THE MAINE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
2005 DIARY

By Laurie Meunier Graves

DAY 3

This is a day to look forward to, starting with the children’s fantasy Five Children and It and ending with Shakespeare Behind Bars, a documentary about a theater program at Kentucky’s Luther Luckett prison and the inmates’ production of The Tempest. To begin a day with fantasy and end it with Shakespeare is an irresistible combination. In between, we have scheduled the French movie Nathalie and Wim Wenders’s Land of Plenty. To my way of thinking, four movies are one movie too many, but today, blessed be, we are only seeing one movie at the Opera House, and it is the first movie of the day. Then, we will spend the rest of the day at Railroad Square, the land of plenty, where not only can we indulge in popcorn but also in Ben & Jerry’s Peace Pops.

We take our indulgence one step further and have dinner at the Mexican restaurant by Railroad Square. Clif and I have margaritas and nachos, and we are joined by a group of fellow cinéastes, who make the meal even more enjoyable. As we eat, drink, and relax, we talk, of course, about the movies we’ve seen and the movies we want to see. Schedules are reconsidered and adjusted. We have all been going to the festival for a number of years, and we know each other’s tastes. As Joel Johnson, one of the diners and Wolf Moon’s movie critic, puts it, “Good friends don’t let friends go to bad movies.”

However, we all agree that, so far, this year’s festival has had very few bad movies. In fact, most of the movies I’ve seen are worthy of three stars, and one, Bearing Witness, deserves the top rating of four stars. Once again, we count our blessings that Waterville, a very small city in central Maine, has such an event that allows us to see movies we wouldn’t normally see.

FIVE CHILDREN AND IT
United Kingdom, 2004; 89 minutes; 35 minutes; in English

  for children
1/2 for adults

Five children—Cyril, Jane, Robert, Anthea, and little Lamb Butterworth—are sent to the English countryside during World War I. Father has gone to war, and mother has gone to nurse the wounded soldiers. This set-up establishes the time-honored children’s literary tradition of getting the adults out of the picture as soon as possible so that the children can have adventures. Eleven-year-old Robert, the film’s narrator even says as much at the beginning of the film. There are, of course, adults on hand to look after them in the countryside, but the adults are easy to fool and evade. Uncle Albert, a cross between a classic English eccentric and a benign Count Olaf (of Lemony Snicket fame), is too busy writing a children’s math book to bother with the Butterworths. Martha, the housekeeper, keeps a knowing, prescient eye on the children, but her tolerant guidance does not get in the way of their adventures, and she rescues them from tight spots from time to time. In fact, she even sets them on their course as she tells them not to go into a certain room while knowing that’s just where they will go. Then there is weird cousin Horace, about Robert’s age, and who, initially, is also easy to outsmart.

This forbidden room leads the children to the irascible, trouble-maker Psanmead, a sand fairy who will grant one wish a day. Naturally, the wishes go awry, but that’s part of the plan. As Psanmead informs the children, “You make a wish, something goes horribly wrong, and you learn from it.”

Yes, indeed, and this light movie is thoroughly enjoyable despite the heavy doses of moral lessons and sentimentality, which most children probably won’t notice. The young actors are all very good, especially handsome Jonathan Bailey, who plays the cautious eldest brother Cyril and Freddie Highmore, who plays the bratty, jug-eared Robert. Kenneth Branagh, as Uncle Albert, has far too much fun with his part, and the rest of the cast plays right along with him.

Unfortunately, the heavy-handedness of the script, the moral lessons, and the sentimentality, stop it from being a really good children’s fantasy, at least for most adults. It’s been awhile since I read the book, but I remember it as having a lighter, snappier touch than the movie does. Nonetheless, it’s a good enough way to start out the day, and I will even admit to having laughed more than a few times at the inimitable British humor that is sprinkled liberally throughout the film.

NATHALIE
France, 2003; 100 minutes; 35mm; in French with English subtitles



This movie has such a ridiculous premise it’s a wonder it doesn’t bomb horribly. That it doesn’t is in no small part due to three of France’s finest actors—Fanny Ardant, Emmanuelle Béart, and Gerard Dépardieu. Without them, it’s easy to imagine how this movie would have flown apart from the very beginning.

Here’s the plot. The attractive but middle-aged Catherine (Fanny Ardant) discovers her husband Bernard (Gerard Dépardieu) is having affairs on his business trips. As a result, she does something that would probably not occur to most wives who discover their husbands have been unfaithful. Catherine decides to hire the prostitute Nathalie (Emmanuelle Béart) to bait Bernard and then tell her all the gory details, so to speak. The beautiful Nathalie agrees, and why not? Money is money, after all. Most of the movie consists of highly charged meetings between Catherine and Nathalie as Nathalie graphically recounts what she and Bernard did when they had sex. Catherine is alternately excited and hurt, feeling both in control and out of control. We get the feeling that this capable woman, a doctor, is very much used to being in control, and this is why she hired Nathalie to begin with.

Of course, things don’t go as planned, and I suppose that’s the whole point. At the end there is a nice little twist, predictable but enjoyable nonetheless. Interestingly enough, for a movie that’s all about sex, there are very few sexual scenes in the movie. Mostly, it’s all talk. Nevertheless, the movie engages me the whole time, even though I am not sure what it all means when it’s over. Maybe it makes more sense if you’re French. Never mind. It is such a pleasure to watch these three actors work through their characters’ sexuality issues that it really doesn’t matter.

LAND OF PLENTY
USA, 2004; 123 Minutes; 35mm; in English



This is another movie that would have failed miserably if the acting hadn’t been so strong. Particularly good is John Diehl, who plays Paul, a middle-aged Vietnam veteran whose take on reality is about as accurate as that of today’s neoconservatives. Which is to say, not at all. At least Paul has an excuse. He is suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome triggered by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Listening to virulently conservative talk-radio, Paul drives around Los Angeles in a ramshackle surveillance van that he has tricked out himself, and he spends his days scanning the streets for “suspicious” looking characters (i.e., those with a conspicuous Middle Eastern appearance). Paul is convinced that the security of this country rests with him, and Diehl portrays this with an earnestness and gravity that is heartbreaking. For most of the movie, I alternate between worrying that Paul is going to hurt someone and worrying that someone is going to hurt him.

In the meantime, Paul’s young niece Lana, whose parents were missionaries overseas, comes to Los Angeles after her mother dies to deliver the last letter her mother wrote to her brother. It seems that there had been a split between the conservative Paul and Lana’s liberal mother, who hopes to finally bridge the gap between them. Lana is deeply religious, serene, capable, and tolerant, and Michelle Williams makes all these traits come together in a moving, believable way, creating a character that is both innocent and wise.

As Paul follows one false lead after another, and Lana, who is staying and working at a homeless shelter, searches for him, their lives come together when a homeless Middle Eastern man is murdered not far from the shelter where Lana works. This is the man whom Paul has been tracking, and the dead man’s past leads both Paul and Lana out of the city to a dry, barren town that has definitely seen better times.

Unfortunately, the movie unravels at the end with its heavy-handed message and imagery. However, the rest of the movie is so good that, despite the disappointing ending, it is still worth seeing.

SHAKESPEARE BEHIND BARS
USA, 2005; 92 minutes; video; in English



Today brings a rash of three-star movies, ending with the documentary Shakespeare Behind Bars, which follows inmates at Kentucky’s Luther Luckett prison as they rehearse for a performance of The Tempest. The prisoners’ crimes range from murder to armed robbery to sexual abuse, and the film lets them tell their stories. What’s striking is how many of the featured inmates blame their victims for being too much like “mother” or “father.” Equally fascinating is the process of putting on a play in a prison. Curt Tofteland, the volunteer Shakespearean director who has been doing this for a number of years, calmly but firmly leads the men through The Tempest. He helps them with the language, a challenge for most people, and he helps them understand the characters they are playing and how they all come together. Tofteland and the men talk about vengeance and forgiveness, central themes of the play. Two of the cast members, for reasons unrelated to the production, are put in solitary confinement, and other men must play their roles.

After many long, long months, the inmates perform The Tempest for an audience that appears to comprise family and friends, and the show looks pretty darned good. There are special costumes and a painted set. Later, the men are allowed to perform for the other inmates and even take their show to another prison.

In the end, have lives been transformed? Only the men can say. But as someone who as a young girl fell in love with Shakespeare, I can’t help but think that there are worse ways to spend time in prison than studying the Bard and performing his plays.

Day 4 -->

5 1/2" x 5" 2008 Wolf Moon Calendar just $10.00 each
More Info

More Info

© Wolf Moon Press 2002-2008 all rights reserved.

Submission Guidelines