A Lesson in Swearing and Politics

There have been two things I’ve ended up having to explain to various, non-British students since I started Erasmus. Firstly, trying to make sense of British politics, and secondly, how the British swear. But if I had wanted to save time it would have been easier for me to have just sat them down in front of a few episodes of The Thick of It or the film version, In The Loop. Both contain amazing satire of British politics from the last five years without requiring much knowledge of the context, and use some of the most hilariously creative swearing on television (if that’s your thing). When the creator, Armando Iannucci, asked an ex-Whitehall civil servant if the use of profanities was realistic, he said that the only difference was that The Thick of It was too clever.

The show follows the work of the fictional Department of Social Affairs and the staffs’ relationship with the borderline psychopathic spin doctor, Malcolm Tucker (played by Peter Capaldi and loosely based on the Labour “Director of Communications and Strategy” Alastair Campbell). It exposes the inner workings of British government politics; the hypocrisy, crushing boredom and the “power of spin”, that forced most ministers to either follow the party line or lose their jobs. A standard episode shows the minister or one of his civil servants getting something horribly wrong; such as arriving at a press conference with no new policy to announce, or leaking something to the press that they really shouldn’t have. Although Tucker usually has to sort it out, he is also usually the one who causes it, forcing constant changes in what is said and dictating precise wordings of statements – for instance, one minister in confusing “The Prime Minister is the right man of the moment” and “the Prime Minister is the right man for the moment” accidentally causes a leadership challenge.

The Thick of It is the creation of Armando Iannucci, one of the most influential satirists working in the British media today, so much so that in 2012 he received an OBE for his “services to broadcasting”. Iannucci is responsible for programmes like The Day Today and Brass Eye which he wrote with Chris Morris and attack the various failings of news programmes and documentaries. He then went on to front his own shows like Armando Iannucci’s Charm Offensive and The Friday Night Armistice, largely unscripted panel shows which mocked the week’s current events. However, despite the large cult following of his work with Chris Morris, The Thick of It is probably what Iannucci is best known for and rightly so. Not only is it incredibly funny, but it has also had a major impact on politics. The term “omnishambles” – meaning an almost all-encompassing failure or disorganisation - was coined by The Thick of It writers and was then used by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech in Parliament. After Mr. Miliband used it, several opposition politicians followed suit, and for a while it was seen to encapsulate our current government.The Oxford English Dictionary even gave it the title of “Word of the Year” in 2012.

Iannucci’s skill as a satirist can also be shown in that, as well as mocking what they actually had done, he actually predicted several of the Coalition’s actions in final series of The Thick of It: one character says that they can’t go into First Class on the train otherwise the newspapers would destroy them, two weeks later George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was caught in First Class without a ticket. In The Thick of It, the “junior coalition partners” (The Liberal Democrats) propose the “We-Bank”, a community funded bank that would require £2bn funding and then the real Liberal Democrats proposed a “business bank” needing £1bn funding. This is what makes The Thick of It so good; as well as there being a lot of fun in listening to Dr Who swearing at lots of scared looking people, it also echoes reality so closely that you feel slightly uncomfortable watching it, terrified that this will be the government’s next bloody stupid idea.

Fergus Doyle (English & American Literature with Creative Writing, University of Kent)

A Coyote on the Streets of Los Angeles: A "Nightcrawler" Review

Do not be deceived. Under all that, Lou Bloom is an animal.

Dan Gilroy’s 2014 neo-noir film Nightcrawler is a critical look at contemporary American news through the camera lens of lead character Louis Bloom, played by Jake Gyllenhaal. Joining Gyllenhaal on the ride through the lamp-lit streets of Los Angeles on the hunt for the city’s worst moments is British actor Riz Ahmed playing the role of unpaid intern Rick Carey. On the receiving end of Bloom’s nightmare footage is news director Nina Romina portrayed by the deadly Rene Russo. Rounding out the cast is Bill “Game Over Man” Paxton as a competing nightcrawler and the first piece of real meat for Lou to sink his teeth into.

The movie immediately sets the mood, with still, yet haunting, shots of a Los Angeles evening, setting a stage we would see throughout most of the film. Gilroy’s script does an equally apt job introducing Gyllenhaal’s character and instantly informing the audience that there is something off about him. From his first interaction with another character to his later business dealings, Louis Bloom is quickly set up as a sleazy and slightly off-kilter being who won’t take ‘no’ for an answer too easily. Gyllenhaal’s performance is enhanced by a near unblinking gaze, which after a while becomes greatly unnerving. The actor adapts a stare that is both dead eyed and yet hints at a viciousness that comes out in the way he speaks and operates. The saying that a man’s soul resides in his eyes is very true in this case, since as the plot progresses, and the audience stares into Bloom’s eyes a bit longer, a sort of understanding of who this character is, and the terrifying lengths that he will go to, is born.

Complimenting Bloom is Nina Romina, the woman to whom Bloom sells most of his footage into the ratings-driven, fear mongering nature of local news. At one point, she explains to Bloom that what she is after the ‘woman, screaming and on fire with a slit throat’s variety of footage. Russo does an amazing job portraying someone who has a deeper understanding of Bloom and often either complements or hinders him in his progress.

The story is a basic rags-to-riches tale and mostly serves as a sort of Petri dish, throwing in different situations and adversities and then sitting back and seeing just how each of the characters, with a specific focus on Lou Bloom, deals with the presented situation, both physically and morally. In fact, some of the most interesting and tense moments come from the way Bloom operates at a crime scene and his reactions to the gruesome things around him.

Overall, while all the cast members do an amazing job and the satire often hits the mark, a rare feat in some cases, it is Gyllenhaal’s performance that elevates the movie and enables it to stand apart from everything else within the genre.

-          Andrew J. Buring, Esq.

Review: Interstellar

This motion picture features the elite of current Hollywood artists, including, for example, Christopher Nolan as the director, brilliant Matthew McConaughey in the leading role, and also the music composer, the one and only, Hanz Zimmer. Well, do you ask whether this all-star team worked well to produce a masterpiece? Let’s discuss the premise (but the answer is “no”, anyway).

As we might have expected from Nolan, one of the major strength of the movie is its visual impact. If I am to sum up the plot, it is about a space journey to find a “new World” to live in, for the Earth is not co-operating with humanity anymore. Blight (whatever that actually is) is destroying all grains except for corn which is unfortunately also to be doomed by blight, (what I found quite peculiar was that the main character drank beer all the time, sorry Mr. Nolan, you also need grain to make beer). So there’s this secret NASA program to launch a shuttle with explorers to find a new sufficient place for the humans to carry on living.

This is basically the synopsis; however, the movie tries to function on an emotional level as well, very badly though. For starters, the characters are not written very well, or not presented in a way so that one could actually relate to any of them. To be honest, I considered the on-board robot TARS (voice-acted by Bill Irwin) as the character with most personality, all the other characters were plain and there was always somebody new to show up for no reason (which is not surprising as the film runs about three very long hours) which makes it confusing and annoying.  Overall I felt like I was watching two very different movies, one was the new space odyssey and I more or less enjoyed the spectacular views and the drama in space, and the other was an incoherent emotional mishmash of personality-lacking characters (except for Murph, who emerges as an adult in the second half of the movie).

The end of the film is just bad: there is the “touching speech track” in the back as it usually happens in such big American movies, about the resilience of humanity, while McConaughey’s character Cooper sneaks into a super modern and for some reason unguarded hangar, gets into a space ranger and flies away to help his friend... There’s this feeling of cheesiness present throughout the movie, it always surprises you, for the movie is basically about space stuff. But no, then they tell you that love is actually the fifth dimension, erm…

There is something I’d like to consider, that is, the fact that this film can be produced only in America. I am not talking the money here, I am talking the Frontier, the imaginary line which has been pushed forward by the American people, first into the previously unoccupied West, then further! It is also an idea, a promise to destroy poverty, to expand to new virgin lands, to conquer the outer space and so on. This movie shows an attempt to push the Frontier once more; the New World is no longer good for living and people, and it is the people of America that matter and make action, design space craft to push the humanity forward, “again”. Well, it certainly does look stupendous when there’s the American flag flying on an unknown planet behind the curtain of a wormhole, I can give them that one.

In conclusion I shall not surprise you by neglecting my attitude, the movie is indeed a mess, a note-worthy, overwhelming and at times entertaining mess, so don’t worry, just sit back, relax and enjoy it.

Matěj Vašíček

"Mommy" at Mezipatra

I was super excited about seeing my 3^rd movie by Xavier Dolan. Having missed it at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival in the summer, I made sure to buy my ticket to Mommy a few days ahead. You can imagine the poor state of my nerves when all three people in the ticket line wanted a seat at the same screening as me – so when I did get to the ticket box window and was told there are still 1/3 tickets left, I bought one more for a friend who is also a cinema enthusiast as myself. All was good.

My first Xavier Dolan experience was Les Amours Imaginaires, a 2010 production that I saw at the Prague French Film Festival. I was literally blown away – the camera angles, the music, the general atmosphere of the film impressed me so much that I thought that Dolan has a promising future. It is then no wonder that I was a bit worried now, 4 years later that I may be expecting too much from Mommy. Now however, a week or two after the screening, I know that that worry was unnecessary.

Because Mommy was exactly what I wanted and expected it to be – a longer (2 hours 19 minute, to be exact), but fulfilling film that masterfully focuses on the characters and their lives. Even though I am no film critic, I feel there are three clear markers of a Dolan film: 1) the eye-candy of least one of the characters’ fashion taste based on a specific period (the 1960s in Les Amours Imaginaires or the 1990s in Mommy), 2) utilization of songs, both famous and less that make you sing along or just lay back and enjoy the goose bumps as they perfectly fit the current action (Steve escaping the grasp of the mental institution ward to the violins and drums of Lana del Rey’s “Born to Die”? Perfection!) and 3), Anne Dorval, seemingly Dolan’s muse, who appears in almost every of his films. In short, the minutes flew by and my attention was intrigued by every scene.

For me, Mommy is a win. Even though the characters lost more than won, even though the dialogues were one insult after another, even though the Quebec French was incomprehensible (eh?) and the introduction by the festival organizer and the advertisements seemed never-ending. I recommend Mommy to everyone who would like to laugh at the witty, yet rude dialogues, cry from the finale’s misfortune and most of all, see a work of a young director who is worth your attention for his unique film language.

Anna Hupcejová

"I Origins" - A Review

I have called ‘dibs’ on reviewing this picture, for it struck me with an overwhelming power and sincerity.  One may stop right now and consider the title – I Origins. Well, primarily, the movie tells a story about a PhD student in New York City whose major is science - he studies the ‘eye’, eyes of life forms.

Please, do not be deterred by this fact; yes, it is actual science and has nothing to do with what we do at the Faculty of Arts and it might be scary (although, sadly, a lot of people at our faculty use the word ‘science’ exceedingly often, as though they actually believe that what they do is science), but the movie is not only about eyes! This student, called Ian Grey, attempts to discover a connection between the iris pattern (use Wikipedia) in one’s eyes and some kind of re-incarnation. So the ‘I’ in the title could stand both for ‘eye’ and ‘I’, the first-person pronoun, because the film is concerned with the origin of both eyes (to show the creationists that the eye is not really such a complex thing and that it did not have to be introduced by some kind of a ‘creator’ – God, of course) and the origin of a person’s consciousness, character features, memories and so on.

In this review, or whatever I am actually doing, I’d also like to focus on the female part of the cast, both Brit Marling (whom I find insanely attractive, for she sort of has the air of some ‘visible intelligence’, if you will) and the other actress, some Spanish lass, were absolutely believable that I had a feeling that neither of them is acting anything. These two female characters were written as each other’s counterparts, Sofi (played by the Spanish girl) is an aloof, childish, gorgeous and superstitious lady with her head in the clouds. On the other hand, Karen (as if the names actually support the difference, right?) is a reasonable, beautiful, strict woman who believes in science and fact. This difference is important, for they both represent a certain attitude towards life and religion. Ian encounters both of them and it influences him in pursuing what he does. I especially appreciated Karen’s reason when she caught Ian looking at pictures of his former lady, Karen does not give way to any kind of a hissy fit, no - she just calmly asks for an explanation.

There is quite a lot going on in the movie and there are a few moments that seemed to me like an emotional slap in the face - I wept. Despite the rather emotional ending, it does not give you a clear conclusion, as life never does, eh? Well, I shall tell no more. Enjoy!

Matěj Vašíček

The Majestic Mundane

A review of Stephen Greenblatt’s "Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare"

Of course the book was full to the brim with vast research, racy narrative and deep intimacy with all the Bard ever wrote. Of course my literary spinal pants were wet for most of the reading time. Was that deserved?

Absolutely. Greenblatt did not, it ought to be noted, make a novel discovery of any documents or personal letters of Will's. However, he re-considered the remaining documents we have, most of which are estate purchases, which nevertheless tells a lot about the great sweet-tongued poet as a man. He didn't invest his wealth into the normal activities as any a first-rate intellectual would do, such as collecting books as Jonson or Donne did. Shakespeare sought to enlarge his secular possessions in an accordance with his father's business ventures' legacy and to rise in the Elizabethan hierarchy, of which dramatists comprised the bottom. Unlike his father, Shakespeare succeeded in amassing lucrative farm lands in and around Stratford-upon-Avon and unlike his father he managed to secure a grant of arms signifying a noble family (after receiving the required amount, the ‘clerks’ would “discover” a grant of arms filed “somewhere” in the family’s papers, in other words, Shakespeare bought his way into the petty aristocracy).

Was a new biography of William Shakespeare really needed? No. But this was not a traditional biography. It read insanely well and it was a book marked by a crafty and heartfelt subjective stamp; in other words, Greenblatt used conjecture a lot.

Greenblatt imagined the most compelling case he could make about this classical rags-to-riches story of an uneducated son of a glover. He imagined how Shakespeare absorbed everything he saw and experienced and stored it into his perfect memory. Greenblatt always discusses a particular event from Will's life or a particular and supposed relation or emotion of his, in connection with one or more of his works; how he was able to write about great souls based on his mates, on the commonplace. Greenblatt makes the case that Shakespeare based the great character Falstaff on the rakish dramatist Robert Green, as an elegy to Green’s premature death. Or that the painful musings of Hamlet were an expression of Will’s grief over his son's Hamnet's death, or “the deepest expression of his being”. However, he wrote Hamlet 5 years after his boy passed on.

This is of course far-fetched and proves how conjectured and full of wishful-thinking the biography is, nevertheless the points Greenblatt wished to make were executed brilliantly and rivetingly. As the Guardian's reviewer of the book Gary Taylor admits, “What matters is not the true story, but a good story.” Greenblatt would make a great salesman.

Though Greenblatt’s final great point don’t even require to be pitched; that Shakespeare's greatness in depicting human experience was partly rooted in his not forgetting ‘where he came from’; that he made clowns companions to kings – that he never forgot we're all an absurd bunch of mortals and he sung that fact like a God.

Jaromír Lelek

The Hobbit: The Second Something Is Out

When you first found out that there was going to be three films out of a 300-page book, you may have been surprised and scowling, indeed. Nevertheless, once Peter Jackson did not disappoint me with The Lord of the Rings, I decided to go to the movie theater without any prejudices. The first installment of the trilogy, The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey, rather pleased me since I do not seek much violence and exaggerated actions in movies. To make my points in this review I should also note that I have gotten ever so tired of hearing ‘the book is better than the film’ in reference to every movie that has been made out of a book (how can we even compare a film to a book?), so my review shall regard the film version, not the book.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug has, compared to the prior part, very exaggerated action scenes, so exaggerated that they make us think whether Jackson really meant them seriously, alas, I reckon he did. The dwarfs are ridiculously immortal so that when Smaug hunts after them for a half an hour in the Lonely Mountain, he cannot kill them, even though he has got fire coming out of his mouth at will – I do not understand how he could conquer Erebor in the first place, lazy dragon. Secondly, there is this rather peculiar dwarf-elvish romance which is obviously a very unlikely thing to happen (well, it teaches us not to be racist; but a dwarf and an elvish lass, seriously?), so why did it happen? I sense that Peter Jackson has fallen to the stream of creating entertainment where cheap laughs, romance and exaggerated actions are essential to entertain. The romance thing quite worked in The Lord of the Rings (Arwen and Aragorn) perhaps because it was not so far-fetched. Tolkien wisely omitted involving romance in his books, I wish Jackson had as well.

The main problem is, I believe, that the movies attempt to trick us into thinking it is the LOTR all over again - but it is not! It is a different book and we do not really need to be seeing all those LOTR characters that has no say in the plot anyway because of its little story (with the exception of Legolas that actually was in the Hobbit book - even though Tolkien himself did not know his name then - , because he really comes from Mirkwood and Bilbo and his dwarfs do encounter Elves there). The same goes for dividing the 300-page book into three three-hour long films - the extended edition of The Return of the King is mind-bogglingly astonishing despite its four-hour run time. But what shall you see if you get the extended version of The Hobbit movies? Well, more walking and singing, I reckon.

Another problem is, that neither of the first two installments of The Hobbit films do not have an ending. Each of the LOTR movies had one because it was made out of three separate books but The Hobbit: There and back again is just one book, and if you divide it into three parts, you get two somethings and one ending. 

Matěj Vašíček

Nymphomaniac’s Art: Who Says Sex?

“I will be against all odds standing like this deformed tree on the hill”, says Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) in Nymphomaniac:Volume 2 just before her very sweet friend and interlocutor, Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård), starts kindly persuading her in having a sexual intercourse with him. She screams, shoots the poor old man and leaves the damn apartments. Too perplexing for the body and too dashing for the soul, Lars von Trier’s Nymphomaniac: Volume 1 and 2 (together only) is a fascinating non-sexy novel with four hours of complete poetic distortion and sensual investigation. Extensive discussions about the film were brought up long before its first opening night. No wonder: the director, who has given a lifetime ban from the Cannes Film Festival an account of his sympathy with Adolf Hitler and whose films are always provocative and (or) sexual stories, was expected to bring a new portion of uneven shock in his new dark drama.

When I got the first lovely volume I was much confused that this film was intended for the public eyes. Or better to say, adopted for them? It struck me as something that played a joke with my own expectations. Its intimate privacy went too deep inside my own privacy, so to say.  However, I do not mean sexual scenes at this point. Who was looking for sex hardly found any there. Yes, a modest sadist, a screaming betrayed wife and Joe’s multicultural sexual exploits with different types of penises are super detailed but von Trier’s might be that kind of a director who tricks its audience fiercely. Thus this was art or the hint at art at the minimum. At least for me. What kind of art? It is the art that annoys. Remember? Joe is travelling across her extended chapters and looking for the signs on the walls in the apartments while virginal Seligman with blissful face reduces (or extends?) all her provocative creeds to mathematical laws and ecclesiastical dogmas. It is the art that triggers. Something under my skin to be squeezed, something inside my brains to think silently about the movie on the way home in a crowded lonely tram. No fantasies here: just a story of how to be who you are, enjoy it yet pay for it soon after.

As minutes passed by it has become clear that all that actually makes sense. The darkened flashy drama with a brilliant cast, energised settings in Cologne and juicy shots has brought real physical bruises on the screen and mental ones for my mind. It is always more important what your deeds have done to you that what you actually has done. The deformed tree is vital by itself. Even if you f*cked thousands of men. 

- Margo Kirlan

Recommendation: Looking for Alaska by John Green

John Green is one of the most successful contemporary writers of Young Adult literature. At the age of thirty-six, he is already an award-winning author with four published novels of his own, two collaborative works and a film currently being made, which is based on his latest novel, the best-selling tearjerker The Fault in Our Stars (2012). Back in 2007, he teamed up with his younger brother Hank to create a YouTube channel Vlogbrothers that has gained over one million subscribers, the so-called Nerdfighters, and allowed them to branch out to found more projects - SciShow in which Hank explains the wonders of science and CrashCourse dedicated to history and literature that John is a master of. 

His first book, Looking for Alaska, published in 2005, has been awarded the Micheal L. Printz Award for Excellence in Young Adult literature by the American Library Association and several other literary awards. The main character, Miles Halter, a teenage boy obsessed with famous people’s last words, leaves his boring Florida life behind and sets off to Culver Creek, a boarding school in Alabama, in search of the Great Perhaps - something great, something worth living his life for before it is too late to set off for such quests. There he meets his roomate Chip Martin, Japanese student Takumi and Alaska Young – a smart and utterly fascinating girl with just the right amount of sexiness and mysteriousness that capture Miles’s heart. The foursome grows close and Miles suddenly finds himself having friends. Then one night changes everything and the ever so mysterious Alaska inflicts even more mystery and questions that Miles and Chip long to know the answers to.

While Green's books fit into the Young Adult category, they are critically acclaimed and loved by a wide range of readers. They're fun and sad, discussing topics such as love and friendship, pain and suffering; all in all, they are relatable not only for teenagers. The story of Miles Halter has two parts: Before and After. One of the many things that I love about this book is the ambiguity of the event that sweeps the plot from Before to After. To quote Green himself, books belong to their readers. That's why the denouement is not completely clear, leaving space for readers to make up their minds about the story.

I highly recommend this novel even if your teen years are long gone and if you think that a story set in a boarding high school could never interest you. I guarantee that Looking for Alaska has what it takes to be both intellectually and emotionally engaging and make its readers feel all kinds of things, quite possibly even leave you teary-eyed as you turn over the last page.

- Zuzana Ondová

Review: "The Best Offer"

“The Best Offer” is the newest film written and directed by Giuseppe Tornatore – and if you ask me, I think of it as the (after a long time first) ‘movie definitely worth seeing’. Geoffrey Rush’s performance as the elderly art auctioneer Virgil Oldman in combination with the movie's cross-genre nature makes it one entertaining spectacle that will keep your eyes and mind glued to the screen from the first to final scene.

The life and career of Virgin Oldman is, to an extent, an enviable one for it is based on selling and collecting beautiful paintings and is filled with high gourmet experiences and fine literature. However, the lack of love gives the character a sort of emotional emptiness – hence explaining his almost obsessive devotion to a mysterious heiress/client, who in the end turns out (just like the rest of his ‘friends’) to be a fraud. It is heart-breaking to see a man, once self-sufficient and content, to be suddenly left alone with his haunting thoughts and tormenting memories – and the unexpectedness of this climax makes it all a more memorable story. Putting plot aside; taking place in high and wealthy social circles, it is impossible to not sigh out of pure amazement at the - luckily plentiful! - shots of abandoned, yet atmospheric European villas, posh restaurant interiors (including one in Prague) or Virgil’s collection of famous female portraits, hidden in the modern-day Narnia wardrobe: a code-locked room behind a shelved closet with leather gloves.

In short, it is basically a happy-end story of romance gone unexpectedly dramatic with hints of subtle Agatha Christie-like mystery that will make you leave the cinema in a sense of bewilderment, thinking “How could I have not seen that coming?” Apart from being visually pleasing, the movie is most definitely going to make you want to see it again and collect in a Sherlock Holmes fashion all clues that lead to the final crime… And until you do, this review is my best offer in helping you solve the mysteries of the plot.

- Anna Hupcejová

Review: "Behind the Candelabra"

My decision to go see the new movie staring Michael Douglas and Matt Damon was a random one; it was an impulse, driven by a sudden mood to see a new cinematic piece. Having bought my ticket about ten minutes before the performance, I sat down in the red chamois Světozor seat without any expectations. All I knew was the fact that the movie premiered at this year's Cannes Festival and knew all about the plot as fit into the synopsis in the cinema brochure.  Also, I heard that it will be slightly heated - so it was. Excessively.

If one is to condense the plot of the movie, then one could simply say: it's about the piano virtuoso of the 1970s, Liberace (Michael Douglas) and his young lover, Scott Thurson and the rise and downfall of their few-year-long relationship. It is evident from the very first scene that all is shot in favour of Scott - the audience is immediately informed of his unstable family background (several foster homes, insane mother) and Liberace is shown to be first a saviour, then the promiscuous sinner. Individuals such as myself who do not have any knowledge of psychology can automatically assume that the young blond lad was over-whelmed from the sudden wealth and care he was suddenly experiencing - even if it was all from a man who could be his grandfather. So blinded was Scott by his admiration of Lee that he even fulfilled his lover's demand for him to undergo facial plastic surgery. Eventually, jealousy, unfaithfulness and Scott's cocaine addiction lead to the couple's (rather dramatic) separation and as if it were Karma, Lee dies some time later from AIDS.     

It is without doubt that sexuality is the main driving force of the movie - it is intended to get the audience into the theatre and keep them there. In short, the movie was "hot" - it was full of bed scenes, sexual lines (Scott asks Liberace: "How do you stay hard for so long?" - an advertisement of a penis performance operation from Lee follows), shots of men in tight jeans or glittery swimsuits, sudden jocular crotch-grabbing... It made me feel uncomfortable however, and during such scenes I noticed other people also looking down at their lap in embarrassment or lift their eyebrows. During one specific intimate scene, Liberace tells Scott: "I want to be everything to you, Scott, father, lover, brother, best friend." This made more people in the cinema smirk - no wonder, it is an absurd statement! Especially when Lee became, by law, Scott's father and after their relationship hits ice-level, they separated like a real (married) couple. 

The character of Liberace  is, unlike the empathetic and occasionally over-emotional Scott, portrayed in a negative, yet even mocking light. He is a man who refuses to grow old and who enjoys his share of plastic surgeries (both on himself and Scott), extravagance (Rolls Royce driving him onto the stage, beautiful fur gowns, shiny stone-covered pianos) and luxury (gold jewellery, Versailles-style decorated mansions, sipping champagne in the Jacuzzi) - all of these interests reflect his intellectual shallowness, but of course also his evident success in show-business. He seems to be in a completely different world than, for example, Bob Black, who in the end turns out to be more of a fatherly figure to Scott than Lee, the "Old Queen."

Behind the Candelabra is a men-only show showing the drama high testosterone levels can create as well as is a documentary of excessively-decorated interiors and before-after physical and mental developments of the characters. It is not however all drama; there are moments of light humour present for example through Lee's occasional story-telling or the character of the cosmetic surgeon Dr. Startz (Rob Lowe), whose mission at one point (this set off a second of laughter from the audience) was to remodel Scott's youthful face into the one of young Liberace.  The actors' performances are admirable, though Douglas - for me at least - missed fervidness when speaking, a characteristic that was present in the real Liberace's speeches. 

The movie concludes on a both humorous and expressive note - Liberace (now dead) is presented to be standing on stage, suddenly lifted upwards towards the piano and then singing a last piece (most probably written by Scott) before disappearing out of sight of both the smiling Scott and the audience. To disagree with Liberace, too much of a good thing is not wonderful and I was partially glad when the movie was over, for it was a bit too bling-y and shallow. Nevertheless, I can call it thought-provoking and a decent movie to go and see for 118 minutes on a free evening.

Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012) through the eyes of USA History’s lecturer.

With the exam season coming up, it seems natural to include a review of the movie Lincoln written by whom else but David L. Robbins, the professor of USA History. How does he view Spielberg’s depiction of the famous American president, how much historical verity can one find in the film, what topics covered during the lectures are discussed? Such questions and more are answered in the professor’s review.

Steven Spielberg has proven himself to be an intelligent and interesting filmmaker, occasionally a great one. However, as with all filmmakers (and probably with all artists who aspire to popular success), there are inevitably contained within his work contradictory motives, dynamics, and vectors. A "serious" filmmaker needs also to be an entertainer and an entrepreneur, must aim understandably to make money by attracting the largest possible audience. There is thus in such work, however serious, a tendency to reach for the lowest common denominator – to dumb down, to simplify. This is perhaps especially true as regards historical events and circumstances, to which all too little attention is being paid in the American (and more generally postmodern) mental universe.

The selection dilemma, of course, clearly predates and precedes purely filmic and mass-market considerations, being intrinsic in many ways to "purely" artistic decisions themselves. But the centrality of the selection—often reduced to simplification—procedure is reemphasized in an age when consumer-oriented "market" entertainment has taken center stage in both culture (popular culture, at least) and consumer economics.

And, with both its virtues and defects, it emerges centrally in Mr. Spielberg's most recent product, Lincoln. In it, Daniel Day-Lewis is brilliant in his portrayal of the eponymous lead character, a performance fully deserving of his unprecedented third best actor Oscar. The Lincoln Mr. Day-Lewis portrays, however, is a Lincoln who is a folksy, partial, and popularized version of his mythic visible side, with the darker side(s) left un-illuminated.

In too many ways, it is an exercise in caricature and Disney-esque (and/or Spielbergian) contextual and moral oversimplification. Mr. Spielberg draws important material from Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals (2005). What emerges is, unfortunately, a cartoon of the resourceful saint who is willing to get his hands dirty just enough to make a good thing happen—a cliché straight out of Frank Capra. There are in Ms. Goodwin's book many cleverer and more unscrupulous initiatives undertaken by Lincoln in causes perhaps less inherently noble than the Gottedammerung of the slave system—such as the consolidation and inflation of federal powers and prerogatives (an attack on "states' rights," the central and original idea of the U.S. Constitution); and the economic program designed to redirect a primarily subsistence agricultural country toward industry, commerce, and the market. Lincoln was clever, all right, but his machinations and those of his Republican "team of rivals" reached far beyond the issue of black emancipation and far beyond their own time.

Mr. Spielberg's partial portrait also constructs Lincoln as far more of an abolitionist (or even an anti-slavery man) and less of a racist (which he was, along with most of his white contemporaries, whatever their opinions on slavery) than his record demonstrates him to have been before, and even during, the Civil War.

Portraying opponents (Republican or Democratic) as rogues, fools, buffoons, and/or villains (as this film all too often does) sins seriously against the spirit of the democracy that Lincoln so often and so influentially endorsed.

As Emerson warns us in his repeated cautions about the dangers of what he calls "partiality" ("New England Reformers," 1844), especially in reformers obsessed with good and noble causes: Beware the "Lest we forget" construction that might tempt us to lose sight also of the complexity and interconnectedness/interdependency of all things, of its fundamental inevitability and pervasiveness in all of life's choices and undertakings, in our effort to remember and honour specific moral insights, achievements, and heroism.

Anna: Theatre Masks and Unfulfilled Expectations.

Although a new film adaptation of the famous novel Anna Karenina was not well accepted by Russian critics, it cannot be denied that it is a remarkable cinematic piece. Joe Wright in his previous directing (especially in Atonement) proved quality in his fresh and innovative style. In connection with Tom Stoppard’s screenplay he was able to show the classical and notoriously known Russian story in an exceptional light (the race and the ball are absolutely breathtaking scenes). The metaphor of theatre as a life of high society, where everyone is hypocritically smiling, lying and always pretending, leads us in the end to realize that each one of us even today is wearing his own theatre masks; we are pretending the impossible and then weep silently behind the scenes about our small lives. But why, despite this very promising directing and script, is the film not so touching as it could be?

Quite surprisingly, if we look at the three main characters, the most interesting performance given by Jude Law (Karenin, Anna’s boring husband). He is serious and cold and yet passionate in his own way. He makes a lasting impression and you have to feel sorry for him. He is alive. Actually the audience takes his side instead of Anna’s and Vronsky’s and that appears to be counterproductive. Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Vronsky) is not bad at all, but, despite his undeniable talent, his performance does not enthuse; he seems to be too young for such a part. Keira Knightley presents some strong moments as well as some very weak. It seems that her performance is affected by trying to look beautiful, even in moments which are absolutely inappropriate for it. Anna Karenina is definitely worth seeing. The directing is gripping and very visual. One just feels sorry he was not as touched as he could have been.

Review: Anna Karenina.

One of the most famous tragic love stories by Leo Tolstoy appears again on big screen. The well-known drama about a woman, who “broke the rules” has been presented in several plays and filmed four times. However, director Joe Wright with Tom Stoppard as a screenwriter enchant us with a new approach to this literary classic. Historical costumes, Dario Marianelli’s great flow of sound, starring the favorite Keira Knightley as the main character Anna Karenina are all recalling the typical features of the director, who already transformed novels like Pride and Prejudice and Atonement into movies. Like in his previous pieces Joe Wright puts a big emphasis on the perspective of each character while taking a picturesque path.

What makes the movie most memorable and discernible from other adaptations is the original setting of the whole complex story onto a stage. Not only does it create a theatrical atmosphere, but also symbolizes the behavior of the Russian aristocracy during the late 19th century. Firstly, their whole life was embraced by the social events mostly set in theatres and also it depicts the superficiality of the society at the time of the Empire. Some would think seeing a movie with only one setting could be boring, however, the director occasionally takes us to the “outside world,” therefore the scenes set in nature also mirror the escape from the urban emptiness, which is best depicted in the scene when Levin (Domhnall Gleeson) decides to say goodbye to this artificial world by opening the large gates to nature. This original setting also allows simplification of the vast number of places which appear throughout the novel, achieving a certain flow from scene to scene and yet managing to focus on the details. The feel of flux permeates the whole movie as it is arranged as a dance. The center scene – the dance of the “forbidden lovers” Anna (Keira Knightley) and Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) –  reflects the whole noticeable choreography, meaning that every little word, every movement, and even the costumes have their own role, is present throughout the film not just in the dance scene. To the detailed composition adds, of course, the brilliance of the Academy winner composer Dario Marianelli’s music which leads us through the movie like a skilled and smooth dancing partner.

On the contrary, a perhaps more critical approach should be taken in evaluating the cast. Although, Joe Wright did not even consider anyone else for the main role besides Knightley, for most of the viewers the young actress is not suitable for such a complex anti-hero. Of course, though she looks beautiful in the costumes, the character of Anna illustrated in the novel is nowhere near to the skinny stature of hers. Having seen her in other Wright movies, Knightley presented the heroine in the same manner as she has her previous roles: Elizabeth Bennet (Pride and Prejudice) or Cecilia Tallis (Atonement). Also, her acting partner Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s performance of Vronsky was perhaps not acted in a way for which women would break their marriage. On the other side, Jude Law as Karenin mastered the model of a stiff “robot-like” husband, especially with his “knuckle cracking.” Because of the great age difference it was even harder to imagine the “sweeping everything away” kind of love between the main characters. Nevertheless, the other adaptations being focused more on the physical nature of their affection, Wright succeeded in making their relationship portrayed only by glimpses of each other and occasional touching, in other words made their love a dance – a passionate, but a tragic one.

Even if this version of Tolstoy’s masterpiece was not received very well by the audience I would certainly recommend it to the moviegoers who are interested in a new interpretation of the overused story, an interpretation focusing on hidden symbols rather than retelling the plot in a conventional form while not leaving anything out. If not for the curiosity of how can a horse-race be set in a theatre or for Dario Marianelli’s musical brilliance, then watch it just to get a glimpse of what is happening in Joe Wright’s head, a mind so worthy of attention.  

Django Unchained (2012).

Quentin Tarantino produced a drama that is taking place before the American Civil War. Young Django (Jamie Foxx) is involuntarily separated from his love Broomhilda von Schaft (Kerry Washington) and thanks to the German dentist Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), he can regain his freedom and wife as soon as he helps to hunt down the cruel assassins: the Brittle brothers.

The performance of Waltz is, just as in Inglorious Bastards, perfect. So are Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio (a rich slave owner) and Samuel L Jackson (his loyal servant). Four very divergent roles, but all have some points of contact, especially when we talk about hate, racism and opportunists. Beside the romantic story line that dominates the whole movie, there is also time for humor, drama and action. Thrilling scenes are often accompanied by those of sheer horror, clarified by absurd and hilarious entries which let the heartbeat of the audience calm down.

The music in the movie was also very well chosen. The director, Tarantino, made a good choice by combining classical music with rock and even hip-hop at certain times. As is Tarantino’s habit, he likes taking on one of the minor roles and Django Unchained is not an exception.

The theme of racism is a central motive in Django, but as we reveal the veil a bit we find that power and opportunism are greedily waiting to get their chance. Bloodshed is an unstoppable engine spilling red stains on the snow-white cotton fields - a never fulfilled revenge on evil white plantation owners finally takes place… However, in a grotesque style, which not only cheers up the spectator, but also tells him that this revenge is only a fairy tale.

Hobbit: A Review and Report of a Going.

The Hobbit was not the best movie I have seen lately and that I would be breathless about, but putting that aside, it doubtlessly was a great event. Armed with popcorn and soda beverages, I and a few people from this university course (Jaromír L., Kristýna Č., Martin S., Magda M., Jan L., Tomáš S.) sat deep into our seats and enjoyed the 2.5-hour spectacle in its original dub.

Rumor has it that some people (down-to-heart Tolkien fans) have left the cinema not even half-way through the movie, outraged by Jackson's adaptation of their beloved story. Yes, they do have a point that apart from the Irish aura of the songs (“Misty Mountains,” namely), there was little or no sense of the story that was originally written for children. However, I find that leaving the cinema in the middle of the screening is an over-reaction. Agreed, Jackson unnecessarily prolonged many scenes and added many more battles and blood spill (though not much red matter was seen, actually) than needed, though one must realize one thing: most people have not read the book. So Jackson did what he had to: made the movie watchable! He portrayed breath-taking landscapes (New Zealand product placement!), put in lots of amazing 3-D scenes (that moment a warg gets shot and falls onto the audience – blackness!) and technically speaking, it was a marvel in computer effects. Jackson succeeded in not making anyone fall asleep, though a short break in the middle surely would have been welcomed.

During the 2.5 hours my anonymous neighbor spilt his 1l cup of Coca-Cola on the floor and crunched onto his popcorn that occasionally landed on my lap and everyone, especially us eight, laughed heartily at Saruman's words: "But how can we believe Radagast [a forest wizard]? He eats too much mushrooms!" In all seriousness, Martin asked as we left the cinema: “Does the book also end with the dragon opening his eyes?" Most of the people present grinned; someone informed him that there are two more movies to go. Martin threw his hands dramatically towards the now dark skies and exclaimed: "WHYYYYY??" A while later he added bitterly, though in a calm voice: "I am not going to wait two bloody years for the next part. I want it now!" Our cinematic fellowship concluded the evening either in a pub (it was a Saturday night after all) or with a long walk through Prague, making use of the warmer winter weather.

As for myself, I definitely enjoyed The Hobbit and decided on a few things. One – attempt to put together a light-mode Hobbit costume for the next premiere. Two: wait patiently for the continuations. Three: read the book once it's all over. It would be a pity and a waste of positive energy to compare the book with the movie when one should be enjoying his return back to Middle Earth! 

Hobbit: An Unexpected Experience

For those who were looking for a film based only on the book itself, Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey might be a slight portion of disappointment at first. However, for those who have done further reading on the fantastic world of Middle Earth (especially those who have read J. R. R. Tolkien's Silmarillion), the film can be a fair compensation for the painful experience from The Lord of the Rings, because this time, Peter Jackson and his fellow producers have decided to prepare a special surprise for the ultimate Tolkien devotees. The film is rumored to have been shot based not only on the book itself, but also on additional information found in secret notes Tolkien had kept for himself. Luckily enough, these notes have somehow found their way into the producers’ hands (for those who were baffled by the presence of Saruman and Galadriel, as well as other quite conspicuous, say, misconceptions: this might be the reason for them). On the other hand, what kind of a block buster would Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey be, if it was all based on depiction of characters exactly according to the author? It is probably due to some unwritten law, that there just simply has to be at least some alternation in the original story; that we have to face new versions of our heroes.

If you are about to go see the film, I strongly recommend forgetting the former conceptions of bravery or wit, as well as the almost balladic way of depicting heroes. All of this has been replaced with pure action so typical of block busters, although not even lovers of special effects would be purely satisfied. Bilbo Baggins, for example, whom I once believed to be a rather simple conservative man of common sense is here depicted as a neurotic, fearful, yet almost sly frantic conformist who suddenly changes his life (why does this remind me of the American dream cliché?) and proves to himself, as well as to his fellow pilgrims, that he can also do something big in his life. The storyline, on the other hand, is quite accurate, despite the fact that all the dramatic parts are scattered with taunts which gives the story almost Marvel Comics-like impression. The only thing missing was probably a cocky superhero with an almighty crossbow shooting arrows at 100% accuracy and at a very quick pace (200 arrows per minute would do, I guess)… perhaps in one of the next two parts. The second part of the journey will continue on 13 December 2013.