moments. But the film resists its ups and downs thanks to a constant vibe and energy, and the excellent performances from their main cast.
 
"The Runaways" is based on the book "Neon Angel: A Memoir of a Runaway", wrote by the band's lead singer Cherie Currie, fantastically played by a surprising Dakota Fanning, who gives her extremely difficult role, sexually charged, fragile and confused rockstar' Lolita, a stunning strength. Same praise has to go also for Kristen Stewart as guitarist and future rock icon Joan Jett, more constrained, but also posed by a inner fire that drives her throughout the whole film. Their solid work is the main foundation of the film, fuelled by a third actor, Michael Shannon as the eccentric, overbearing and abusive manager/band creator Kim Fowley. He offers the contrast and one of the most suggestive ideas/contradictions on the film: rock'n'roll as a manufactured product, revolt or sexually open lyrics that are designed to "sell" (the magazine issue), aggressive attitudes and looks on a female band that are tailored to detail. Does it sound familiar to you?

Unfortunately, the brush strokes among which "The Runaways" is built leaves the spectator with too many questions unanswered. In my opinion Sigismondi is more focused on giving her two young female stars a vehicle to shine. They do, and their relationship is quite absorbing and complex (I wish the end of the film had had a bit more substance, though). But we miss the evolution/contradictions of the band. The music part is consciously left (the rest of the band is barely testimonial, there's zero talk on influences or music direction except references to Bowie and the glam era on which the band was created). Jett's moving on and starting her own solo career is also skipped. Things get out of control, there's a final burst, and then it's over. That's enough to make you watch with interest, but also leaves you wondering what it could have been with a bit more of ambition and will to talk about music.

SCORE: 6,25/10

"Post Office", working-class Bukowski

Post Office- Charles Bukowski

A warning: don't read this if you are struggling with your job. Although it could help you to have the g_ _ _  to call it a day, to put it nicely.

"It began as a mistake", the novel begins. A mistake that went on for more than twelve years, on which Charles Bukowski, through the adventures of his alter-ego Henry Chinaski, shows how he became a slave to the wage, like the 99% of us (we all also know who the vile and corrupted remaining 1% are, but that should go on another post), at the U.S. Postal Service.

Sure, If you have read Bukowski previously, you'll find little to be surprised here. There's booze, horses, women and the grim, raw and let's face it, quite funny prose that is so quintessential of this writer. But besides the (always highly recommendable) Hank-by-numbers, "Post Office" offers something else, something more. A deformed, close to the grotesque if you want, but also a very clear mirror in which the majority of us can reflect his/her image.

Because this novel is truly a treaty, written in Bukowski's unique "knockout style", of how jobs ruins and finally ends killing something inside of us. Chinaski is defeated by routine, by boredom, by plain stupidity, by soul-killing workplaces and mind-numbing strategies created just for the sake of having a higher rate on efficiency while decreasing his level of self-stem. Does it sound familiar to you? I bet it does.

At the same time, though, some people need a daily work not to throw himself/herself from a window, or starts a life of self-destruction. It's a contradiction wonderfully portrayed on "Post Office", being an unsuspected deep analysis of the most mundane, zero glamour, life miseries. It's a poignant "I hate my job" tale, but also a "I need to do something with my life" story, one on which Chinaski constantly seeks company (this book is not really about sex, but about not being alone, there's an intriguing sadness on his perspective on relations here) as much as he needs booze. And despite Chinaski is the perfect example of the anti-hero, in "Post Office" he wins. He says "that's enough", looking towards starting a new chapter on his life.

Like John and Dan Fante (add Carver, Wolff and to some extent Richard Yates), Bukowski is able to say a lot of things to readers without what it seems that much (on the surface). He is just worried of telling the truth (of course, his truth). There's no point in mannerisms, affectations or sentimentalism, because he didn't write to impress you. He wrote about what he cared and what he knew best than anyone else, his life. And he was just interested in telling it like it was. All I can say is thank you Hank.

SCORE: 7,25/10

"Willard & His Bowling Trophies", tragic surrealism

Willard and His Bowling Trophies: A Perverse Mistery
Richard Brautigan

Two couples. Three brothers. A bird sculpture surrounded by bowling trophies. Sex. Depression. Sadomasochism. Greek tragedies. Violence. A fated destiny. Who else other than Richard Brautigan could create a novel with that material?

"Willard and His Bowling Trophies" is surreal again, a trademark than everyone who has read any of the works from Brautigan should expect. But this time surrealism is not in the stories per se, as they are (even it is oddity) credible, but in their connection. Willard and the trophies are the elements, the objects that links the stories. A bird and trophies that seem to be alive, that can be the symbol of many things, or nothing else than (silly) objects.

It is also pure Brautigan in what refers to style. Odd poetic prose, a disarmingly simple yet affecting writing, with bombastic turns of phrase. You'll find yourself saying what?, or laughing, or feeling completely appalled.

And that's what makes "Willard" different from other Brautigan's books I have read. I found this novel really sad, even depressing, very close to "An Unfortunate Woman" in that sense, or like "In Watermelon Sugar", but without any utopia. The forthcoming tragedy, even if surreal, is almost evident from the very first page, and its focused on the masochistic couple. The husband is a pathetic character, and his suffering (also literally) wife, a silent mourning, frustrated one. Sex, that should pleasant and the best expression of love between the two, is not enjoyable anymore. The Logan brothers turn their stupidity, but also innocence, that at first might be hilarious into a violent seek that reveals an evil side, some sort of anger against humanity developed by such a trivial fact (getting their trophies stolen). It's a novel about fate, in which circumstances, and people, are weird, and tragedy is the end of the road.

To me, and this is the fifth book I read from him, Brautigan's work is always fascinating, because he is a unique writer, a counterculture icon, with an unparalleled view for literature, and an extraordinary braveness in the stories he penned. But despite much more linear and less confusing than “In Watermelon Sugar”, "Willard" is, again, not a book for everyone. Being such a straightforward novel, I personally think the lack of humour harms it. Everything is quite absurd indeed, but its depressingly absurd this time.

SCORE: 6/10

"If You Liked School, You'll Love Work", the filth and the fun

If You Liked School, You'll Love Work- Irvine Welsh 

After enjoying "Reheated Cabbage" a lot, I wanted to give it another shot to Irvine Welsh's short fiction, so I got my hands on "If You Liked School, You'll Love Work" quickly, expecting another dose of the Scottish writer punching and vitriolic prose.

And that's exactly what I have found in this book. For the good, and also for the not so good. Maybe it has to do more with the structure of the five stories, closer to novellas, with "Kingdom of Fife" clocking over 200 pages, a novel on its own. Or maybe it is just that feeling of being there, done (in that case read) that.

The familiar territory for the reader arrives in several areas. First and foremost, in his writing style, straightforward, direct, dynamic and irreverent. Whether you like or not, it will get you, and most of the times, you will find yourself laughing. Then in many of the characters and their behaviours (men are all again chaotic Peter Pans with a mind focused in sex and violence is always present) And finally, you have the stories themselves.

"Rattlesnakes", the first one of the collection, it might be Welsh's sickest story I have ever read from him. It's worse than that. Scatology and violence have been ever-present trademarks of his prose, but the usual shadow or open irony has completely disappeared here. Put it simply, it's creepy, gross.

"If You Liked School, You'll Love Work" is Welsh-by-numbers, the novelty is moving the sex-obsessed British to an unusual location, Lanzarote. But despite being the lightest of the lot, its among the best of this compilation, because is a really funny, contagious, absorbing tale.

"The DOGS of Lincoln Park" on the contrary, rates among the most challenging and refreshing. Traditionally male-minded, this story is completely feminine, and a bit surprisingly, it works. It's a satire with an acid but at the same time seriously sad background, as it portrays the hollow lives of a bunch of pretty horrible, posh and repulsive young Americans. 

Alongside with the previous one comes "Miss Arizona", in which Welsh adopts a more traditional tale approach that turns into a more morbid, chilling story as we reach its end. Cinema, myth, fallen idols, a dark side that is notorious, right from the start, but reveals itself slowly. It's a very suggestive story.

And we finally reach the latest one, "Kingdom of Fife", where my mixed feelings about the whole book can be summarised. On the positive side, there's fun, the usual ability of Welsh to engage you, to make you read more and more, and the creation of an interesting bidirectional structure, male-female, that works nicely, as an impossible sort of diary. But on the not so positive, the male perspective receives a lot more attention and has the weight of the story, which is frustrating, as Jenny Cahill is a far more attractive character, with a lot of potential, than Jason (which, on the other hand, it is again very funny). Besides, some secondary roles are wasted (Jason's father deserved much more!) and there's a sensation the story is a bit messy.

Will entertain you, for sure, but I do believe Welsh's has reached higher levels in other books.

SCORE: 6,25/10

"Reheated Cabbage", fun tales from the wild side

Reheated Cabbage: Tales of Chemical Degeneration- Irwine Welsh

As many people from my generation, "Trainspotting" was among my favourite films when I was a teenager. But even more than the movie (or the soundtrack) I loved Irvine Welsh's book, an incredibly addictive trip, an awesome burst of energy translated into paper. But I admit that after "Trainspotting" I refused to read anything else from him, suspecting his books were going to be too similar, so the magic would eventually dissappear. Many years have passed now, so I thought it was safe to reintroduce myself into the "Welsh territory".

Because that's what "Reheated Cabbage" is: pure Irvine Welsh from the "Trainspotting" era, with one stunning exception. This miscellaneous collection of seven old, out-of-print stories from 1994 to 2000, and just one new tale brings us back to that wild, grey, suburban and desolated Edimburgh. Welsh himself warns the reader in his acknowledgements that this is "one of those toe-curling Scotsploitation or drugsploitation anthologies that prevailed in the nineties, for which I have to assume at least some culpability. Sorry about that." He's right, but there's no need to apologise.

Drugs, violence, football scumbags (hooligans), music, rough sex, ruined & hopeless young (European white trash) and not so young adults and even more drugs, that's the world recreated in this stories. After many years, I was again impressed by the dynamism of Welsh's writing. What he says is brutal, insane and cruel, yet there's no time for depression here: something is always going on, his narrative grabs you... and well.. kicks your lazy ass. His prose is vital, amazingly vital.

Therefore, his characters are very much alive, viscerally alive. They are driven by rampage, addictions, frustration, lack of direction or just rage. Sometimes Welsh goes to the very extreme, like on "A Fault on the Line", presenting us a sociopath who has to confront a brutal situation affecting his wife. The author crosses the line, arriving to the (amusing) caricature, but he's still capable of convincingly dissecting the despicable mind of that human being. On "The Rosewell Incident", he "crosses" another line, entering sci-fi territory, probably being the less significant piece of the lot (despite being quite hilarious).

Because let's face it, Welsh has an ability to expose violence and inacceptable behaviours in ways that will make you laugh. In "Elspeth's Boyfriend", one of the best tales of this collection, he does so recovering the "Trainspotting" character of Begbie on a family dinner for Christmas. The common, easily recognisable scenario, turns to a "Cold War" battlefied where the reader is expecting the beginning of the war. And when it arrives, it is hilarious, but also revealling. Like in "Victor Spoils" where the combination of drugs, alcohol and a peculiar sense of friendship will matter more than the love for the same woman.

But there's more than Welsh-by-numbers here. On "The State of the Party", under the background of Primal Scream, house & britpop scene, tones of acids, wild parties, unsubstantial sex and surreal and dangerous situations there's a character trying to deal with the death of a mate, probably realising, for the first time, there has to be something more. From crazy fun to a moving comedown that insinuates the "end of the party". And there's the aforementioned exception, the last and only new story, "I am Miami". Welsh confronts his trademark's world (Terry Lawson character included) with the abysmal feelings of guilt, self-repression, religious fanatism and desperation of Albert Black, a retired schoolteacher destroyed by the death of his wife. The mix could have been a disaster, but Welsh turns it into a fierce, strangely charming and life-affirming tale. The stand-out of "Reheated Cabbage".

Overall a fun, highly absorbing, vital and very recommendable collection.

SCORE: 7/10

"Shame", sex, guilt and aesthetics

Shame
Again, that feeling I had with "Drive" of being in front of a style exercise and not a real movie, with a huge hole in what regards to storytelling, so big that the conjunction of a very interesting subject together with a great actor can't save "Shame" from being a "fashionable", modern-looking but really cold and several times, tedious film.

Sexual addiction is still a topic that must be addressed with care in American cinema (look at the different movie posters, for example), but director Steve McQueen is not really interested in showing us what's being a sexual addict, but to portray us the unfeeling, numb existence of Brandon, a young man that reveals himself a person struggling with guilt and shame. What an absorbing premise this was.

McQueen depiction of Brandon's life is framed. In a sort of a voyeuristic position, we view a series of shots of his daily routine, awakenings, work, going out, dating, sex... The mood wants (too hard sometimes in my opinion) to remain politely neutral (aseptic) while also sombre (so not that neutral after all?) as our "hero" quickly reveals as someone with a problem that is consuming him.... Oh wait, is he?

Well, it depends on what you, viewer, decide, because Brandon's guilt is not shown way until the last part of the film. Before that, he goes out daily, has frequent sex (sometimes paid) with no aim of having a serious relation, and he consumes a lot of porn. Is that so shockingly unusual? Really? Anyway, let's agree on that's the director's choice, of course, but in terms of plot development, it all goes back to the spectator. If you enjoy watching daily work-offices, NYC flats designed by a magazine, high-class clubs and long shots of the Big City "Shame" might be for you. But if you care for a good, engaging story, the film could easily turn into a tedious one.

Can we at least trust in the actors? Michael Fassbender proves again he is up for any challenge... and I could say he would have done a mesmerizing job, but even his magnetic presence and his ability of being "in the scene" with so little, is capable of saving the flow of the film. He is also trapped into a sequence of scenes with an unfocused path. But Carey Mulligan, who plays Brandon's sister role, is even much more abandoned by director McQueen. She arrives to Brandon's flat, invading his much needed intimacy due to his addiction,  then she is not used to explore that path, then she annoys his brother (no spoiling) then that path is forgotten until the a climax scene between the two near the end, then her final action on the film action reveals that our "monstrous", superficial Brandon can actually care for someone, but then... oh well... Plus, Carey is the absolute star of the most annoying, completely pointless (the way it has been filmed) scene of "Shame". Yes, the singing one.

Having said all the aforementioned, "Shame" seemed to move towards a moody, anti-climatic end, but there's a dramatic change in their final part. A downward spiral of events, violent and desperate, follow very quickly, revealing the nature of his addiction, and finally, guilt and affections. In my opinion, it took too long to the film in showing that abyss of desolation, harming its credibility. Same goes for the somewhat predictable final scene, that leaves "Shame" open-ended, waiting for your interpretation. Leaving the judgements on the shoulders of spectators is usually the bravest and most rewarding option, but sometimes is just a resource in order to justify the plot holes. A trick that can make the film work. But for me at least, it didn't.      

SCORE: 4,5/10

"A Dangerous Method", let's talk about sex, doctor

A Dangerous Method

It's probably me, sure. Because with the exception of "Spider", the cinema of David Cronenberg has been pretty insufferable. Sometimes morbid ("Crash"), others just (sorry) stupid ("Eastern Promises", "A History of Violence"), with "A Dangerous Method", I have to use another adjective. I found this movie interesting, with great potential, but the final result is disappointingly flat.

The premise was intriguing. An insight on psychoanalysis, from the perspective of their fathers, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, with Sabina Spielrein completing the triangle. An intellectual and emotional, sentimental conflict that gave shape to their theories but also determined their lives. On paper, this could be original and absorbing matters to deal with. Even the fact Cronenberg was directing it was intriguing, due to his personal record as the body horror or venereal horror genre master's, considering sex was supposed to be a major factor on the discussions of both psychoanalysts. But the film doesn't live to its expectations.

In my opinion, what makes the movie shallow is the lack of character development. Contrary to the usual pattern in cinema, I believe "A Dangerous Method" would need a longer length to engage the spectator, to make the film compelling or to introduce real depth on it. As it has been edited, the film starts with a a quite vibrant pace, but once the (potentially absorbing) conflicts are exposed, it becomes clearly unbalanced towards the turbulent relation between Spielrein and Jung, leaving an insufficient amount of scenes for the development of the relationship, then clash between Freud and Jung, and skimming over events that should matter for the development of the film, which is a bit frustrating (the near-the-end reading letters part it is indeed very annoying). Maybe Cronenberg wanted to explain the ideas of the two psychologists/psychoanalysts with the physical relationship between Spielrein and Jung, but if that what's the purpose, the result is a big failure.

With that structure, the film acquires an unexpected inertia, even apathy. I do think Michael Fassbender makes the film worth watching as he creates a powerful, troubled Carl Jung, while Vincent Cassel is also exciting as relevant secondary character Otto Gross. But on the other hand, Viggo Mortensen portrays a caricature of a very affected Freud. His character demanded more scenes to be developed and confronted to Jung. Finally Keira Knightley is a disturbing, controversial Spielrein. Her extreme shifts from hysteria to be the one capable of confronting such a personal drama is hard to believe, at least to me. As I said, an unbalanced, quite lifeless film.

SCORE: 5/10

"American Adulterer", JFK, a sick, sex addict, president?

American Adulterer- Jed Mercurio

That's what British doctor-turned-novelist Jed Mercurio proposes in this original novel: a unique take on John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th American President, and quite probably the most loved one. A take that, without excluding his political achievements (Bahia Cochinos, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Berlin Wall, his fight for civil rights), deals basically with two not very pleasant sides of his presidency: his health, and his sex addiction. Kennedy fans, you have been warned. 

Mercurio builds the novel, that we can define as historical fiction, upon two pillars. First, a detailed (too clinically detailed for my taste, making it a bit annoying) and never-ending list of afflictions. From Addison's disease to thyroid, from ulcers to osteoporosis, JFK was a medical "goldmine", and a men condemned to a short life in constant pain. And second, Kennedy was a "fornicator". True, he famously told British Prime Minister Harold McMillan: "If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches." But in "American Adulterer", the amount of  women that the "great man" uses makes it the most impressive achievement of his administration. 

"American Adulterer" is episodically structured. There's the real account of political issues that Kennedy had to dealt with, but mixed with a constant need to be medicated, in order to keep the illusion "America the strongest" has the most vital and healthier of presidents, and a countless string of concubines (from Marilyn Monroe to White House interns and professional prostitutes) to solve the different nature of his "other issue". It's a quite engaging cocktail, addictive for the reader too. 

Many questions arise while you read. Do we really have to believe he loves Jackie Kennedy? The book never questions it, but he's incapable to remain monogamous, tracing an interesting inner debate between love and sex. The first lady, at the same time, is a misterious passive-aggressive figure (obvious she knows about it, but she never shows). Personalities like British PM McMillan, Nikita Khrushchev, the aforementioned Marylin, Mary Meyer,  Frank Sinatra, the FBI that towards the end of the novel starts instigating him, while there's a White House network built to provide him the needed safeguards for his sexual adventures... There's plenty to get you going on this novel.

At the same time, there's a sense of dispersion throughout the book, as if Mercurio couldn't combine all the elements he has, leaving some secondary characters as sketches (women are particularly neglected as developed characters here). That feeling, and the clash between the huge, real problems JFK faced during his mandate and the infidelities gives "American Adulterer" a ligthweight tone that in too many occasions becames a farce. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the best example.

Overall, a risky, quite engaging and original book on one of the most popular politicians of modern history.

SCORE: 6,25/10

"Friends with Benefits", friendship, sex and clichés

Friends with Benefits

Dear film advertisers and people who write the synopsis on pages like imdb. Please stop lying. Allow me to use "Friends with Benefits" as an example.

While trying to avoid the clichés of Hollywood romantic comedies, Dylan and Jamie soon discover however that adding the act of sex to their friendship does lead to complications. IMDB

That's simply a huge, ridiculous lie. "Friends with Benefits" has many weaknesses, but if I had to name just one, it would be precisely how predictable and unoriginal this is. To the point of being a pretty boring film, in particular in its second half.

Let's say it clear: sorry, but a movie with the premise of can men and women just be friends? is very far from being new. And that's what we have here. Two young persons, Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and Jamie (Mila Kunis), tired of disappointing relations, that start building a friendship. Then one day they start to have sex. Just sex (don't really get the buzz about the sex scenes) + plus friendship, they try to convince themselves. But, of course, that complicates everything. New? Umm... Well, no.

At least, for a while, although predictable or unsurprising, the film was easygoing and dynamic, with a lightweight, modern pace that could have been appealing if maintained longer. Being a romantic comedy, I would say that won't make you laugh that much, but at least it can entertain you. The problem is that pleasant part only lasts for a bit more than 30 minutes. The remaining hour and a half is just boring, no matter the "bundle" designed by director Will Gluck looks pretty or cool.

Despite the zero depth, there's nothing wrong to say to the actors, because in my opinion they are ok considering how lame is the material they have. There's chemistry between them, and when their dialogues are not forced, the movie flows, even with some charm (that happens in the aforementioned first 30 minutes of the film). But unfortunately, Timberlake and Kunis don't go further than their shallow roles. What really annoys me is the existence of characters so unfortunate as Dylan's father. Are the writers adding an illness just to have a serious, dramatic note on the film? It doesn't make sense. Not to mention how awful is misusing such a great actor as Richard Jenkins (same can be said about Patricia Clarkson). He is just an example of how badly used are the secondary roles, between blatant clichés (Dylan's sister, played by Jenna Elfman, his eccentric friend played by Woody Harrelson) and the plain silly (Bryan Greenberg's role).

Sure, "Friends with Benefits" is not awful or offensive. But is mediocre and unremarkable.

SCORE: 4/10

"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

"Blue Valentine", dancing to the end of love

Blue Valentine
First advice: be aware of the moment (your emotional moment) when you decide to see the film, as it is going to affect you. And second advice: don't miss it, try to watch it by all means (probably won't get a release date in Spanish cinemas, that's why I say "all means", I know you have read this rant before).

Because "Blue Valentine" is devastating. Like reading Richard Yates. Like listening to "Blood on the Tracks" by Dylan, "Ultraviolet" or "Love is Blindness" by U2. Is one the of most raw and compelling dissections of the death of a relationship I ever seen. A realistic, profound and utterly sad study-character of a couple, showing us, back and forth, their relation as a complex puzzle (as every human relation is), a collection of moments and situations: the great, the good, the bad, the worse.

First, I have to praise the writing and direction of Derek Cianfrance. The premise of the film is far from being original (the superficial story could be defined even as pretty conventional), but he's capable to craft a movie that breaths, exudes honesty and its poignantly alive. A big part of it success lies in the terrific script. Measured scenes where the joy of love is condensed on a sentence, a look, a song (excellent soundtrack), or on the contrary, dialogues like sharp knifes, ready to become daggers to harm the one you once loved.   

Second, and intrinsic to the script, is the acting, which is simply exceptional. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are Dean and Cindy. I mean you are not seeing just characters evolving during a film, you are seeing flesh and blood persons crumbling in front of you, alternated with scenes when it seemed nobody/nothing can stop them from being together. It's scary (because of the topic) how well they complement each other on screen.Though I'm not surprised because I already considered both actors the best of their generation (30 and under), with "Blue Valentine" they have added one of the best performances of their careers.

Dean (Gosling) turns from a charming, romantic and careless guy to a frightened, insecure and verbally aggressive person. Cindy (Williams) evolves from a lovely, shining sweet and caring girl into a consumed, frustrated mother. Their degradation is obvious, even physically. And you can sense easily their desperation as well. We have "disordered" glimpses of their relationship: the past just before meeting, how they fell in love, and how their choices turned their happiness into the regret and misery of their present. But we don't need to know it all. Filling in the intentional holes (just a couple of times, minor regarding the story, where ellipsis might be too broad), like on good literature, is our task. That way Cianfrance direct us to a personal connection, sometimes even a recognition of ourselves in the film.What we see is far from being comfortable or pleasant (hard to remember a film where sex scenes have been so relevant and poignant for example), there's even a physical threat all around, but is sincerely human.

"Blue Valentine" is a rare, brave and fierce, brilliantly acted, masterpiece, about the most important subject: human relationships and love. Don't miss it, please.

SCORE: 9/10

"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

"Love and Other Drugs". Mistakes, misshapes, mistakes

Love and Other Drugs
Still trying to figure out what was the point of the movie. Gyllenhaal's role (Jamie), very far from the romantic-comedy hero, had potential. And the same applies to the satirical tone of the movie at the beginning, being a curious insight to the pharmaceutical industry. So when the starring couple meet each other, the relationship between them is attractive and challenging (I don't see what's the issue about the nude/sex scenes by the way, there's nothing so remarkable on them) but sadly the feeling doesn't last long.

The chemistry between Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway (Maggie) is dubious, the sub-plot about the pharmacies is left aside with the exception of a couple of -gross- jokes (yes, about viagra), the supporting cast doesn't help because their roles are plain and silly (special mention to Jamie's brother, unnecessary and topical), and the love story suffers badly from the "Sweet November syndrome", but with an added handicap: "Love and Other Drugs" intends to be a comedy. But its not funny. The attempt of mixing drama with comedy and social analysis results in a movie with serious problems in what regards to tone, rhythm and coherency. It goes nowhere.

SCORE: 3/10