The Importance of Memory - Woman in Gold

An elegant and highly emotional film graced theatres last week: Woman in Gold. Starring Helen Mirren (Miriam), Ryan Reynolds, and Daniel Gruhl, Simon Curtis takes us on a sweeping journey of a holocaust victim's life after WWII. It is based off of the true story of Maria Altman's quest to retrieve her aunt's portrait, Adele Bloch-Bauer, from Austria. The film champions justice, for once, and Maria is able to safely bring her family heirlooms back to America and in the hands of what has grown to be her home.

Subscribe to TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/sxaw6h Subscribe to COMING SOON: http://bit.ly/H2vZUn Like us on FACEBOOK: http://goo.gl/dHs73 Follow us on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/1ghOWmt Woman in Gold Official Trailer #1 (2015) - Ryan Reynolds, Helen Mirren Movie HD Academy Award winner Helen Mirren stars in the incredible story of Maria Altmann, a Jewish refugee who is forced to flee Vienna during World War II.

1. Where did this film take me? The film appears to be a melodrama on the surface, plunging us full tilt into a family history shared by two very different people. Yet they share more and more in common as the film progresses. The film opens with two critical scenes. There is a vibrant flashback to the painter, Kimft, creating the portrait of Adele in Austria. with a funeral scene on a bright-blue-sky day in L.A.. We are immediately introduced to Maria Altman, a small business owner in her 80s and the sister to the deceased. Maria tells her friend that there is some unfinished family business she needs to attend to. The consoling friend puts Maria in contact with her grandson, Randol (lawyer). He is a not-so successful lawyer, a bit of a clutz, but an excellent and compassionate communicator. After Randol and Maria meet, we begin to see flashbacks of a past that Maria is trying to come to terms with. There is an elegant beauty in the flashback images. They are rich in both colour and culture. Maria's family in the past shares the same values as Randol's young family: determination, hard work, and sacrifice for the children. The melodrama expands outwards though, and America takes on a paternal role. America is the safe haven for refugees during WWII escaping their motherland. The motherland is represented as a complex and problematic sphere, atypical of the usual patriotic and comforting images of home, Woman in Gold challenges the notion of "home", "native" and "country" ideals. Images of the past seep into the present tense as Maria struggles to come to terms with her painful memories. Randol's own Jewish family history strongly increases his desire to win the case when he remembers the death of his grandparents at a concentration camp. 
2. How did I feel? This film was a flurry of emotions. The rollercoaster ride was smooth, though, calling attention to some seriously awesome editing skills. The pacing was flawless and had me feeling all the right emotions at the right times. Important information was slowly revealed throughout the film, keeping my attention constantly focused on the events. Telling the story like a melodrama also had me passionately rooting for the main characters. I felt the frustrations, the challenges, and, for once, felt like cheering at the end of the film. There were never any tasteless moments. The unique perspective allowed me to engage with the protagonist, even if I do not share that same history. Maria was a wronged citizen of Austria. Neither her religion nor origin mattered in the narrative. She was positioned in such a way that shook up the Austrian government, who would have rather singled her out as a wronged Jewish woman than a wronged citizen of Austria.  Therefore, the fight for justice extended beyond Maria and beyond Randol. She had the gumption to fight a bureaucratic art restoration movement and take her motherland to court.
3. What issues were addressed? I think there are several key issues that this movie highlights very eloquently. The first and foremost being the importance of memory. As Maria pointed out to Randol, "Young people are likely to forget. That is why I remember." Like Randol, we the audience (or the younger persons watching the film) are not from that generation that experienced WWII. Therefore, our journey and responsibility is to learn and remember and pass down the history to the next generation. Maria is ready to give up when she realizes how long the trial might take. She finds peace in letting the events slip away out of her control. Randol sweeps in with his young and excited blood to stir the pot and fight the good fight. A generation that was wronged comes together with a generation that has the capacity to pave a brighter future for the next generations. In this, our emotional journey is Randols. Another important issue is that of ownership, and the rights to owning property / things. The art restoration movement in Austria sought to return art that was misplaced / stolen during WWII to its rightful owners. Yet it went against this by championing the wants of the country over the rights of its people. The painting of Adele Bloch-Bauer is a symbol for Austria and an important memento for the gallery. By removing it, Maria is thus affecting the "whole" population. She justifies her cause wisely, stating that "while the world sees this as a beautiful painting made of gold sheets, she sees a picture of her aunt." Further to this, while she is able to refer to the portrait as Adele, Austria calls it The Woman in Gold; continuing the Nazi practice of attempting to erase the history of Jewish ancestry in Europe. The art restoration project becomes a pseudo-natzi-ism for Maria, denying her of her family's rights as Austrians, and the law-binding agreement of her Uncle's will. While I can argue that here is yet again another story about "America" coming to the rescue, there is nothing wrong with the sweet victory she receives at the end of her long awaited trial with the help of the American Justice system. 
4. The biggest surprise for me was seeing Ryan Reynolds play a serious character. He was, of course, allowed his funny moments, but they heightened the film instead of making the drama cheesy. His awkward encounters with Maria and his blunders in the courtroom really added to his character. I felt emotionally on board with his plight. Helen Mirren was as delightful as always. Slightly snobbish but with the right amount of maternal affection. She was a great representation of a lost generation finding its voice again. The ending titles were also a favourite part. They disclosed the information about the real Maria Altman and how that opened up opportunities for other art cases like hers. 
5. Is there a transformative experience? Yes. More so for Randol than Maria. Maria is able to find peace in her heart knowing that justice was served. She brought her ancestry and history back to the forefront of society by forcing the world to remember and admit the wrong. Randol, having not fully understood the importance of his past, is given the chance to avenge his grandparent's horrifying deaths by helping Maria succeed. He squeezes the lemons that life has given him (sort of speak) and drinks the rewording juice. 

A film on the recovery of the Bloch-Bauer Klimt paintings by Maria Altmann in 2006. Electric Sky, Nigel Janes Director/Producer.

Overall, I believe that this film is an extremely beautiful portrayal of intelligence out-weighing money and political power. The right things in this film are emphasized - memory, symbolism and art, ownership and rights, war justice, and self-identity - and justice is served. 

- Jenn

The Grand Budapest Hotel: Camera as Director

There are too many things to be said for Wes Anderson's latest film, but there are some important notes I must log here because I think they are just brilliant.

I am first and foremost, a massive fan of his collection of works. Not realizing at a younger age just who he was, I fell in love with The Royal Tenenbaums and this carried me through until I saw The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Life Aquatic.

Complete Filmography

What makes Wes Anderson's films so lovable are his characters and intricate plotlines. The characters are usually simple in that only enough of their life is made known to the viewers to guide them through the film. We are never emotionally attached to any character because we are only fascinated by them. This makes it very easy for Mr. Anderson to kill off characters at will, without a tear being shed by the audience. The narrator of The Grand Budapest goes so far to say in his voice-over narration that little is known of Mr. Gustave because he never told anyone who he was or where he came from. He is who he is in the film and that is all that we as the audience need. We learn who he is not through history but through his present character development. There are a few times, such as those in The Royal Tenenbaums, where Mr. Anderson does use flashbacks to get the viewers up to date with the current story. But even then, the action of the past is used to describe the present action (making it once again in the moment and alive).

How are we not emotionally attached to any character? Ask yourself this: do you relate to his characters? The answer is usually no because his characters are extremely fictional and even aware of their fictionality. They are serious people leading lives that are meant to be taken seriously, but all through sarcasm and a theatrical flare. I dare say, Shakespeare would have gladly sat through any Anderson film (if he were still kicking around)...

But I stray. We remain interested in the plot and what happens to the characters because of our own curiosity. Like Deputy Kovacs cat before it is tossed out the window and declared "deceased." When Mr. Gustave H. is in jail, we are only concerned in how he will escape, without a tinge of sympathy for his well-being. His actions spur the narrative forward, and his commentary undercuts any moment in which the characters 'ought' to portray emotions. After Mr. Gustave H. and Zero Moustafa are beaten on the train for the first time, Gustav tries to recite a poem to express his emotions but stops half way through with a "f*ck it."  And by undercutting the actions, we the audience are never given time to react properly. The only sounds that we can express from an Anderson film is muted laughter or witty chuckling.

The theatrical-ness and fictionality of the worlds that Mr. Anderson is able to create are more in control than the characters. This can be interpreted by the camera movement. Most films create a sense of action-realism in the narrative by having the camera follow a character's actions. It is as if the camera just happened to be there and is turned on. In Mr. Anderson's films, though, the camera often moves before the character has a chance to go off frame and rests for several seconds on a blank stage. The characters reappear again and continue their actions. The camera is directing the story and pulling us away from getting too carried away with the characters. It tells us where to look, when to look, and what to take away from that particular scene. These montages are then linked together by a series of inter-titles highlighting the introduction of characters/events that will be introduced into the plotline. We do not question the entrance of each character and automatically believe that they too exist in this filmic world.

When Mr. Gustave is declared dead before he is able to grow old from a bullet I felt little sadness for this, as little as Zero's wrinkled face showed. "The world that Gustave lived in died out long before he was born. But he carried the falsity through with charm and grace" (something to this effect is expressed at the end of the film by Zero).

There are two relatable strong emotions (if we can even call them that in light of Anderson) greatly explored in the film: sexuality and love. The latter is more simple. Gustave's love for old blond women, Zero's love for Agatha, the author's love for his grandson, and the curious girl at the beginning who visits the dead author's grave. Perhaps the most memorable exclamation of love is on the train when Mr. Gustave yells angrily at the 'firing squad': "GET YOUR HANDS OFF OF MY LOBBY BOY."

On the note of sexuality - this mainly takes place through Gustave's interactions with his hotel guests and the graphic painting of the two women pleasuring each other, which replaces "The Boy with Apple." The painting is a hilarious undercutting of what Boy with Apple stands for (innocence and vitality). Yet, the two women are neither offensive or vulgar - it is just a starkly opposite portrayal. What is made clear, however, is the underlying attraction Gustave has for younger boys. All the concierges seem to have an attraction for boys too. Whether sexual or purely platonic, the movie never makes a clear case.

To draw these thoughts to a close, I say go watch the film if you haven't and if you have you will perhaps agree/disagree with my analyses (feel free start a discussion below).

I am afraid that will be all "darling."

Until the next Anderson film.

- Jenn