Guncotton - A personal look at films

Once upon a time there was a Queen that lived in a big palace. She had ruled the country for many years and was respected by her subjects. After so long in the throne, she was convinced of having achieved a good insight on how her people thought and felt about a good number of issues and, particularly, about all things Royal. She was also certain that, in the face of turmoil and unrest, her subjects would expect her to behave as she had done for the past 30 years: showing dignity, reserve and discretion.

Little did she know...

A fictionalisation of the emotional outburst that followed the death of Princess Diana in 1997 and its consequences for the British Monarchy, "The Queen" is actually a reflection on how one single event can be perceived in two very different ways. After learning about Diana's death, the Queen is adamant that the funeral obsequies should be a "family" matter and insists that the "boys" (i.e., the young Princes) should be taken away from all the fuss that the media is making. Her loyal subjects, on the other side, have different ideas: Diana was very close to people, they said; she was one of them and for that reason, the Monarchy should make the appropriate noises and arrange a proper - and very public - farewell to the "Princess of the People". The conflict between these two views causes a gap between the British public and their Sovereign that grows wider by the hour and threatens to seriously undermine the Monarchy.

Enter newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, all enthusiasm and youthful energy, to deal with this delicate and unexpected crisis. After a first encounter where it's clear that Mr. Blair is fascinated by the Queen, but she appears to be less than impressed with the PM du jour - she used to discuss affairs of State with Sir Winston Churchill, after all - a shift in the balance of power starts to happen.

By remaining set in her views about not giving in to sentimentality and chest-beating in public, Elisabeth II quickly loses ground - and popularity - whereas Tony Blair is saluted as the leader who has truly understood the impact that the late Princess had in ordinary people's lives. In the end and to prevent further damage, she is advised to make a public gesture to show that she cares. "Openness" is the key here, since emotion is not such unless is witnessed by others, broadcasted and displayed in front of an audience that needs reassurance as a way to validate their own feelings. For someone who has spent most of her life repressing any manifestation of emotion in public, that suggestion must have sounded almost pornographic.

Does the Queen relent in the end? Well, I am sure that many of you listened to the Queen's speech about Diana's death. Many of you, too, most likely remember the almost unnoticeable tilt of the Queens's head when Diana's hearse passed by the gates of Buckingham Palace. The Queen stood there, along with other members of the Royal Family presenting their respects to the mortal remains of one of her ex-daughters-in-law. The film covers some of those moments and offers its personal interpretation of the Queen's feelings at the time.

If at this point you think that this is your proverbial afternoon TV movie, I have to say it isn't. The film is not some pandering about the glamour of being a crowned head. It is not an immersion on the collective grief that followed the death of Diana. It is, in fact, a superb and subtle study of a character incapable of reacting to other people's emotions and therefore, at great risk of misunderstanding everything that happens around her. Since she no longer understands what is going on, she clings to her old certainties, only to discover - even when she cannot admit it to anyone - that they will not help her in this circumstance.

The film, however, does not judge Elisabeth II, nor the UK people that felt that Diana's death deserved stronger acknowledgement. It does not judge Tony Blair, either, with his growing admiration for a woman that has stayed so long in office that she regards politicians as nothing more than seasonal sensations, exciting to discover, but not made to last. The movie simply explains the motivations that the different sides have to act the way they do and how all struggled to get their views to prevail.

What the film also says, I think, is that choosing to misread the mood of a nation is a dangerous thing and that it may lead to unexpected consequences. Watching the movie it occured to me that a lesson could be learnt from the whole experience: to survive in any situation it is essential to distinguish between what one thinks is the right thing to do and what is the right thing to do in that moment. Of course, if one is lucky enough to have in their team a natural born empathiser and mood-reader of the masses, such as Mr. Blair, the odds of winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the people are much, much higher.

In the end, the Queen, being the Queen and having to win (and lose) in her own terms, allows herself an interesting oracular moment. After all the frenzy is gone and the reconciliation with the Queen and her subjects has taken place, Tony Blair visits Elisabeth II again. This time, he is completely at ease in his role as PM and terribly proud of himself and of his dealing with the situation. The Queen, still annoyed by her emotional strip-tease of earlier, addresses him coldly and offers him a piece of wisdom that has a very current ring to it: the public is whimsical in their choice of heroes and it arrives to everybody the day when one mutates from beloved leader into national disappointment. He may well remember that, for it will happen to him one day too.

And with such settling of the score, they both take a walk in the gardens of the Palace, each of them back into their own place again, each of them determined never to leave it for a second time.Read more!

This is a film by Ousmane Sembene, a Senegalese film director, acknowledged as "The father of African Cinema". I have to confess that I had never heard of this filmmaker before and that I owe this discovery to London NFT's June 2006 retrospective dedicated to Mr. Sembene's work. During that month, the National Film Theatre showed some of his most celebrated movies, such as Black Girl, Xala and the aforementioned Moolaade'.


I would explain in more detail Mr. Sembene's filmography and the related activities programmed by the NFT but, as this respectable institution already dedicates considerable efforts to provide a more than decent overview of its programmes and retrospectives, I don't think I could add anything of relevance here. Furthermore, I guess that copying and pasting the contents of their website in this blog would be slightly cheeky.

So, for further - and much better - information on Ousmane Sembene and his films, please see: http://www.bfi.org.uk/showing/nft/sembene/

Moolade' deals with the subject of female genital mutilation and how it affects women, both from a healthcare and social point of view. Wait, wait! Before you decide to switch to the "50 greatest moments in Sport" blog, please let me say that the film is not gory or exploitative at all. In fact, is very much the opposite: an acute analysis of the right to keep one's dignity against the forces of ignorance disguised as timeless traditions and religious righteousness. All in the shape of an amiable account of everyday life in a Senegalese village. The main character is Ma Colle', a woman that shelters four little girls that have fled the excision ritual (This is called "Purification"). The girls have come to her because they know that Colle' successfully refused to have her only daughter "cut". Having already lost two children, due to her inability to give birth normally as a consequence of her own genital mutilation, Colle' accepts to protect them without hesitation. She ties a multicoloured rope at the entrance of her home, thus indicating that she has decided to grant the girls Sanctuary (the Moolaade' of the title). Therefore, no one should dare to enter the house to reclaim the girls. This is not at unimpregnable boundary, however. Little children and animals can cross it, but not the elders of the village or the scary excision priestesses, who want to force Colle' into giving up the girls and restore the "natural" order of things. I will not tell the rest of the story as the movie is an enjoyable experience in itself.Read more!

I watched this movie for the first time years ago - it's from 1996, actually - and it fascinated me. It was shown on TV yesterday and I was very pleased to see that it hasn't lost an ounce of its appeal. It's a truly film noir, with a taut storyline, well-defined characters and a beautiful photography. However, the action doesn't take place in the proverbial dark alleys but under the balmy Miami sun instead. And that simply adds more charm to the mix.

The cast is simply superb: Jack Nicholson, Michael Caine, Judy Davis, Stephen Dorff and a Jennifer Lopez pre-J.Lo crazy - it was that time when it seemed that Ms Lopez was interested in having a meaningful film career. Never mind that video with Ben Affleck; the woman really can act, if only she did it more often...


Nicholson plays Alex Gates, a wine merchant with a wife he no longer loves (Davies) and a sultry mistress (Lopez) he certainly would like to spend more time with. Alex uses his business to penetrate the circles of the rich and idle and, with the help of his partner Victor 'Vic' Spanski (Caine) - an emphysematic crook with a short temper - he steals all he can from them. His last exploit was the theft of a seriously expensive diamond necklace from the household where - oh happy chance - Jennifer Lopez's Gabriella worked as a nanny. How much aware Gabriella is about Alex's deals is unclear at the beginning, but as the movie progressess we learn that for someone that has arrived to the US coast as a balsera, there are worse things in life that releasing rich women from the burden of a couple of hundred carats...

Alex also has a difficult relationship with his stepson Jason (Dorff) that turns definitely sour when Alex decides to go to New York to sell the necklace and invites Gabriella to go with him. Judy Davies' Suzanne finds out about the romantic escapade and a violent fight ensues. It finishes with Suzanne and Jason on the run and Alex unconscious on the floor, after Suzanne has hit him with a golf club and taken the necklace from Alex.

From here, the film sticks by its tagline: "there is no honour among thieves" as all the parties involved try to play each other really hard. I would not like to give away the ending here, as it would be unfair to the very well-written plot and the tension among the characters. My suggestion is that you go to yout nearest DVD rental store and watch for yourself this magnificent example of elegant, refined and yet to-the-point cinema, that manages to be complex without being pretentious.Read more!

What a pretentious movie this is; and how overrated. Based on a play that apparently knew great success on the US stage, the story pretends to be a merciless exploration to the sexual and emotional turmoils of two couples whose lives - and body limbs - intertwine over the course of several months. All very interesting on paper - or onstage - but absolutely boring onscreen. Because Closer is not a movie at all, it's filmed theatre. As a result, the impression I got was of laziness and lack of imagination.


Not the smallest effort has been made to adapt the play to the cinematic medium. I don't think the script involved a lot of work. Words are the only driver for the action here, defining the characters and marking the passing of time. The dialogues - lengthy and expositive, aimed to explain everything - are the fuel that make this movie go ahead. This is so evident that, at one point, I almost expected Derek Jakobi to pop out from behind a bush and start to talk in Shakespearian English, explaining where we are and what we are going to see, in case we didn't get it right the first time. I don't mind this when watching a play, but this is a movie!. Unlike onstage, in films you don't need to rely so strongly - or solely - on words to tell the story. And generally, a more economic use of dialogue results in a better movie - unless you are Eric Rohmer. In that case, you may pull the talking trick successfully, most of the time. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Maybe it is that I didn't engage with any of the characters, so their endless blabber failed to move me. I didn't find them particularly alluring or capable or provoking such passions in others, so they seemed rather tiresome to me. When not dishonest bullies (Clive Owen's arrogant doctor), they were insufferably wimpy (Julia Robert's photographer and Jude Law's journalist). With regards of Natalie Portman's role - a feisty stripper - I still don't have a clue of what was going on with her. I don't even remember the names of the characters the actors play. In me, that's a bad sign; it means that I cannot care less about the whole thing.

Or perhaps it was the fact that I found the continued attempt of passing rude language and histrionics for a sincere exploration of the miseries of sex mildly irritating. Such cheap tricks put me off so much, that nothing of what came next managed to ring true. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't get it. This movie didn't make any sense to me.Read more!

Read more!