© The Financial Times Ltd 2016
FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
The Financial Times and its journalism are subject to a self-regulation regime under the FT Editorial Code of Practice.
September 1, 2010 5:47 pm
|Ashley Chin in ‘Cherry Tree Lane’|
British cinema – dead or alive? After the abolition of the Film Council, the nation’s late-mourned funding body, doomsayers are already crying “RIP” over independent moviemaking. Yet two films this week are as good as anything from the UK this year. Last products of the old order? Or first signs of life in the new?
The voice continues with its litanies, yet also adds fillips of insight: pithinesses about memory, subjectivity, truth, illusion. Finally – weathered and a little worn like real train travellers – we tumble into a present bright and lurid with stillness. A ruined hotel. A lake as big as a sea. And a death, never explained but by now as momentous to us, and as engulfing, as a black hole. What begins as a travelogue with philosophical trimmings turns into a puzzle picture worthy of Resnais or Antonioni.
Filmmaker Paul Andrew Williams won praise and prizes with his first film, London to Brighton
, a stylishly visceral thriller. Now comes Cherry Tree Lane, (
The medium-posh couple inside (Rachael Blake and Tom Butcher) bickering through a white-tablecloth dinner are stormed by three youths. They are bound, gagged and threatened with a knife. For an hour the tension tightens, fear alternating with bleak comedy. “Are you foreign? Half these films are foreign,” says the gang’s black leader (Jumayn Hunter), scanning the DVDs and flipping away the rejects in a balletic slow motion of the hand.
What do these youths want? There is time for them to appraise the wife as sex-prey: “You’re not so old.” Time for two girlfriends and a little schoolboy (one girl’s brother) to arrive and virtually settle in. The grim comedy keeps coming and the laughter keeps dying in our throats. The film is very frightening, with an ending cathartic and unexpected, and a last shot whose acidic irony is worthy of Graham Greene.
With Certified Copy (
Philosophising on the theme of originals against copies – the subject of Shimell’s book – Kiarostami wonders how far a pretend intimacy can be pushed before it becomes, after a fashion, actual. The couple’s imagination breeds scenes from a fantasised past. The film, like the hero, ends up looking in a mirror asking: “How many layers, how many self-reflections truly am I?” The movie’s strengths are a teasing script and Binoche’s chameleon-emotioned performance, which won the Best Actress prize at Cannes. The weaknesses are its sometimes mundane mise-en-scène and the acting of Shimell, stiff and stagy even for the role of an Anglo-Saxon egghead out of touch with his inner child. NA
The Switch (
|Sweet or sour? Jennifer Aniston|
Although you’re continually aware of the somewhat preening shape of the material and its “fertility-issues” arc, The Switch still features some sweet, goofy writing. But it suffers ruinously from the number-one irritation of most slick comedy: money. Everyone has an excess of it and magically lives in apartments virtually covered in jewels. Aniston works as a television producer (I think) but from the off her whole life seems as depressingly fantastical as the purposefully ludicrous moment where Wilson flashes his nuclear grin and says he teaches feminist literature (he memorably descends from a leisure centre climbing wall, at one point, like a Greek statue).
One wonders how much more of these kinds of films Aniston can make. Not a month goes by without her being papped speeding from one location to the next, filming yet another urban rom-com – it’s a repetition compulsion and an intervention ought to be staged. She has a sourness now. For a while in her post-TV career, Aniston seemed to be burlesquing her “Rachel” self and it was a sweet (if self-conscious) burlesque that passed for extreme charm – every other gesture had a shaft of wit. But these days we’re more likely to find her as she is here: chin slightly raised, voice shrill, slim hands held up in an appeal, transmitting disappointment. Bateman is a smart actor with a melancholy boyishness (although he’s only 41). When his eyes fill with tears for a moment, the film is genuinely bathed in pathos.
Dinner for Schmucks (
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.