Monday, October 12, 2009

Head In The Clouds-2004

I'll have to heavily qualify my review of this film; at 12 tissues it touches on too many personal experiences and predilections for me not to like it. The big reviewers nearly all panned it, primarily for it's admittedly hackneyed storyline and cliched treatment of the era. But I think they were a bit harsh about it and seemed to completely miss some genuinely admirable aspects of the film.

Not enough could be said about the cast! Charlize Theron is incredible, her range is expansive and her performance powerful. Her incredible seductiveness and beauty in this film stands in stark contrast to her appearance in 'Monster', and amplifies the effect of both performances. Penelope Cruz is heartwarmingly beautiful; it's pretty clear the spotlight was reserved for Charlize, but Cruz holds her own extremely well. Stuart Townsend was criticized for not being enough of a leading man to pull this off, but I disagree. I feel he portrayed just the right mix of sensitivity to make his characters capacity for love and political conscience believable. Perhaps he doesn't have the hunkiness of some other actors but he's no slouch in the department. The secondary cast is equally adept and believable.

Since when did Hollywood ever shy away from recycling era's and themes to tell a story? The Great War has been covered so many times in so many veins that it 's hard to see any way of not looking a bit cliche' when using it in a movie. But it's significance is enormous, and I think this film helped portray little known aspects of it's history very ably. In particular, the hedonism of the era, the civil war in Spain and the role of WW1 in the play of events as Hitler capitalized on the psyches of the loser nations from that war. Most high school history and most people are blithely unaware of the significance of ethnic tensions in Spain; being of Basque origin I can tell you that it has had plenty of impact on the region and by extension Europe as a whole. How can you fault a film that does this accurately and brings humanity to it, however unbelievable the plot line might be?

Besides history, the plot line itself covers something dear to my heart. The magic involved when three people can form a deep and loving bond together is so very rare; I can see how reviewers might find it unbelievable. But it can happen, and it's loss is just as tragic as it's creation is beautiful. In my experience, that creation requires a strong character at it's center that holds the unit together, and Charlize portrayed this absolutely perfectly. I was too young to hold this role when the tryst happened for me, but now that I've matured a bit I can see myself doing so and I found myself identifying with Gilda very strongly. There is a surrender of ego that goes on amongst all the principles, it allows the bond to last and I thought that was also portrayed very well. Random tragedy always seems to intervene to destroy these type of things, as though their existence is too exquisite to be permitted to last. The film's portrayal of this was admittedly a bit trite, Mia's loss was just too convenient. In my story, the permanent and tragic loss of one of us to drug use ramped the tissue factor of the movie tremendously. The loss of the first member takes away the magic and dooms the entire thing.

Finally, the accuracy of the sets, costumes and locations is incredible. I found it notable that IMDB's treatment of the film noted no goofs or historical inaccuracy's; but I'm afraid that may be because it's poor reviews prevented enough history buffs from seeing it. So forget the reviewers treatment and give it a whirl!