Movie #25 - Anything for Her

I have a list of prerequisites to be used with any man to whom I am attracted.  (Nearly always, whenever I tell someone this they laugh uproariously.  But when I tell them what the prerequisites are, and why, they agree these are all good points.  Vindicated.)  This list has five items, and not one of them is anything like “Will do anything for me, including breaking the law, breaking me out of prison, or dying”.  But recently, I watched Pour Elle (Anything for Her) and I thought, why not?  Well, a few reasons.  Let’s start with the fact that I could never ask anyone to do any of these things.  But neither did the woman in question.

Anything for Her is the story of a woman wrongfully imprisoned, Lisa (played by Diane Kruger), her husband Julien (Vincent Lindon) and son Oscar (Lancelot Roche).  In prison, with no chance of appeal or release, Lisa is effectively suiciding by not taking medication.  Julien cannot bear to see his wife fading away, and determines to rescue her.  He turns from a mild high school teacher, who looks like your average hot dad, into a brutal thug, who even looks scary.  And all the time I was watching, I was totally on his side.  There are various bits of the bible, and the Book of Common Prayer marriage vows, which indicate a man should love his wife as Christ loved the church - ie, he should die for her (if necessary).  I wonder - frequently, not just from watching this movie - how many people can truly say they would. 

On the other hand, Lisa doesn’t know of his plans until they are underway, mostly because he knows she won’t want to go through with it.  So I’m not sure if he really is being a decent husband or not.  Is allowing your loved one to die, to give up hope, to give up their child, just because they don’t want to cause a fuss, or break the law, any worse than breaking the law and going against their wishes?  Any better? 

Some thoughts, aside from the moral and relationship issues.  The small things can trip you up or save you.  He puts his garbage in a different bin on the morning of the escape - but is seen by the building manager, so the police still find it and all those clues to his plans.  But the escapees pick up hitch-hikers to get to the airport, so are not stopped as they are not a couple with one child.  Julien’s dad finds out what is about to happen, but as he is a man of few words anyway, it is not too hard for him to keep it to himself.  I really feel for the brother, knowing that he is going to lose a member of his family, but can’t do anything about it. 

Children.  They can be so resilient, but also so affected.  Oscar seems to adjust to life without his mum.  But then he starts to shut her out, it becomes just him and his dad.  It takes a long time for him to accept his mother back into his life, back into his circle of family. 

Forensics.  I love watching and reading mysteries.  I’m pretty sure that forensics could have provided some ‘reasonable doubt’ in the mind of a judge or jury in the matter of Lisa’s guilt or innocence.  Blood splatter, and the location of blood on her jacket, would surely indicate that Lisa didn’t murder her boss.  It was so frustrating just watching this, knowing that she was innocent, knowing it was very hard to prove otherwise - and wondering, how would I be in a similar situation?  How far would I be able to go to prove my innocence, and what would I be like if I couldn’t?  And how would those close to me react? 

Today's photo:

My first petunia flower. 

Movie #5

The Bank.  A 2001 Australian film starring David Wenham and Anthony LaPaglia.  I'm a fan of both those actors.  Yet... This movie had been sitting in my "I really should see this" pile for many months (the middle of last year, in fact).  I'd often pick it up, look at the cover, and then think ".... ummmm.... not really in the mood for this now".  But, with all this business of watching different movies, I was right in the zone. 

This is such a clever movie.  Two tragedies, 24 years apart, are the basis for the two plots which tie in so neatly that the ending is so incredibly satisfying.  It is quite sad, but also quite funny - I had one of those 'wake up the neighbourhood' laughs at what I consider the best bit (the dad's revenge).  Having the good guys win, and the bad guys get their comeuppance - really, how good is that?! 

It was very interesting to see this now, as opposed to when it was released.  The main plot is all about predicting market crashes.  Although made in 2001, it's set it October 2002.  Anyone watching it these days would know that yes, there was a big market crash - in September 2001.  Aside from that, though, there are so many issues still in the news today.  Shareholders, accountability of businesses, small business versus the banks, trust, full disclosure, foreign markets, morals, principles, ethics, underdogs - it felt very Australian, yet rather global too.

Visually and aurally this is also well done.  The camera work is noticeably good.  The shots of the Yarra, the lights from the bridge... My favourite visual part was a shot from above.  David Wenham's character is trying to decide if he's a good guy or a corporate player, and leaves the bank to have a walk and a think.  It's Melbourne, so it's just been raining, the ground is wet.  We see him walking over these repetitive pavers, and the reflection of the bank in the water on the ground follows him.  Aurally, the music is very well done, at least for the most part (a little bit of cliche ruined a moment for me).  I wasn't surprised to see at the end several big Australian music names.  As well as several big acting names, of course.  

Movie #2

The second movie I picked up last Tuesday was Doubt, which I watched last night.  My brain has been chasing itself in circles all day as a consequence.  (It was also rather reminiscent of a board game I played recently, called 'Scruples' - in this morally grey situation, what would you do?). 

Although it is set in the early 1960s, the situation is not exclusive to that time - as Meryl Streep says, "There is nothing new under the sun".  People are still doubting the character of others, children are still bullying each other, we are still eating the forbidden fruit.  And then lying about it.

However, actions speak louder than words.  In the Catholic parochial school context of the movie, isn't it better to be kind, as Sister James is to all her students (and everyone, for that matter), and as Father Flynn is towards Donald Miller?  Donald speaks highly of Father Flynn, and it is clear the priest is the only one who makes this 12-yr-old black gay boy feel like a worthy human being.

At this point in my musings, I think Sister Aloysius must have it wrong, she must be the dragon in all this (and Meryl Streep does Dragon Lady so fabulously well).  Yet.  No matter how much we hope to be living in a world of rainbows and soft kittens, the reality is grittier.  Not everyone adheres to the same rules.  Some people think the rules are more like guidelines.  Humans are human, flawed, imperfect.  And as a principal of a school, Sister Aloysius has a duty of care towards the children.  If she is too quick to believe the explanation of a suspected misdeed, she might be turning her back on the welfare of a child.  We'd all like our parish priests to be saint-like, but what if that's not the case?  What if there was more to the explanation, more that wouldn't be looked upon kindly, that would be evidence of wrong-doing?  Surely, then, Sister Aloysius is in the right...?  Better to have a priest of suspect morals removed, rather than always be wondering if there's something wrong and damaging going on behind closed doors.  In the end, though, it is evident she is wracked with doubts, the poison of leading a suspicious life.

The contrasts in this film I find interesting.  The suspected priest acts always in a Christian manner (kind, loving, protecting); the nun set on proving his guilt 'steps away from God in the pursuit of wrongdoing' (a line said near the beginning and repeated at the end of the movie), and she even lies - an admission the naive Sister James finds horrifying.  The nuns eat in silence; the men eat merrily, joking and laughing.  Dragon lady forbids ball point pens ("Every easy choice today has its consequence tomorrow"); Father Flynn wants a secular song included in the Christmas pageant - maybe Frosty the Snowman (gold!).

What would I want, if I were a parent of a child in this school?  Someone suspicious and fear-inspiring, who will nevertheless be on the lookout for anything harmful to my child?  Or someone who will act with kindness, maybe 'take a special interest'? Not having any children, that's really a hypothetical situation.  I know that children need boundaries and structure; I know that children need kindness.