Movie: The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover

The path to discovery for this film was a frustrating one. After seeing an interview with Paul Giamatti for his role in the new Spiderman movie (of which I have no interest) I was curious to see if Paul was in any recent indie flicks I may have missed since he's got quite the reputation for doing projects with no hope of monetary gain. The film River of Fundament caught my eye immediately, a six hour epic directed by Matthew Barney. Mathew Barney... Barney... where have I heard that name before... In this age of technology the struggle for long buried memories doesn't last long and with a click I instantly recalled why the name struck me in such a way.

Barney is responsible for a massive, decade long film project known as the Cremaster Cycle. Now I want to stress my complete ignorance of the project and the resulting frustration very clearly. The Cremaster Cycle had only extremely limited screenings at extremely exclusive events and was never released to the public in any format, leaving me unable to watch it. As you can probably understand, for a person who has access to literally any film, again through the magic of technology and a frayed and rotted sense of moral fiber, encountering something so obscure, and by its reputation so symbolically dark and critical of mainstream culture, and not being able to view it, spun me into a minor rage. The rage was further stoked by the livid hate Barney has received in the IMDB forums. The mob will yell when their beliefs are questioned, the mob will shriek when they encounter something they don't readily understand, especially something regarded as high art to the paid critics. Any real fan of conceptual film will tell you, the more putrid the smell of derision, the more attractive the object of said derision becomes.

But since I'm denied the object, I have to settle for something close to it and luckily enough in one of those heated criticisms from the mob was the mention of Peter Greenaway, a comment along the lines of, "If you think Barney is impressive, Greenaway will make your eyes bleed with bliss." And with a cast including Helen Mirren, Michael Gambon, and Tim Roth, Greenaway's film, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover was enough to divert my attention away from Barney for the time being.

The Cook is an exceedingly dark film from the very start and because of the obscenity in the first scene I'll save you from the description and just explain that its purpose is to establish the main character, the Thief, as the worst kind of narcissistic egomaniac. He's violent, impulsive, grotesque and overwhelmed with jealousy for anyone who even looks at his abused wife for a fleeting second. His wife, played by Helen Mirren is beautiful, graceful, with a sharp wit to occasionally put her husband in his place. From the title of the film you could probably guess that the wife takes a lover, a quiet, noble gentlemen who is only capable of the deepest admiration for her.

That's pretty much all you need to know about the plot. It's a classic, simple tale told millions of times before, sometimes more subtly, sometimes shrouded in more subtext, but you won't find a more brutal portrayal of the classic story. And you won't find a more stylized one either. This film is a work of visual art and the comparison to Barney is clear now. The film never escapes the walls of one small studio, but the studio is densely filled with the baroque styling one would expect of a multi-million dollar period piece. All visuals, even of the most grotesque variety are beautiful, intricately designed, and presented with thoughtful composition to the audience. I walked away from this film saddened by the blank white walls of my apartment, of the general spartan way of modern living those with a modest salary have to accept. The costumes were equally impressive having been designed by Jean Paul Gaultier. That might ring a bell for some people as he's the same designer responsible for the vivid, other-worldly costumes of The Fifth Element.

I shouldn't have left this for last, but since it's obvious that Helen Mirren isn't going to do anything less than act her proverbial pants off, I shouldn't have to mention it at all. And in all of film, there are few characters I hated more than Michael Gambon's portrayal of Albert. He was a monster, a real villain, and watching him wale and snarl was a rare pleasure.

Only recommended for those with a strong stomach, but for those lucky few, absolutely essential.

5/5

Movie: Babette's Feast

This was recommended by my mother and it took me far too long to get around to watching it. I had heard of Babette's Feast before, nothing more than quiet whispers on obscure film forums where people take their opinions far too seriously and declare vendetta's against the ignorant or the pretentious often falling victim to exactly those criticisms. We're all at times hypocrites, all a little too wrapped up in our own view of the world. The goal of objective observation is so often completely out of our reach. And this is exactly the message the film so articulately expresses.

We're introduced to the lead characters in their later years, icons of charity in their small village. They take it upon themselves to feed the weak and the poor, to keep the dying from dying alone. The film develops their characters by exploring their young adulthood, daughters of a strict priest, forever penitent, forever obedient. The father is portrayed as flawless in his faith, a pillar of the community, a visionary preacher, but he makes no secret the disdain he has for the upper class, for vanity, fame, beauty, and bliss. This is most clear in the way he reacts to the introduction of two suitors, one a soldier destined for conquest, the other an opera singer destined for fame, who try their best to romance the two sisters. The first fails because he realizes the impossibility of taking the daughter with him on his journey through life. The second fails when the object of his affection realizes his intentions of love. Both daughters are obviously terrified of love, terrified of passion, obedient to the values carried down from their father's supreme modesty. The suitors go on to live lavish lives of fame and conquest and the daughters go on with a life of righteousness.

And then we're introduced to Babette, a former chef from Paris who is forced to flee during a revolution, a close acquaintance of one of the suitors. She embraces the small village's way of life unflinchingly as she's taught simple dishes consisting of fish and bread soup. Things seem to be going very well for the sisters and their new cook until subtle rumblings of discontent form in the community, accusations of exploitation, of swindling, all handled passive aggressively and allowed to escalate. The sisters have no idea how to resolve this building tension but do their best by reverting to the teachings of their late father.

Then without any warning, Babette wins a lottery worth 10,000 francs. Now to you, or me, or anyone else this would obviously be a stroke of luck, something joyous and worth celebrating, but this event turns out to be the major conflict of the film. Babette decides to use the money for a lavish French dinner for the small village to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the priest's birth. Leading up to the dinner, the community is absolutely terrified. Stricken with nightmares, the modest people pray fervently to avoid what will surely turn out to be a disaster. They've lived their entire lives on fish and bread soup, of course they're going to be fearful of a dinner consisting of strange, foreign animals, of decadent wines, of flavors and sensations they would never have dreamed of. The townspeople eventually decide to ignore the particulars of the meal, to shield themselves from the evil of decadence, to participate passively and pray for forgiveness afterward.

One of the suitors, now a decorated general, is invited to the dinner and he expresses on his journey that he's going to use the time to reflect on whether or not he made the right choice to devote his life to fame and success when he could have just as easily lived as a modest farmer or fisherman with one of the daughters. At the time he seems overwhelmed with uneasiness as anyone would be when asked the question, "Are you sure you lived your life correctly?"

As the meal begins, the townspeople seem uncomfortable, not sure how exactly to proceed, but they keep a watchful eye on the general, mimicking his approach to consuming the relatively complex dishes. As time goes by, as more alcohol is consumed, the townspeople start to let their guards down. The tension that would have eventually led the village toward destruction eases with each subsequent dish.

By witnessing the stark contrast between the initial hesitation of his hosts and his own worldliness, and the gradual evolution toward simple brotherly enjoyment in life, the general has an epiphany. He addresses the table and suggests that there is ultimately no difference between a life of fame and a life of righteousness. We are simply actors as time moves forward. The choices we make in life are the choices we were meant to make. We can choose to regret our past decisions and that is itself a perfectly valid action, but when you set that option against just enjoying the passing days, finding a passion and succeeding at it, sitting down to good food and drink when you can, why would you waste your time with regret?

Everyone is in exactly the right place and the decisions made are exactly correct.

At the end of dinner as the general is saying goodbye to the woman he loved but never got the chance to be with, he says though they could never be together physically, they would always be together in spirit. In saying this, the general makes it clear that the natural world sets no limit on the potential for love or on any emotion or sensation for that matter. Our life may take us down a particular path, but a sense of universality is always there to keep us from feeling lost or alone. This, I think, is a profoundly deep observation and this film approaches it beautifully. Babette's Feast deserves its reputation in the annals of film.

5/5

Beer: Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout

Do forgive the slightly blurry photo, I must be particularly shaky tonight.

Appearance: Deep black, no light penetration anywhere in the glass. I over-poured a bit expecting this brew to be substantially more viscous like other Imperial Stouts I've tried. A thick light brown head formed as the beer settled, fluffy with lots of big bubbles. As the head dissipated the color gradually became darker near the edges of the glass and remained light brown in the center. Moderate lacing as the level descends.

Aroma: Obvious even during the pour, lots of rich smoke, caramelized dark fruit, a certain freshness is present, maybe a very subtle mint hiding.

Taste: The smoke stands as a backdrop to mint, now more obvious, which evolves darker and darker into caramelized fruit, black cherry, darker still toward cocoa bitterness.

Mouthfeel: At 9% abv, the caramelized fruit into a dark, bitter char flavor progression is really impressive for a relatively light presence on the palate. This is very drinkable, I'd say dangerously so. The slight freshness seems to clear away any lingering syrupy presence.

Overall: I can understand why this is so highly regarded as an archetype of the Russian Imperial Stout varietal. So much flavor and complexity is pulled off without being overbearing or inaccessible.

5/5