Change Your Image
erawlinsnyc
Reviews
Game, Set, and Match (1988)
As Good as It Gets
Others have done an excellent job summarising this fine mini-series, so I won't bother going into details. I did want to mention that, on a BBS devoted to Len Deighton's work, it was mentioned (although not independently verified) that it was indeed Deighton who kept the series from going to tape (or any other subsequent medium) because of his displeasure with its realisation (stupid temperamental writers!).
It was only by chance that I learned about the series the morning of the day the first episode was to air (unlike one of the other reviewers, I knew Ian Holm very well, first from Alien, and I just happened to notice his picture in the paper in an article previewing the series). I had the foresight to tape it, but missed getting the post-first-episode interview with Ian Holm (tape ran out), which I kick myself for to this very day.
I'm sure I'm not alone in stating that this series NEEDS to be on DVD, but until Deighton dies, this probably won't happen (and I am completely mystified as to what it was he objected to - the series brought every one of the characters to vivid, realistic life, was incredibly (though not slavishly) true to the books, and so enthralled me that I went out and bought all of Deighton's spy novels, even though I'd never read one before). Until then, those of us with tapes will continue to set aside 13 hours every year or so to enjoy this incredibly well-produced, well-acted, and well-told story, hoping each year as the tapes slowly corrode that Deighton will have a change (or massive infarction) of heart and let us have this series in all its glory on DVD...
Lucky (2004)
Seen It? Oh, You Lucky Dog!
I happened to be one of the few, very fortunate people to see this at a recent screening during the "first annual" NYC (Independent) Horror Film Festival, and let me tell you, it was a real treat! It was far and away the favourite-of-show (winning Best in Show by the judging panel, and - ballot tabulation not having been posted, I can only guess, but probably - audience favourite as well). Pray that some distributor has the good sense to overlook its idiosyncratic, non-mainstream nature and recognise it as must-see cinema. This is one hard film to describe without ruining surprises or giving away too much. The writer, Stephen Sustarsic, has done a great job of summarising it without including spoilers, so I will try to give you a feel for the movie instead of a synopsis. In Hollywood Speak, it would be The Secret Life of Walter Mitty meets Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, with dashes of Amelie and Twin Falls, Idaho (and possibly Crumb) thrown in for flavour. But it is definitely much more than the sum of its filmic predecessor parts. First and foremost, it has a loopy, loony, don't-take-me-too-seriously quality, augmented by the music (one almost expects an accordion from some French cafe to be playing in the background, as in Delicatessen or Amelie, but it's a bit more restrained than that), which absolutely belies the seriousness of what's actually taking place. But it is this deludedly, deceptively droll approach which helps take the audience by the hand and lead them willingly along to the abhorrent shocks that await.
It also has similarities with films like Eraserhead - NOT the dreadfully slow pacing, but the way in which it takes an absolutely pedestrian look at a life filled with increasingly bizarre occurrences. Again, it is this dichotomy of style and substance - the absurdist, banal storytelling method used to describe horrific atrocities - which helps the audience accept and even welcome each new level of insanity that develops as the film progresses. This dichotomy is even further augmented by the casting. You have all seen the lead, Michael Emanuel; he is perhaps most recognisable as the guy who "lowered his cholesterol" in those ubiquitous TV commercials (and was also the husband in the McDonald's commercial in which the son gets the mother and father to believe each wants to take the other out to dinner by way of apology). He is the absolute, quintessential Everyman, the down-on-his-luck, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly kind of guy you wouldn't look twice at on the street. He is so normal, and so much the secret us, the part of us that "knows" we're doomed to failure and mediocrity, that you can't help rooting for him when he begins to succeed, no matter what the cost. And it is our belief in and acceptance of him as our own most prosaic self that helps us exonerate his actions and empathise with his plight.
This isn't exactly entirely new territory, nor is it mind-bendingly innovative or inventive. Certainly there have been dozens of other films to explore ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, as well as the nature of sanity, the dual-edged sword of creativity, and the ways in which perception is more real than "reality." There are even numerous directors who have taken similar approaches to the story telling found in Lucky - Jean-Pierre Jeunot, the Cohen brothers, and Woody Allen (in their darkest periods) all come to mind. But this is good company to be in. And it has a smallness, a personability and charm to it, that makes you feel as if you've discovered the movie yourself, and want rush out and tell your friends, as I am trying to do here. So if you like absurdist serio-comedy with a sting to it, please, please, please be on the lookout for this movie, see it, and support it the best you can. You won't be disappointed!