Berlin, I Love You

Year 14, Day 57 - 2/26/22 - Movie #4,059

BEFORE: OK, so yesterday's film was not REALLY called "Boston, I Love You", I was making a joke, because I knew this one was coming up.  The overarching name for this franchise is "Cities of Love", they started with Paris back in 2006 and covered New York in 2008, then "Rio, I Love You" was released in 2014, and I watched that one just last year.  But I think that's when I also found out there was one set in Berlin, which I somehow missed - and I'm of mostly German descent, so these are my people.  Plus, after tonight, I'm all caught up, at least until they release "Los Angeles, I Love You" - or perhaps Shanghai will be next, it's a bit unclear. Perhaps the pandemic really scuttled the plan for the next installment, which was due in 2019, and is listed by IMDB as "still in development". 

But wait, there apparently was another installment in 2014 that nobody ever watched, because it was called "Tbilisi, I Love You" - Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia (the one in Asia) and most Americans have never even heard of that city.  Hell, most Americans don't even know there's another Georgia, in addition to the U.S. Southern state whose capital is Atlanta. Most Americans probably don't even know the capital of either Georgia - sorry, but you know this is true.  Do I want to track down "Tbilisi, I Love You" next February?  No, I do not.  I'll wait for the one set in L.A., at least then I'll have some point of reference. 

Veronica Ferres carries over from "Love, Weddings & Other Disasters".

FOLLOW-UP TO: "Rio, I Love You" (Movie #3,759) (Watched EXACTLY one year ago!)

THE PLOT: This collective feature film is made of ten stories of romance set in the German capital. 

AFTER: I've been to Germany, back on a high-school exchange - but not to Berlin.  When I was there, it was still a divided country, the Wall was still up, and the capital of West Germany was Bonn, where I spent most of my time.  I was taken on a drive through Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, just so I could get my passport stamped and say I was in a couple other countries.  I remember visiting Aachen, and someplace close to the border with East Germany, but the rest is quite foggy - I did meet a few of my grandmother's relatives, but I didn't come anywhere close to her hometown.  I also overslept and missed a cruise down the Rhine River, so yeah, I've got some regrets.  Someday I should really go back as an adult and do a proper tour, see the Rhine and Berlin and my father's father's ancestral homeland, which we now believe is Alsace-Lorraine, a very French part of Germany.  (Hell, all of France was once a part of Germany, but shhh, don't mention the war.  They don't like to talk about it.)

From what I know of the country, which I admit is very limited, it's not the first choice for a movie whose subject is love.  What do the Germans know about love, anyway?  Well, they must know something, because they keep making more Germans, so it's got to exist in some form, right?  On a whole, they're a very reserved, logical people, some might call them rigid or harsh or set in their ways, but that's all in the past, right?  I joke about Hitler and say he was the ultimate German in that he was logical and organized, probably had OCD and he just wanted to re-arrange all of Europe until it was all called Germany and efficiently run.  (Damn, I mentioned the war again, and I said I wouldn't do that.). I caught my grandmother once saying that he was well-intentioned, he just took things a bit too far, which is, of course, the ultimate understatement. I know she couldn't have been a Nazi sympathizer, because she left the country before that party ever took control. 

(The other night, as I was watching "Their Finest", which showed Londoners hiding out in subway tunnels during the German bombing Blitz, it turns out there were people in Kyiv, Ukraine, doing the exact same thing. I got chills when I learned that, because here we are, all these years later, and history is repeating itself, to some degree. "Berlin, I Love You" opens with images of World War II tanks rolling through Berlin, the famous Wall being built, and people living on both sides of that wall, family members - perhaps even lovers - separated for God knows how long.  And how can I not be reminded of what's going down in Ukraine RIGHT NOW as another dictator tries to take land that's independent and incorporate it into his country.  Any time somebody tries to redraw the map, whether they're Nazis, Russians or gerrymandering Republicans, they simply must be stopped. I don't have the power to do it, but perhaps we can all work together. OK, enough about the war.)

I love these ensemble films, not just because of their huge casts - OK, it's largely because of their huge casts, because they make what I do possible, films like this have gotten me out of one linking jam after another, so they're great for me to keep handy on my cast list sheet (which, no lie, is a 67 or 68 page document on my computer).  If I can get to a film like this, I can go just about anywhere - usually.  If I'm going to stay in the romance chain for another two weeks, it turns out this time I've got exactly ONE choice about where to go tomorrow.  But look, this film could have linked to "Legally Blonde 2" or "A Rainy Day in New York", so it was going to help me out for sure, no matter where it ended up.  The chain remains unbroken, that's ALL that really matters. But there is a side benefit, this year's already shaping up to be perhaps my most multi-cultural year EVER - and last year I started with a Korean film, then spent a few weeks on Swedish films, and that was just JANUARY.  And since I couldn't go anywhere in person in 2021, I also virtually went to the U.K. a few times, besides Sweden I watched films set in Australia, Canada, Spain, Brazil, Italy, France, Netherlands, Ireland, Israel, Russia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia and a fair amount of time on tropical islands -  Cuba, Puerto Rico, Devil's Island and wherever Fantasy Island, Spooky Island, Paradise Hills and Corto Maltese are. Let's just say I get around.

So far this year I've been (virtually) to France for "The French Dispatch", a whole week in China, Japan for "Memoirs of a Geisha", Spain for "The Cold Light of Day" and Jamaica for "How Stella Got Her Groove Back". Then there was a week in the U.K. starting with "Ammonite" and ending with "Their Finest", and a brief stopover in Italy for "House of Gucci".  Now I'm back in Germany, where "A Most Wanted Man" was also set, and again, it's only February.  

I'm avoiding talking about the fact that this film really does prove that Germany's not a great place to stage a romance-based film.  Some of these ten stories aren't really about romance at all, and I could have sworn that was a pre-requisite for the filmmakers involved. "Tell any story you want, just make sure it's about love."  OK, some of them failed, but I guess they contractually had to include the stories anyway, I mean, they were already filmed.  But this is how you kill a franchise, possibly, if you go too far off the path and you don't stick to your own rules.  The rules used to be that there needed to be 10 short stories about love, with NO overlap - but in this film, you can often see characters from one short walking across the background of another short. I guess maybe Berlin has that "small town" feel, where everybody knows everybody, or crosses paths with each other, even if they don't know it?  And then we see almost everybody again during the big crowd scene at the end, as the credits roll.

The ten stories are, in descending order of romance level: 

1) "Lucinda in Berlin" - a harried filmmaker falls for a woman who performs puppet shows for children (only they meet cute and sort of skip the part where they, you know, fall in love) 

2) "Transitions" - a street musician falls for another street performer, who wears angel wings (or perhaps is an actual angel, this is unclear, but come on, I've seen "Wings of Desire")

3) "Berlin Ride" - a man whose girlfriend left him to marry his brother decides to drink himself to death, but the GPS on his car talks him out of it, and encourages him to find new love with a voice-over actress

4) "Berlin Dance" - a tourist meets a street drummer, then stumbles into an imagined underground dance club where she dances with an orchestra conductor, then meets the street drummer again. Here's where the romance level starts to dip, because it could be this woman just had a weird drug trip.

5) "Drag Queen" - a drag queen breaks up with his boyfriend, then meets a 16-year-old boy in the wee hours of the morning, who's unsure if he wants to kiss boys or girls in the future. Hell, kiss them all, this is Berlin after all

6) "Love Is in the Air" - an aging American rocker picks up a younger woman in a hotel bar, and comes close to sleeping with her. No spoilers here, but this isn't nearly as romantic as it might sound at first. 

7) "Me Three" - a number of women congregate in a laundromat at night, and they end up discussing sexual harassment, and one of the more notorious public abusers walks in, just before the big dance party!

8) "Under Your Feet" - a refugee worker takes home a small Arab child, so that he won't be sent away from his mother.  The refugee then goes out for a night on the town, while her mother watches the young boy.

9) "Hidden" - an Arab refugee is in trouble for defending his family from punks, and he takes refuge in a brothel.  But no sex, please. 

10) "Embassy" - a female cab driver talks too much, but her journalist passenger entrusts her with top secret documents, because he thinks he's about to get taken away by the authorities or some shadowy figures. 

See, three of the stories don't have anything to do with love or romance at all - though I guess you can say that in #8 and #9, at least there's love for the main character's family members.  I'll have to let those slide, but #10 has no right at all being in this movie, it doesn't fit the brief!  I guess maybe this all represents Berlin, somehow, assuming that Berlin is a jumbled-up mess.  There are refugees, spies, prostitutes, drag queens, club kids, street musicians, filmmakers and puppeteers. OK, I guess but I think I miss the days when they would have set one of the stories at a beer festival, or had two lovers on both sides of the Berlin Wall or something.  Again, it's been about 35 years since I visited Germany, so I suppose a lot has changed. Berlin's a vibrant, ever-changing place - I remember when my fellow exchange student from Bonn stayed at my parents' house, my grandmother asked him if they had electricity and refrigerators and everything there, because they didn't when she left.  

Any movie like this, unfortunately, is going to fall back on a number of clichés in order to tell stories about a particular place.  Maybe it's impossible to summarize everything about a city in just 10 short stories - but then again, maybe you can't even do that with 100 short films. Every person has their own way of looking at a city, and some of those stories are going to be great, and some just aren't.  Some stories are going to be full of love and romance, and some stories just aren't.  And in the case of "Shanghai, I Love You", if the Chinese government has their way, some of those stories just aren't going to be told at all.  One of the proposed stories for "Berlin, I Love You" apparently offended the Chinese censors, so it was cut, and probably replaced by "Embassy" or "Hidden" at the last minute. In addition to fighting dictators, we've got to start fighting back against censorship, too. 

I ended up falling asleep during "Hidden" - but that may have had something to do with the fact that I replaced my usual glass of Diet Mountain Dew with a couple of German beers - a Warsteiner Oktoberfest left over from last fall, and an Augustiner Maximator doppelbock.  Only 7.5% alcohol, but it tasted like it had a much higher alcohol content, which the name would also suggest. I love the stronger beers, like 10%-11% or higher, but only if they taste good.  This one knocked me out, so when I woke up on Saturday morning (OK, afternoon) I had to re-watch the last hour of the film, just to see if I'd missed anything.  Really, only about 10 minutes of "Hidden" and I guess I woke up again last night and watched through ALMOST all the way to the end.  OK, so that one's done and off the list, and I never have to watch it again. For the reasons stated above, censorship and pandemic and general lack of romance, I'm thinking this might be the end of the franchise. And I have no plans to watch "Tbilisi, I Love You". 

Also starring Keira Knightley (last seen in "Official Secrets"), Helen Mirren (last heard in "The One and Only Ivan"), Luke Wilson (last seen in "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde"), Jim Sturgess (last seen in "The Way Back" (2010)), Mickey Rourke (last seen in "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For"), Jenna Dewan (last seen in "Setup"), Emily Beecham (last seen in "Hail, Caesar!"), Dianna Agron (last heard in "Ralph Breaks the Internet"), Diego Luna (last seen in "A Rainy Day in New York"), Iwan Rheon, Charlotte Le Bon (last seen in "The Take"), Sibel Kekilli, Nolan Gerard Funk, Julia Dietze, Sylvester Groth (last seen in "The Reader"), Toni Garrn (last seen in "Spider-Man: Far From Home"), Yvonne Maria Schafer, Pheline Roggan, Robert Stadlober, Omar Elba/Alexander Black (last seen in "A Hologram for the King"), Hannelore Eisner, Rafaelle Cohen, Max Raabe, Carol Schuler, Diana Birenyte, Hans Schenker, Monique Lange, Kostas Sommer, Nafsika Pan, Jake Weber (last seen in "Midway" (2019)) and the voices of John F. Kennedy (last seen in "Irresistible"), Ronald Reagan (last seen in "The Sentinel" (2006).

RATING: 4 out of 10 stories about ostriches

Love, Weddings & Other Disasters

Year 14, Day 56 - 2/25/22 - Movie #4,058   

BEFORE: OK, now that I finally, for once anyway, got my work movie schedule to synch up with my home movie schedule - and God knows, it may never happen again, Jeremy Irons carries over from "House of Gucci". Yesterday's film put me behind one day, but since I don't have the next holiday planned, it doesn't matter that much.  Based on the length of the romance chain now, I'll probably miss St. Patrick's Day, so the next holidays to think about will be Easter on April 17 and Mother's Day on May 8. Both seem like a LONG ways off, so I guess I'll get to the end of romance chain, work in an Oscar-nominated film or two, and then work in that Nicolas Cage chain and try to come up with a film for Easter - there are maybe only two potential candidates on the list, one is much easier to link to than the other. Then I'll worry about getting from Mother's Day to Father's Day, and I've got several paths from there to July 4 mapped out already, which involve a month's worth of documentaries. 

THE PLOT: A multi-story romantic comedy about the people who work on weddings to create the perfect day for a loving couple - while their own relationships are outlandish, odd, crazy and far from perfect. 

AFTER: God damn, but this movie was a struggle to get through - but only because it bears no resemblace to any real-world relationships, ever.  It's a bit like some alien who'd only been observing Earthlings for a day and a half tried to write a screenplay, without really understanding human interactions or relationships or how people talk. Does that make sense?  

Right from the start, every little detail of every interaction is a struggle - things just aren't like that in the real world, where (most of the time, anyway) people are generally forgiving and accepting when they interact with each other, there's give AND take, people both listen AND respond.  But the opening scene here shows a couple on a skydiving adventure, and really, it's painful.  Here's some sample dialogue: 

HIM: "I don't want to jump!"

HER: "But you said you would jump!"

HIM: "Yeah, but I don't want to jump!"
HER: "Oh, but you're going to jump!"  (She pushes him out of the plane, which isn't cool.)

HIM: "I'm falling and I hate this, so therefore I hate you!"

HER: "You have to learn to relax while you're falling to your death" (She slaps him, again, not cool.)

HIM: "This relationship isn't working, because you pushed me out of a plane!"
HER: "Are you breaking up with me?"
HIM: "Yes, because you're clearly not a nice person, and you can't accept my choice to not jump out of a plane!"

HER: "What do you want me to do about it, should I pull your ripcord?"

HIM: "No, I want you to leave me alone, even if that should mean my death!" (She pulls her chute open, and basically saves his life, despite the fact that she pushed him out of the plane in the first place...)
HER: "See, isn't this great?"
HIM: "No, I hate this, I want to be on the ground as soon as possible!" (She drops him in a lake. Super not cool.)

There is simply no occasion on this planet where any of this conversation makes any sense - it just would not play out like this, any interaction between two human beings.  I'm paraphrasing the conversation, but only a little bit, watch this if you don't believe me, it just can not possibly represent a real-world situation.  Bear in mind SHE still loves him, even if he's having second thoughts about the relationship, so if she cares for him, why does she push him out of the plane?  Why can't she respect his sudden change of decision to NOT jump out of the plane?  Yes, maybe he did promise to jump, but people are entitled to be scared, people are entitled to change their minds, and she should respect that.  Maybe she is a horrible person, and maybe they're not cut out for each other, maybe this is all a metaphor for relationships, we're all just falling to our deaths together and some people are OK with that and some aren't, some people are calm while others are freaking out, there's no one way to get through it all, but at the very minimum, we have to learn to listen to our partners and respect their decisions, even if they're not being rational in the moment.  Still, that's a terrible point to make. 

The man lands in the lake, the woman lands on the pier but manages to disrupt a wedding ceremony taking place there, all the while talking too much about how she loves weddings, she plans weddings, and it's very ironic that she should be ruining a wedding at this moment.  Which is not something anybody would say in that moment, because who cares?  They only care that the bride's about to wind up soaking wet on her special day.  The WHOLE FILM is like this, people making clumsy mistakes, falling down, breaking things, and saying things that nobody would ever say and doing things that nobody would ever do.

Another example - there's a reality show that involves two people being placed together as a couple, connected by a chain that's connected to two electronic devices, one on each person's waist.  The couple that stays connected the longest wins a million dollars, and there are at least a dozen reasons why this scenario wouldn't work, for starters it's a nationally broadcast show that seems to be based in Boston, so that's a contradiction, plus a local reality show would not be able to give away a million dollar prize, you can't have camera crews follow people 24/7, into their bedrooms and bathrooms, and then the show doesn't even seem to follow its own rules, like one of the couples is just an Arab guy and a rabbi, both men and they're not gay, it's just a cheap racial joke. NOTHING about this scenario works, would happen in the real world, or is even remotely funny, it's just something for two of the characters to do, and then it places one obstacle after another in their path, from her being a stripper to a local Russian mafia guy trying to fix the show so they'll win, and then the guy is the brother of one of the candidates for Mayor of Boston, so it's a chance for either scandal or publicity that ties in to the main plot, but still finds a way to not really work from that angle, either. 

Everything sort of ties back to that mayoral candidate, his campaign seems to unite all the stories, sort of - only, who's the other candidate?  He seems to be running unopposed, so he's got this in the bag, right?  And why is he getting married in the middle of a campaign, that doesn't make much sense, either, wouldn't he NOT schedule his own wedding during an election year?  Seriously, whoever wrote this crap, did you even think for TWO SECONDS about how people run their lives or function on a daily basis?  No, I'm guessing that you did not.  Anyway, they already have a caterer for the wedding, one of the best, but then they also need a wedding planner, and for some reason, they hire the woman who destroyed that OTHER wedding when she crashed her parachute.  What a terrible decision, and then everyone agonizes over that decision, and whether it's a bad one or a terrible one, for the WHOLE rest of the film.  Do you go to your job every day and second-guess every little thing you do, including whether you should be working there?  For your own sake, I hope you don't.  

That caterer gets set up by his friends on a blind date - with a blind woman.  I honestly can't tell if this is an ironic story point, or a play on the double meanings of some words, or maybe some screenwriter actually thinks that blind people go on "blind" dates.  I guess for blind people, maybe they all are?  Except they're not, because "blind" in that sense means unplanned, with no advance knowledge of the other person, and it's NOT just based on vision.  Sorry, try again.  OK, maybe a point for originality here, because I've never seen a blind person on a blind date in any other movie.  But the blind woman is somehow a photographer, which makes zero sense, and then the movie has to bend over backwards to make up some BS about art installations to explain this point, when, honestly, it would have been much easier to just assign her a different profession.  Right?  

Ugh, this was so painful.  If you stick with this ONE particular story, there's a bit of redemption because the uptight caterer learns (eventually...) to see things from her point of view, like he puts on a blindfold to experience the world as she experiences it, and everything from eating sushi to riding an escalator takes on new meaning for him.  That's kind of adorable but it's LONG slog through crap to get there - and he learns not to leave her written notes, or rearrange her furniture without telling her, which you might think would be patently obvious, only not to him.  WTF?

The other sort-of but-not-really connected story involves the tour guide on a Duck Boat, which is a Boston institution, it's a vehicle that can go on land and also on water, I think after a driving tour through the city it goes out into Boston Harbor for a while, if memory serves.  But he falls in love with a woman on one of her tours, she's got a glass slipper tattoo, but the movie never really says WHY he falls in love with her, he sees dozens of attractive women each day, what EXACTLY about her caught his eye?  And then why can't he move forward in his life until he finds her again?  And then, once he realizes that, why is he not willing to do ANYTHING to find her, except mention her in a local news story? It feels like a lot of story points got skipped here - so once he meets the love of your life, and he'll do anything to find her again, except he won't go on Facebook or social media to track her down, nor will he look for her, he'll just sort of give up?  That doesn't logically follow, not at all. 

These really feel like the rejected ideas from the movie "Boston, I Love You", which was at one time a planned part of the franchise that included "New York, I Love You", "Rio, I Love You" and "Paris, Je t'Aime".  JK.  Screenwriters, I implore you, get out in the real world once in a while, figure out how people talk to each other, learn how things work before you try to stick a bunch of things into a screenplay that just don't work together. 

Also starring Maggie Grace (last seen in "Aftermath"), Diane Keaton (last seen in "I Am Divine"), Todd Stashwick (last seen in "The Way Back" (2020)), Diego Boneta (last seen in "Terminator: Dark Fate"), Jesse McCartney (last seen in "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip"), Dennis Dugan (last seen in "Saving Silverman"), Richard Kline (ditto), Chandra West (last seen in "White Noise"), Andrew Bachelor (last seen in "When We First Met"), Veronica Ferres (last seen in "The Comedian"), Elle King, Melinda Hill, William Xifaras, Caroline Portu, Ava Gaudet (last seen in "I Care a Lot"), Abbey Dubin, Rob Norton, Libby Collins, Mark Lainer, Levon Panek, Keaton Simons, Jonathan De Azevedo, Dennis Staroselsky (last seen in "We Don't Belong Here"), Andy Goldenberg, Tarek Moussa, Billy Concha (last seen in "Spenser Confidential"), Natalia K. Grace, Becky Bass, JinJoo Lee, Gail Bennington, Rachel Wirtz, Paul Melendy, Pesach. 

RATING: 3 out of 10 street musicians who immediately all know how to play together, in the same key, without having one rehearsal together.  

House of Gucci

Year 14, Day 55 - 2/24/22 - Movie #4,057

BEFORE: Immediately after I posted last night, I saw it, the way I could drop this one into the romance chain NOW, not next year, because TWO actors can carry over from "Their Finest", that's Jack Huston AND Jeremy Irons.  And one of them will also be here again tomorrow, so it's a no-brainer, I'll just watch "House of Gucci" on the big screen tonight.  Provided, of course, that it's not a big crowd, if it's like most of the other award-qualifying guild screenings this month, there may only be two or three people in the theater, and I can manage the screening from within. I'll have to drop out every half hour or so to make sure there are no emergencies going on, but that's no big deal, unless I step out during the big plot twist scene, assuming there is one. Does this film qualify as a romance, though?  That's what I'm hoping. "Cyrano", for sure, but this one?  

THE PLOT: When Patrizia Reggiani, an outsider from humble beginnings, marries into the Gucci family, her unbridled ambition begins to unravel their legacy and triggers a reckless spiral of betrayal, decadence, revenge, and ultimately...murder. 

AFTER: SPOILER ALERT - details ahead from a film that is STILL in theaters, and not streaming anywhere - except I think you can rent it on Amazon for $5.99, but why would you? 

Well, I feel I needed to start SOMEWHERE if I was going to get to some more Oscar-nominated films before the Academy Awards are given out on March 27 - my romance chain's now going to take me to March 16, leaving me with just 11 days to catch some relevant films - and the only one I know for sure I can squeeze in would be "Free Guy", nominated for Best Visual Effects.  After that I was planning to link to some Nicolas Cage movies, because he got shut out in January when I ran out of room, and I just know he's been disappointed about that. So, Oscar nominees or Nic Cage movies?  That's the dilemma. As things stand right now, I've only seen ONE film nominated for Best Picture - "Dune" - but if I do watch "Free Guy", I'll have seen FOUR of the five nominees for Best Visual Effects, that's not bad.  And watching "House of Gucci" today means I've seen THREE nominees in the category of Best Makeup and Hairstyling - because I've seen "Dune" and "Coming 2 America", also. Watch, now either "Cruella" or "The Eyes of Tammy Faye" will win in that category.  But perhaps "House of Gucci" SHOULD win for Best Makeup, as somebody made Jared Leto look like a middle-aged, balding Italian man!  If somebody can win an Oscar for making Christian Bale look like Dick Cheney, then "House of Gucci" should also be a LOCK!  You heard it here first, I hope.

The thing is, maybe I should have taken more time to watch movies at work - the theater where I work part-time has run "Belfast" twice and "Licorice Pizza" at least five times, and I worked those screenings - but it's tough to manage the theater if I'm watching the movie, and it's tough to watch the movie if I'm managing the theater, I'm caught in a quandary, except tonight I made an exception. The question becomes, was it worth it?  

Yes, on the romance front, at least - the first half hour of this film shows how Maurizio Gucci, the wannabe lawyer and non-heir to the Gucci fashion empire met and fell in love with Patrizia Reggiani, you know, of the truck-driving Reggianis.  Maurizio's father, Rodolfo, was convinced Patrizia was a gold-digger, that she tried to entrap Maurizio and only married him for his money.  This film is a bit ambiguous on this point, she's shown following him and "accidentally" bumping into him in a library after they danced at a party - but when they got engaged, he had left his father's home and had no money, and worked for HER father washing trucks.  Here's the weird part, as played by Adam Driver here, he seemed HAPPY when he was washing those trucks and married to Patrizia with nearly nothing.  This fact becomes ironic later, when he's deep into the fashion industry, has millions to burn, and seems quite miserable.  

The half-hour of romance in this film is followed, unfortunately, by two hours of various people trying to gain or regain control of the Gucci empire.  After Rodolfo (god damn it, but Jeremy Irons would make a GREAT John Waters in a bio-pic, I'm certain of it) kicks out Maurizio, he and his brother Aldo Gucci each control 50% of the company, however Aldo wants to bring his nephew Maurizio back in, figuring with his law degree and truck-washing experience, he'll be an asset to the company, somehow.  Aldo also believes his own son, Paolo, is a complete idiot with no eye for fashion - Paolo, shut out by his own father, turns to Rodolfo, who, it turns out, ALSO believes Paolo is a complete idiot with no eye for fashion. Great minds think alike, I guess. But what I just typed out in five minutes takes about an hour to play out on the screen.

With the help of a TV psychic named Pina, Patrizia encourages Maurizio to rise within the ranks of Gucci - and with Patrizia's help and encouragement, he actually starts to get somewhere.  The couple moves to New York and has a child, and with the help of the baby granddaughter, they reconcile with Rodolfo, and Maurizio's back in his father's will, just in time.  One problem, though, it seems Rodolfo forgot to sign the will before he croaked, if only there were someone around, on hand, close by, who knew how to forge a signature...

Patrizia and her psychic pal continue to manipulate things at the House of Gucci, behind the scenes. Paolo obtains proof that his father, Aldo, has been cheating on his taxes - he trades this information to Patrizia for a promise that he can design his own fashion line.  She makes this deal without telling Maurizio first, but then he's got the evidence he needs to send Aldo to jail for a while.  Then Patrizia lies to the Italian police and says he's got no right to use the Gucci name or trademarks, and this gets his whole fashion show shut down. Next the tax police come to arrest Maurizio, something about a forged signature - but he escapes on motorcycle to St. Moritz in Switzerland, where he's got another house.  His wife and daughter join him for the holidays, but when they come, he's got a few friends over, including an old girlfriend, and jealousy starts to drive a wedge between them.  

Before long, Maurizio's sending Patrizia and their daughter back to Milan, because he's got affairs to take care of.  Sorry, that's AN affair that he wants to take care of, and honestly, by that time Patrizia's not much fun any more, you have to admit.  He'd rather spend his days skiing the slopes with his new girlfriend, but remember, he's rich now, and miserable, it's not like the old days when he was poor, happy and washing trucks. Hmm, what are we, the great non-rich audience supposed to learn from this?  Success and fame and fortune only bring you down, right?  You'll spend all your time and money chasing expensive artworks, luxurious cars and very swanky real estate, but you simply will NOT be happy. Look, just trust me on this, OK? You migh think, if Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos can't stay married and happy, what chance do the regular folk have?  That's actually backwards thinking, you probably have a BETTER chance of being happy then they do, remember, money can't buy love or happiness, it can only rent it. 

Time moves on, Maurizio files for a divorce and offers Patrizia a settlement, only she's not the settling kind. And this qualifies their story for inclusion here also, because I do try to look at love from all angles, even break-ups and divorce, those are part of love too.  Maurizio hires designer Tom Ford to fill the company with all kinds of new ideas, meanwhile Patrizia hires a couple of hit-men to fill her ex-husband with all kinds of bullets. Ah, romance. 

It's hard to say where things went wrong, but I guess nothing last forever - Gucci as a brand is still around, but nobody NAMED Gucci leads the company any more - Aldo and Paolo sold their shares, then died in the 1990's, and every other Gucci is either dead or in prison.  Ultimately it's a sad tale, I suppose - and no amount of phony Italian accents is going to make up for that fact, no matter how comical they are. I could only think of Super Mario Bros. when I heard some of the abysmal fake accents throughout this film, I kept thinking Adam Driver would shout out, "It's a-me, Maurizio!"

Gah, how does one score something like this?  Because this was directed by Ridley Scott, and it's a serious drama that somebody took very seriously at some point, seriously.  But it quickly devolves into caricature and black comedy, of a sort anyway, and thus the end result is very, very difficult to take seriously, perhaps.  I'm not saying this is a comedy, no way, it's a true story and a very sad one in parts, NOT a comedy, but somehow...comic?  Is that possible?  The IMDB Trivia section mentions that the acting style here resembles that of the Commedia dell'arte, an Italian comedic theater style know for using exaggeration and sharply-drawn character types that traditionally made fun of the upper class, and honestly, that's probably the best explanation you're going to get about the WHY of this whole movie. 

If I hadn't watched this film tonight, I'm sure there would have been other opportunities - I've got a couple of other Adam Driver films on my list, like "Annette" and "The Last Duel".  That's the great thing about my linking system, hope always springs eternal and I can almost believe that I'll get to everything, someday, somehow - but I think I made the right call in knocking this one out tonight.  Let's hope so, anyway. 

Also starring Lady Gaga (last seen in "The Accidental President"), Adam Driver (last seen in "The Dead Don't Die"), Al Pacino (last seen in "Spielberg"), Jared Leto (last seen in "Lord of War"), Salma Hayek (last seen in "Like a Boss"), Alexia Murray, Vincent Riotta (last seen in "Third Person"), Gaetano Bruno, Camille Cottin (last seen in "Allied"), Youssef Kerkour (last seen in "Lost in London"), Reeve Carney, Florence Andrews, Mehdi Nebbou (last seen in "Body of Lies"), Miloud Mourad Benamara, Andrea Piedimonte Bodini (last seen in "All the Money in the World"), Vincenzo Tanassi, Maura Lamantia, Mia McGovern Zaini, Cielia Rossi Marcelli, Pietro Ragusa, Madalina Ghenea (last seen in "Youth"), Philippe Boa, Ira Fronten, Antonello Annunziata, Paolo De Giorgio, Catherine Walker (last seen in "Leap Year"), Martino Palmisano, 

RATING: 5 out of 10 confiscated knockoff handbags

Their Finest

Year 14, Day 54 - 2/23/22 - Movie #4,056

BEFORE: For the past week, it's kind of like I had a romance-based time machine, one that's firmly planted in the U.K., and can move through time, but not space. So I've been bouncing back and forth between the decades of the 1800s and 1900s, starting with a focus on British literature, but now I'm ending with World War II, the greatest generation, the war to end all wars that weren't ended by the last war to end all wars.  Umm, except for the wars that came later, of course, and now there seems to be a new one brewing in Ukraine, so this is timely perhaps.  This is what we want to avoid, a war that starts in one country and then spreads across the globe - right?  We don't want war, even though now it seems that one of our two major political parties in the U.S. finds themselves supporting Putin, a mad dictator, just because Trump kind of admires him?  That's absolutely bonkers, it's like what if after Germany's invasion of Poland, Herbert Hoover spoke to the press and said, "You know, this Hitler chap's not so bad, I like the cut of his jib. We should let him invade any country he wants to in Europe, because he's very clever."  That would have been madness, right?  My point. 

Eddie Marsan carries over from "Happy-Go-Lucky". 

THE PLOT: A former secretary, newly appointed as a scriptwriter for propaganda films, joins the cast and crew of a major production while the Blitz rages around them. 

AFTER: There was this thing back in World War II called the Blitz, it was a massive bombing campaign where Germany sent planes over to London, and it affected the whole way of life in London.  And this was right around the time of the Dunkirk retreat, where hundreds of thousands of British soldiers were evacuated from France across the Channel, many by civilian boats.  We've covered that event here in this space before, several times even. The time period for Dunkirk was late May/early June in 1940, so the U.S. was NOT part of the war effort at that time. (Pearl Harbor was a year and a half down the road.). But Brits were going through rationing, forced blackouts and SO much bombing, plus the angst of losing friends and relatives, combined with the fear of losing one's own life to a random bomb from the sky or a collapsing building. (As they said in "The Suicide Squad", try not to get too attached here.)

From the Brits' point of view, it was absolutely vital to get the Americans involved in the war, and they were RIGHT, only they didn't really know that for sure at the time.  Because here's the funny thing, and perhaps this is relevant for Putin and today's news - Hitler wasn't going to stop with Poland, and he wasn't going to stop with France.  He had a vision board, and it was basically a map of Europe with every country's name crossed out and Germany (sorry, Deutschland) written over it. But how to get the Yanks on board, prior to the Japanese bombing Hawaii?  Somebody figured out that Americans LOVE movies (it's true), so why not channel their efforts into making movies that would show the devastation of the Blitz & Dunkirk, portray Nazis as villains and Americans as saviors/heroes, and also follow that blessed six-act structure and have an uplifiting ending at the same time?  Sounds crazy, but it just might work. 

Catrin Cole is a secretary "married" to an artist, one who served in the Spanish War so he's exempt from being called up for further military duty.  Money's tight, and she's eager to get out of the house, so even though it calls her "husband's" masculinity into question, she takes a job writing propaganda screenplays for the Ministry of War.  She's paired with Tom Buckley, a chap with specs who knows the Hollywood formula, and how to put it to use.  If you want to know how we got to the point where a movie can say "Based on a true story" and still change reality around before it hits the screen, it's all thanks to guys like Buckley.  Once you know the proper beats that a story needs to hit, it's just like MadLibs or plugging new names into the formula, and boom, you've got a hit movie. Maybe. 

Catrin tracks down twin English girls who "borrowed" their father's boat while he was drunk, in order to sail over and rescue British soldiers at Dunkirk, only the engine gave out, and they had to be towed back by a tugboat, but technically they DID rescue a couple soldiers and a dog, they just needed a little help.  Once the screenwriters get a hold of their story, their drunk father becomes a non-abusive Uncle who fell asleep on the boat somehow, and woke up halfway to Dunkirk with his nieces piloting the craft, and one of the soldiers they rescue is an American fighter pilot who joined the war early and falls in love with one of the sisters, even though she's promised to the other soldier.  Because, as I've seen several times this week, what's a movie without a love triangle of some kind?  By the time the writers are done fixing the story - the British government won't even let the boat's engine fail, because that messes with the image of British engineering being reliable - the only true part of the story that remains is the sisters' first names. 

Catrin earns enough money to pay the rent, and her "husband" gives up his air raid warden duties to take a commission documenting the bomb damage to the northern provinces, and all this time apart is probably not good for the relationship, meanwhile Catrin's spending more and more time with Buckley, who counts on her to write the "slop", his term for the dialogue from the female characters. This is not as condescending as it sounds, except for the fact that it is. As the shooting of the Dunkirk movie begins, Catrin also has to convince an older, pre-washed up actor to take the younger American pilot hero under his wing, because it turns out he can't act at all. The shoot runs long, rewrites are needed, and Catrin misses her husband's gallery exhibition in London, then finally makes it back home, only later than expected, what could possibly go wrong with that?  Umm, love triangle resolved, I guess? Except that it's never over. 

With no clear road ahead of her, Catrin doesn't know where to turn - she's offered more work writing screenplays, and since she bonded with that older actor, he wants her to keep writing parts for him, but her heart's not in it - not until she goes to a cinema and watches the Dunkirk movie with a crowd.  Screw the Americans, the film is a hit with British audiences, and both she and they find it very inspirational.  OK, a bit of poetic license here, because I've always found that after working on a film's production, I can sort of no longer see it as a regular audience member would, I'm usually just too close to it. I can TRY to enjoy it in the cinema like any other film, but I really can't. So there's that.  

I'm off tonight to work at a red carpet screening of "Cyrano", which was directed by Joe Wright, who also directed "The Darkest Hour", which was also about Dunkirk.  That's a bit weird, but the connections are where you find them, I guess. "Cyrano" is also a romance story, but I checked the cast list, there's no way for me to connect that film into my chain - so for now, I'm still keeping my recreational movie watching habit separate from my work in a movie theater.  It's not really a good place for me to watch movies, anyway, unless I come in on my day off and sneak into a show.  Thursday I'm working a screening of "House of Gucci", starring Jack Huston, who is in "Their Finest", but even if I watch that one, there's still no way to re-connect, and I don't want to break the chain. So I'm sticking with the plan and I'm therefore not tempted to watch movies while at work, movies are still for late nights at home.  I'll have to just put "Cyrano" and "House of Gucci" on my list and get to them when I get to them.

Also starring Gemma Arterton (last seen in "RocknRolla"), Sam Claflin (last seen in "Charlie's Angels" (2019)), Richard E. Grant (last seen in "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker"), Henry Goodman (last seen in "Hunter Killer"), Rachael Stirling (last seen in "The Young Victoria"), Jack Huston (last seen in "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse"), Bill Nighy (last seen in "The Bookshop"), Jeremy Irons (last seen in "Red Sparrow"), Jake Lacy (last seen in "Ode to Joy"), Amanda Root (last seen in "The Iron Lady"), Patrick Gibson (last seen in "Tolkien"), Darren Clarke, Ed Birch (last seen in "Gunpowder Milkshake"), Lissa Evans, Gaby Chiappe, Amanda Fairbank-Hynes (last seen in "An Education"), Lily Knight, Francesca Knight, Jay Simpson (last seen in "Rush" (2013)), Paul Ritter (last seen in "Greed"), Claudia Jessie, Stephanie Hyam (last seen in "Stan & Ollie"), Richard Syms (last seen in "Alice Through the Looking Glass"), Natalia Ryumina, Helen McCrory (last seen in "A Little Chaos"), Michael Marcus (last seen in "The Invisible Woman"), Rebecca Saire, Hubert Burton

RATING: 5 out of 10 Underground stations

Happy-Go-Lucky

Year 14, Day 53 - 2/22/22 - Movie #4,055

BEFORE: Sally Hawkins carries over from "An Education".  I was going to have three Sally Hawkins films here, because three-in-a-row seems to be the semi-regular pattern this month, but that middle film was called "Never Let Me Go" and the IMDB classified it as both a romance and a sci-fi film, how does THAT work?  A little peek into the synopsis suggested it was a dark, dystopian film set in an alternate future, and I think that just might break up the rhythm I've got going, romance or not - so I've tabled that film for later, it might link up with "Promising Young Woman" or "tick...tick...Boom!" in the future, there's no real way to predict that.  But I do get the vibe that maybe that film doesn't belong in February, so it's been dropped, and the chain's just going to close around it.  (It's a shame, there were TWO links on either side of it, but it's not meant to be.  These things happen for a reason, and it sometimes means that film will be a vital link that's needed later on.)

THE PLOT: A look at a few chapters in the life of Poppy, a cheery, colorful North London schoolteacher whose optimism tends to exasperate those around her. 

AFTER: Today marks a full week spent on films set in the U.K. - I think I've got one more tomorrow which is set during World War II, and that will be followed by a couple more German-based films, that should be a transition that makes a bit of sense. 

This one took its time getting to the romance part, but eventually it got there.  Thank God - I mean, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have a film in February with a dearth of romance, I've been known to cheat in October to allow the chain to not be broken, I've mixed in superhero films or documentaries or the weird police film "Filth" just to keep the chain alive.  Whatever doesn't break the chain, or whatever gets you through the night, it's all right, it's all right. (Still, a dystopian film about cloning is perhaps better left out.)

There's a lot here to keep us busy until the romance comes - Poppy is a primary school teacher, she also parties a lot with her friends on the weekends, and after her bike gets stolen, she starts taking driving lessons, finally, at the age of 30.  I suppose I'm supposed to consider this character as being in a state of arrested development, because in many ways she just doesn't have her shite together, but it doesn't seem to bother her.  I don't drive, I've never owned a car, so what? I live in New York City, I don't need to drive if my wife does, plus there's this thing called the subway (I think they call it "the tube" in London).  Plus Poppy does trampoline workouts, dance class, and also there's chiropractic sessions, book-stores to shop at, and once in a while, a homeless person to try to rescue.  OK, so she's a good person, her heart's in the right place, but engaging with a street person who's mentally unstable has a lot of potential for disaster. 

Poppy's younger sister is pregnant, and on a visit to her place in Southend, Poppy is urged to "take life seriously" and not go drinking every night, but that's part of London culture, isn't it?  Heading out to the pub each night for a couple pints?  At least, it used to be, God knows what it's like now after COVID - I've only been to a bar twice in the last year, with my friend Victoria, who reminds me a bit of Poppy.  She's a librarian, never been married, though I've seen her go through several relationships in the years I've known her, and she's usually upbeat and personable, despite it all. Optimism will get you through it, I suppose, but then you never really know anybody's personal pain or how they're dealing with it.  

Poppy's got good instincts when it comes to people, she takes notice when one of her young students is bullying others, and she steps in to talk to him about it, assuming that means there's trouble at home.  Calling in a social worker for a chat was the right call, and as a bonus, the social worker is a big, not unattractive guy who asks for her number.  Right, so that's all sorted out then, isn't it?  

Well, not quite, there's the matter of the driving instructor, Scott, who might have a thing for her, one day she sees him near her flat and so he might be keeping tabs on her.  Poppy had jokingly told him she was a lesbian, and her roommate was her partner - then later on she introduces Scott to her new boyfriend, the social worker.  Yeah, Scott doesn't take this well, like maybe he could accept her as a lesbian, that's one reason why they didn't connect - but he simply can't accept her as a straight woman, because that would mean that HE was at fault for not connecting.  But, Scott's also something of a racist and a conspiracy nut, and really, he was ahead of his time, since this film came out in 2008.  Scott would be a QAnon or Trump fanatic these days, if he also weren't so anti-American.  One day he finally gets frustrated with Poppy just because she's so all over the place, yet always cheery - but really, is his problem with Poppy or with himself? Sometimes the only thing you can do is cut that kind of person right out of your life, I guess. 

(Besides, Scott's wrong about the depth of the Washington Monument, it's only 37 feet deep underground, not 111 - so the total height does NOT add up to 666 feet, sorry.  But this is an indication of how hard it is for conspiracy theorists to be proven wrong, because while they SAY they do their own research on things, they very rarely do.  Just saying.)

Plus, come on, how good of a driving instructor is Scott, anyway - he's teaching her to drive on the left side of the road!  That seems quite dangerous!  Oh, right, it's all backwards in the U.K., isn't it?  The steering wheel's on the right side of the car and the roundabouts go anti-clockwise or something. I've never been there but I think I'd probably find it all quite confusing.  Maybe someday I'll go and it will all feel very weird. 

Also starring Eddie Marsan (last seen in "Filth"), Alexis Zegerman, Andrea Riseborough (last seen in "W.E."), Sinead Matthews (last seen in "Nanny McPhee Returns"), Nonso Anozie (ditto), Kate O'Flynn (last seen in "Bridget Jones's Baby"), Sara Niles, Joseph Kloska, Sylvestra Le Touzel (last seen in "The Death of Stalin"), Karina Fernandez (last seen in "The Sense of an Ending"), Oliver Maltman (ditto), Stanley Townsend (last seen in "The Current War: Director's Cut"), Samuel Roukin (last seen in "Bright Star"), Caroline Martin, Trevor Cooper (last seen in "Wuthering Heights" (1992)), Jack MacGeachin, Charlie Duffield, Ayotunde Williams.

RATING: 6 out of 10 Brits learning the flamenco

An Education

Year 14, Day 52 - 2/21/22 - Movie #4,054

BEFORE: Emma Thompson carries over from "Effie Gray" and so does the plot point of an older man dating a younger woman - I've just moved about a century forward in time, though, and we're still in the U.K. tonight.  I know, I know, it's President's Day, but just like Black History, it's a holiday that I'm not usually able to celebrate with movies, because I'm always so busy covering the romance beat in February.  OK, so who was President during the last few romance films?  For "Mansfield Park" it was probably James Madison, "An Ideal Husband" was first staged during the Grover Cleveland era (2nd term), "Wuthering Heights" came out during the term of James Polk, and "Effie Gray" got married to John Ruskin around the same time, 1847-48. 

"Carrington" covered the years 1915 to 1932, so that's Wilson, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. 

So tonight I'm rocketing forward into the Kennedy years, namely 1961. Yeah, that tracks. Still, a bit before my time, but at least in the decade I was born. 

THE PLOT: A coming-of-age story about a teenage girl in 1960s suburban London, and how her life changes with the arrival of a playboy nearly twice her age. 

AFTER: OK, for a long while I thought that maybe, just maybe, I'd finally found a film this year with two British people in a relationship who could land on the same page.  But no, that just wouldn't be an interesting, dramatic film, now would it?  Think about it - would you go to see a movie about a couple that meets cute, starts dating, gets married and has absolutely no relationship problems or issues to resolve at all?  You'd be asleep before the movie was half over - unfortunately conflict is a key element in relationship movies.  Without it, the filmmakers would just be showing the most boring aspects of love.  

Of course, with an older man trying to date a girl who's still in high school, there's your conflict, right?  Even if these crazy kids can make things work out, then they still have to face society, what with her being 17 and him being, what, 34? 35?  I don't know that the film ever landed on a number here - the fact that he's Jewish and a music lover, geez, that came out in their first conversation.  David also seems to know a lot about art, and he and his friends meet in fancy restaurants, smoke cigarettes and discuss French films, and young Jenny desperately wants to be part of that world.  If only she didn't have to, you know, go to HIGH SCHOOL every day and try to pass her exams and get into Oxford.  

Oh, yeah, there's the small matter of Jenny's parents - her father's the one pushing her to play an instrument, have a hobby, anything that will help with the Oxford application.  But once Jenny's seen the larger world that's out there, and it's one of classical music concerts, art auctions and romantic suppers, how can she possibly concentrate on studying?  And David's such a smooth talker that he somehow manages to not only take Jenny on a date, but he plans an overnight trip, ostensibly to Oxford so that Jenny can visit the college, meet C.S. Lewis and maybe get her foot in the door there?  Of course, this is all a ruse just so David can take a 16-year old girl (!!) on an overnight trip. 

Yeah, the red flags are there, but Jenny doesn't seem to want to notice.  David's idea of a career in "real estate" involves moving black families into neighborhoods where they're not wanted.  He claims to be doing this for the benefit of equality and fair housing, but couldn't that also be seen as de-gentrification?  And, umm, how does he benefit, who's paying him to do that?  David and his friend Danny also believe in searching old ladies' homes for valuable pieces of art and then "re-locating" that art, aka stealing it. And if he's not honest about what he does for a living, what else isn't he being honest about, hmmm?  

Jenny's formal education starts to take a back seat when thoughts of marriage to David arise - she even tells off her teachers, and surprisingly, her parents seem just as happy about her marrying someone who's well-off as they were about her going to Oxford?  Well, OK, then, I guess there's no need for university if you can just get married!  The title of the film here seems doubly ironic, because at the same time Jenny is ignoring her school education, she seems to be gaining an education in the way the world works, followed by an education on relationships, and how some men will take advantage of the more naive, younger women.  I guess every girl's got to find that out the hard way?  

Eventually, it's Jenny's 17th birthday, and I guess that makes her legally an adult?  It also means a trip to Paris with David, and they finally consummate the relationship, but not long after, she finds out that the emphasis should really have been on the "CON" part.  Damn, if only she hadn't dropped out of school and told off every single one of her teachers...

Carey Mulligan was 22 years old when this was filmed (and a year or two older when it was released), but she sure looked 16, her character's age for most of the film.  This was four years after she was in "Pride & Prejudice" and four years before she was in "The Great Gatsby", if that helps.  Emma Thompson only worked one day of the shoot, her headmistress character was a small role but an important one - I guess maybe she got some career advice from Bruce Willis?  This film spent a few years on that list of "1,001 Movies to See Before You Die", but at some point it was removed to make room for newer, better (?) movies. I'd avoided it for so long that when I first put it on my list, it was on Netflix, and it scrolled off of that service, too, at some time. It's not really streaming anywhere for free now, so I had to rent it from iTunes. C'est la vie. 

Here's something I've never understood, and maybe I never well - the old British money system.  I think I understand pounds, but in this movie they also mention bobs, quids and guineas.  What the F?  How many bobs in a guinea?  How many pounds in a quid, or is it quids in a pound?  OK, maybe the U.S. system is just as confusing if you didn't grow up with nickels and dimes, but still, how the hell did anybody in the U.K. understand how much things cost?  It's just a very weird thing, right? 

Also starring Carey Mulligan (last seen in "Mudbound"), Peter Sarsgaard (last seen in "Shattered Glass"), Dominic Cooper (last seen in "The Duchess"), Rosamund Pike (last seen in "I Care a Lot"), Alfred Molina (last seen in "Spider-Man: No Way Home"), Cara Seymour (last seen in "Birth"), Olivia Williams (last seen in "Victoria & Abdul"), Sally Hawkins (last seen in "Godzilla: King of the Monsters"), Matthew Beard (last seen in "Johnny English Strikes Again"), Ellie Kendrick, Amanda Fairbank-Hynes (last seen in "Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy"), Luis Soto, James Norton (last seen in "Hampstead").

RATING: 5 out of 10 bottles of Chanel perfume

Effie Gray

Year 14, Day 51 - 2/20/22 - Movie #4,053

BEFORE: I guess it's a bit of a strange phenomenon, that when you link movies the way I do (and honestly, why would you?) there are groupings and themes that sort of develop organically.  I think that's because actors tend to stay in their lanes, they each tend to make a certain kind of movie, then on top of that I tend to stick in one genre, romance in the month of February, for example, and those things together create kind of a "perfect storm", where seemingly by chance I start to see the same sort of thing, over and over.  What I'm saying is, I appear to be stuck in some kind of rut again.  Or maybe it's a groove, I'm not sure - but the loose theme that developed this past week is "British couples who can't QUITE get themselves on the same page".  It's fine, I know this theme can't last forever - plus a film where a couple exists in perfect balance would be rather boring, I realize.  So the struggles will continue until the chain decides that it's shown me enough of this topic, and something else will develop.  Looks like there will be some World War II/German-themed films coming up next week, so there's that. 

Emma Thompson carries over from "Carrington". Believe it or not, I'm only about halfway through this year's romance chain, it's going to spill over into March, that was always part of the plan, because that will reduce the number of romance films on the list by about half, then I can start building it up again for next year. But I think slowly I'm going to wean myself off of this topic, the intensity level may sort of dissipate by mid-March, I think. 

THE PLOT: A look at the scandalous love triangle between Victorian art critic John Ruskin, his teenage bride Euphemia "Effie" Gray and pre-Raphaelite painter John Everett Millais. 

AFTER: This one's not based on a novel by Oscar Wilde, or one of the Brontes, it's based on a true story, with a screenplay by Emma Thompson.  (Side note: by sheer coincidence, I worked at a NYC screening of "Belfast" last night, which was directed by Emma's ex-husband, Kenneth Branagh. He attended the screening and did a Q&A session after the film, I got to cue him to go on stage, which was pretty cool. Emma is now married to Greg Wise, who also appears in this film.)

Yes, this fits right in with my theme, as teen Effie Gray gets married to John Ruskin, an older art critic - the film doesn't really get into how they met, or how long they dated, or how the marriage came about.  All that might have been very interesting, but I guess we'll never know. The film merely states that Ruskin visited the place where his grandfather lived, and met Effie there - which is not quite true. In reality, Ruskin and his teen bride got married in a Scottish home called Bowerswell, which is where Ruskin's paternal grandparents lived, and Ruskin's mother lived there for a while and witnessed three family members die, so that's why she didn't want to return there to attend the wedding.  Another truth is that Ruskin wrote a fantasy novel for Effie when she was 12 and he was 21, and then the marriage was arranged by her family several years later.  As we've seen before this week, this happened back then when a poorer woman was trying to rise in society, it was an economic and socially acceptable trade-off, but these days we might have another word for this. 

Once again, as in "Carrington", there seems to be some sort of reason why the two people don't seem to connect, sexually.  It's not stated here, of course, but perhaps John Ruskin didn't really want a wife, maybe he wanted a husband.  Was that the problem?  Either way, he's not interested in her in that way, he seems to only want to get married because that's what was done, maybe he was trying to please his parents or just following the trends of society, but clearly he's not very good at it, for whatever reason.  Effie's opinions don't really matter, she's got no say in their traveling plans or the way that the household is run - living under the same roof with your husband's parents is a bad idea all around, they've got their own way of doing things, the servants take care of the chores, and Effie is told to leave her husband alone when he's writing, and also when he's not.  Maybe she's just plain bored.  Also, maybe her mother-in-law is trying to poison her, this is a bit unclear though.

A trip to Venice brings some joy when Effie finally has a chance to socialize with other people, however the attention of a young Italian man brings her a little too close to cheating on her husband, whose idea of a vacation is to spend it by himself, writing about how the city was once like a beautiful woman, but now is essentially a whore.  Perhaps this also reflects how he feels about his wife.  Upon their return to England, Effie suffers from a string of minor "nervous ailments" and takes to bed again - because there's nothing more boring in a film then watching someone sleep their days away.  The sole bit of wisdom comes from the doctor, whose advice is sought when Effie can't seem to drag herself out of bed.  The doctor suggests some fresh air, and maybe even a little bit of love and attention, but then of course his advice just gets ignored, and the Ruskins are probably just going to keep doing what they do.  

Ah, but Ruskin has some inspiration for a trip to Scotland - yeah, that'll fix it, travel to the only place where the weather is even worse than England!  There's a young painter named John Millais who owes Ruskin a portrait, so what better opportunity than to combine the family vacation with the outdoor portrait posing, maybe even a little bit of spear-fishing.  But then Ruskin goes on a side-trip to Edinburgh for a few nights, leaving his young, neglected wife with this rugged, handsome young upstart painter - what could POSSIBLY go wrong? Millais even complains that this just doesn't look right, being left alone with another man's wife, but Ruskin, once again, just acts like he doesn't even care.  After the two people left alone express their love for each other, Millais convinces Effie to find someone she trusts and explore her options for divorce. 

Back in London, Effie enlists her younger sister to go with her to visit Lady Elizabeth, and all the sad truths about the marriage come out - then it's off to a lawyer and a gynecologist to produce legal cause for the annulment of the marriage. Well, I did say we'd be exploring all the ups and downs of relationships this time around, this certainly qualifies.  If you're in a relationship and you don't like where the train is heading, you certainly can't change where the tracks are, so the only thing you can do is get off the damn train and look for another one that IS heading in the direction you want to go. Simple as that - but I don't think this was considered all that socially acceptable back in the 1800's.  This lady had some stones to consult a lawyer on her own and find a legal way out, that's for sure. 

The film doesn't get into the events that came later, but Effie Gray went on to marry Millais, and they had eight children together. Millais went on to become a baronet, which made her a Lady, however her annulment prevented her from attending events where Queen Victoria was present. Ruskin went on to seek another teenage bride, he fell for a girl that he taught drawing to when she was 10 (!!) and tried to marry her when she turned 18 - only that girl wrote to Effie asking about what it was like to be married to Ruskin, and, well, that was the end of that. Revenge is sweet, I suppose. 

Also starring Dakota Fanning (last seen in "Bad Reputation"), Greg Wise (last seen in "Tristram Shandy: A Cock & Bull Story"), Julie Walters (last seen in "Becoming Jane"), David Suchet, Derek Jacobi (last seen in "Nanny McPhee"), Robbie Coltrane (last seen in "The Brothers Bloom"), Claudia Cardinale, James Fox (last seen in "W.E."), Tom Sturridge (last seen in "Velvet Buzzsaw"), Russell Tovey (last seen in "The Good Liar"), Tiger Lily Hutchinson, Riccardo Scamarcio (last seen in "Third Person"), Polly Dartford, Linda Bassett (last seen in "The Reader"), Pip Torrens (last seen in "Darkest Hour"), Nicholas Jones (ditto), Tom Herriott, Sam Churchill, Martin Keatman, Chris Haggart, Alex Dabestani, George Laing, Peter Farr, Nicola Draffan, James Stratton.

RATING: 4 out of 10 Royal Academy members