My next film after the vampires was a Chinese version of a classic French play Les liaisons dangereuses which has also been an excellent film in 1988 starring Glenn Close, John Malkovich and Michelle Pfeiffer. I highly recommend the latter but only if you can sit through a play that has yet to capture me despite seeing it performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company, great American actors (see above) and a couple of other performances including this one. I have to stop going to see it. At any rate the original is set in pre-revolutionary France and is supposed to show the moral decay of the aristocracy and how their games with one another’s love and affection backfires on them to demonstrate their disconnect from real human emotion. This one is set in pre-war, pre-communist revolution Shanghai (1931). The story is the same as two older and corrupted social dilettantes try to humiliate competitors by taking advantage of younger more naïve and uncorrupted lovers. The motivation and the overall story have no compelling element for me originally and this film even less so. I am not sure if it is that I don’t connect to dramatic Chinese acting or if it is the story itself but this was not a great film.

I will give credit for one element and that is set direction. The filming of 1931 Shanghai is very good and evocative but once the actors show up I am lost. The lead actress is Zhang Xia of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fame. If you loved her in that it might tempt you to go for this one.

Dangerous Liaisons

This is a vampire movie and I figured to broaden my experience of horror films I should get beyond Bella Lugosi and “I don’t drink……wine”. So I swallowed my aversion to Anne Rice and went to see this new film by Neil Jordan(Interview with a Vampire and The Company of Wolves among others). I was attracted because he also did Michael Collins which was amazing and not a horror film at all. Disappointed I was. It was so booorrrrriinng right up until the end when suddenly there was action and resolution but until then it was just gothic in the worst sense of the word. While sitting with another TIFF veteran waiting for my next film we got chatting about what movies were good and bad this year and I mentioned how much I was unhappy with Byzantium. He was surprised, had seen it with me as it turns out and thought it was wonderful. I guess you have to like vampires. I should note that this guy sees five movies a day and will see between 40 and 50 movies this week. I am not sure he isn’t confusing Byzantium with something else at that rate but who am I to judge. Let’s just say that if you like vampires you will likely enjoy this and if you don’t stay away. It is not a great film to introduce you to the horror genre.

The director was there for a Q and A afterwards and that was somewhat interesting but the movie is based on a book and part of the story was about how people became vampires. In the book they were taken off to Turkey and bitten by a giant bird but they didn’t have the funding for this so instead they used this isolated little island of the west coast of Ireland (The director is Irish afterall). At any rate this saved them big bucks and maybe that says something about the movie overall.

Byzantium

From those wonderful people who brought you Incendies and Monsieur Lazhar comes another politically tinged dramatic film. Incendies won international praise as did Monsieur Lazhar, which by the way I thought to be pretty close to being a perfect movie, so my expectations were very high for this one. It is about a young Quebec woman and physician who is working at a United Nations sponsored women’s clinic on the West Bank in Palestine. She lives in Israeli Jerusalem but crosses the checkpoint every day to Palestine to her job. The film does an admirable job of portraying the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis through this lead character who has friends and lovers on both sides. I began to lose touch with this film when the Quebec physician basically chain smokes (I do not know many doctors in this time who smoke) and basically lives a very wild lifestyle while all the time pining for her home in Quebec. Also there is absolutely no explanation of why she would volunteer to work in a highly dangerous location. Her motives are completely mysterious.

So having already lost confidence in the reality of the character I was further disappointed in her relationship with a Palestinian man who really has nothing to offer her except his leaning toward terrorism and rebellion. This all the while her best girlfriend is an Israeli border guard. I think the producers and director wanted to write a pro-Palestinian story and support the case by having it observed through the eyes of a Canadian/Quebec Physician. Not sure if there was some line to be drawn here between the oppressive condition of the Palestine and Quebec but I will not go there. Nonetheless, having lived in Israel (which colours my perspective I suppose) I was very disappointed with the way in which the current conflict is portrayed and very unhappy with the way it is played out in this film. There are two important scenes in this movie. One is when her Israeli girlfriend confronts her and asks her why she is even there. The second is when her Palestinian friend and patient tells her go back where she came from. Since this had been crossing my mind throughout the film, I almost said out loud, “Right! Go home.” Politics from this production group are not nearly as sophisticated as those of Costa-Gavras. Enough said. I cannot recommend this film – go see Gatekeepers instead.

Inch’Allah

Second film of the day and very different. This is an American film about the life of Sam Childers, a reformed drug addict and violent criminal, who finds God and hears the call to go to Sudan and help the people rebuild their country. While there he sees the horrors of the war and specifically the terrible toll visited on the children of that country. He is inspired to build an orphanage and works to protect and save as many children as he can. The film stars Gerard Butler of “300” fame and this combined with the title of the movie suggests on first glance if this film will not be a bit of a sensationalist rip-off of the tragic events in Africa. Fortunately it is not just the Spartans against the terrorists but a human story that has some real depth. The story is real and while Sam Childers currently in real life and in the film has no hesitation to use his expertise with guns and his willingness to do violence in order to protect the children under his care, he also has a charitable and Christian commitment that lies behind his actions. At the end of the film while the credits are run there is some real life film of the real Sam Childers. The resemblance to Gerard Butler’s portrayal is remarkable. I think the film is really pretty good, exciting, insightful and a shocking presentation of the incredible violence perpetrated against children in that part of the world.

Last film of the day and potentially the best was Habemus Papem (We have a Pope). We were lucky to have the director Nanni Moretti present who also acted in the film. Moretti is known for his comic and satiric take on Italian society and institutions and this time took on the Catholic Church and the Papacy. There was apparently much anxiety in Italy when it was revealed what his project was but the outcome was not as bad as many feared. This is a comic and satiric film but is not vitriolic or anti-catholic per se. Instead it is the fictional story of the selection of a new Pope who is reluctant to take his role. This is revealed to all just as the newly elected Pope is himself about to be revealed to the world. With a scream he retreats from the balcony and goes into hiding. All is put on hold as the Cardinals and the papal bureaucracy work to convince the new Pope to accept his place. Talk about a constitutional crisis! What to do when God’s elected bishop refuses to take the job on. There is no precedent and no way to go back. What follows is a very witty and whimsical trip including the hiring of Italy’s top psychoanalyst (played by Moretti himself) to treat the new Pope. One of the funniest scenes of the movie is the first session of the psychoanalytic intervention in which the psychiatrist and his patient begin to delve into his childhood issues and relationship with his mother with the entire College of Cardinals watching in a circle around them. Sadly the film ends with a whimper. Very disappointing and it spoiled the whole movie for me. Not sure I can recommend this to you but Moretti is not without talent and maybe if you just turn it off at the climax you will leave with a good impression.

This one was introduced and hosted by Piers Handling who clearly worships the director but who also clearly had no idea what the film was about. I don’t want to say bad things about Handling (well… sometimes I do). He is clearly good at running a festival at least in terms of attracting good films but he himself is not the best at understanding the films he has selected. Sadly he was a bit of an embarrassment in the Q and A until he silenced himself after being put down by the director and let the audience ask some questions.