Experiential Paper: A GRAND SLAM AFFAIR

It felt like a typical Saturday afternoon in March of 2004. But I vividly remember that day as if it were yesterday because my life as I knew it would never be the same again; it was the day I discovered the sport of tennis.

I was flipping through channel after channel on the variety of choices basic cable had to offer when I saw Serena Williams playing in the final of the Sony Ericsson Open against Russian Elena Dementieva. This wasn’t my first time seeing tennis before, and I definitely knew who Serena Williams was and what she means to the world of tennis; I mean come on—her and her older sister had transcended a predominately white country club sport as two African American tennis champions. But I had never seen tennis exhibited like this before. The power! The intensity! The will to win! Forehands, backhands, serves, volleys, and smashes all commanded my attention as I forgot everything going on around me; somehow two people hitting a small, yellow ball with a stick transported me into a world filled with great sport and drama.

The end of the match saw the much-deserved trophy go to Serena Williams, but I knew I didn’t want my tennis experience and my “love at first sight” with the sport to end right then and there. I immediately begged my mom for a tennis racket and some tennis balls. Day after day, I would hit against the brick walls of the “Projects” we lived in until I found myself being able to play tennis at a competitive level. I was ranked #2 singles at Vidalia High School for four straight years and help lead the school to two state tournament appearances.

Flash-forward to the 2010 Cannes Film Festival Study Abroad Program—it’s the week leading up to the big 3-day travel weekend, when anybody can go anywhere in Europe they would like. I have absolutely no idea where I want to go or what I want to do. I figured I couldn’t go too far or do anything too extravagant because even with my stipend, I didn’t have that much money to spend. Many classmates were staying at the residence in order to take day trips, but I knew I had to make the most of being in France since I would not be traveling once the program is over.

Then it hit me, “Eric—you’re in France already! Go to Paris!” Then I thought, “Holy shit! The French Open is in Paris!” For those of you who may not know what the French Open is, it’s only the biggest FREAKIN’ clay court tennis tournament in the world of professional tennis; it is the 2nd of 4 Grand Slam tennis tournaments in the year. I got chills just thinking about the possibility of being at the French Open.

Although I was slightly terrified at the prospect of traveling across a foreign country alone, I convinced myself that I would literally go through hell and high water (come to my hometown of Vidalia, Georgia and you will here this Southern phrase all the time. Drink!) for a chance to go to a international city where I could also go to a Grand Slam tournament where Venus and Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer would all be competing. So now you understand why I could not just step aside and let an amazing opportunity like this pass by. Going to the French Open at Roland Garros in Paris is, for me, the equivalent of Anna Furgeson finding that $1 dress on Ebay or Cody finding out that he has just been accepted into the elusive Black Club; that intense feeling when passion meets anxiety and euphoria meets orgasm (yes it would be that intense for a tennis enthusiast such as myself!).

I didn’t think it would be that expensive to go by train so I asked Cannes Study Abroad Program Coordinator Anna Beaver how much and how feasible it would be to travel to Paris for the weekend. And what a surprise! Anna was flying to Paris for the weekend. She said she didn’t really have anything planned so she decided to accompany me to the French Open. This made me, and my grandmother, who once told me to be careful at Panama City Beach because someone may put alcohol in my drink, feel safe due to the fact that someone I knew was going to be in Paris as well. The train ticket was 170-euro roundtrip, which wasn’t too bad. Anna and I looked up tickets for the French Open, and to our pleasant surprise, an all day pass to the biggest stadium court and all of the outside courts at Roland Garros only cost 80 euro—80 euro! I literally did a Hallelujah praise dance because I knew my dream of seeing Serena Williams dominate was only a 6-hour train ride away from becoming a reality.

Friday arrives and I get up at 5:30am to make my 6:54am train. The taxi we called ends up arriving at 6:45am because the hired driver decided to go on strike that morning (he better be glad I can’t give him an earful of obscenities in English about messing up my date with Serena). So I arrive at the train station as soon as the train pulls up…whew! Close call. I arrive in Paris as scheduled, but Anna’s fight out of Nice, France, has been delayed 2 hours because of the strike. I had a feeling we were going to miss Venus Williams play, but I was just ready to get there. Finally, Anna and I meet at the metro around 3pm and we are frantically rushing to see some tennis.

We get to Roland Garros, and I immediately fall in love all over again with tennis. I’m surrounded by tennis balls, laughing kids, and hardcore tennis fans who all came to see tennis at the highest level and on the biggest stage. I snap picture after picture—some great ones and some meaningless, like the one I took of the long line waiting to buy hotdogs. But I didn’t care; I was exactly where I wanted to be and no one could take that away from me. Anna and I then went to the souvenir shop. Every time I watch Grand Slam tournaments on television back home, I see people in the stands with these huge tennis balls. So naturally my Grand Slam experience wouldn’t be complete without one.

With huge tennis ball in tote, Anna and I make our way into the largest tennis stadium of the French Open—Philippe Chatrier. Saying that the stadium is beautiful wouldn’t be doing it any justice. Green chairs and press boxes, lively roses that lined the outside of the court, and the unique red clay court surface all contributed to the distinct ambiance that is the French Open. The first match we saw was a thriller between the French hopeful, Jo Wilfried Tsonga, and an unknown Dutch challenger named Timo De Baker. I see tennis on television all the time, but nothing can compare to the first-hand experience of these world-class athletes dashing for shots, lunging for balls, and sliding around the court. And let’s not forget about the emotional French crowd chanting “Ale, Ale!” or “Come on, Come on!” Apparently the chants helped as Tsonga won a nail biter.

Next, Anna and I ventured out of Philippe Chatrier to catch a glimpse of our very own Georgia Bulldog John Isner, who led the UGA Men’s Tennis Team to back-to-back national championships in 2007-08. But Isner didn’t play his best, getting drugged around the court in a losing effort. The only bright spot of the match was seeing ESPN tennis analyst Brad Gilbert, who once coached Andy Murray and Andre Agassi. I think I got in his view of the match when I tried to snap a picture of him, but once again, I didn’t care.



After walking around the grounds for a while, Anna and I returned to the stadium court for a women’s match between French no. 1 Aggie Rezai and Russian Nadia Petrova. We didn’t stay the entire match, but those girls “duked” it out like men for over 2 hours. It was then time to go as my first time at a Grand Slam was coming to a close. We walked around the area for a little more as I was trying my best to soak in every single moment of this lifetime opportunity. I walked in a circle, looked at the big stadium television, and asked French people random questions like, “Do you know where ESPN is?” just to extend my time around tennis.

Because tennis is an inextricable part of who I am today, going to the 2010 French Open was undoubtedly my favorite experience of my time here in France. It was truly one of the happiest moments of my entire life and I will be forever grateful. Grateful because without Dr. Kohn, Dr. Smith, and Anna Beaver, and without being a participant in the 2010 Cannes Film Festival Study Abroad Program, this experience wouldn’t have been fathomable, let alone possible.

Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers

Release Date: 2009

Country: Belgium, The Netherlands

Running Time: 86 minutes

Distributed By: Bridge Entertainment Group

Directors: Mark Mertens, Wim Bien

Producer: Eric Wirix

Screenplay: Dirk Nielandt, Guy Mortier, Eric Wirix
Starring (Voices of): Frank Lammers, Jeroen van Koningsbrugg, Pierre Brokma, Kees Boot
Raymonde de Kuyper, Marijn Klaver

Rating: D

An animated mess. A colossal failure. A C-G flop. These descriptions only scratch the surface of the disaster and experience that was my viewing of the world premiere of Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival.

I have to admit that I had high expectations for Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers; I mean come on, it’s animated. How in the world could they screw that up? The promotional posters looked great, the logline of the film was enticing, and it was one of the few animated films here at the festival. This would appear to be a great recipe for what should have been a great film. But just like the food here in France, Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers lured me in only to leave a bad taste in my mouth and an empty stomach. The plot was hastily undercooked; the voice acting inauthentic; and the digital effects less than appetizing.

Where do I even begin when discussing the shortfalls of Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers? Well, for starters, the title is a mouthful in and of itself. I saw the film during a market screening along with fellow Cannes Study Abroad classmates Stacey Graves and Brian Russell, and I believe the name of the film should be reworked from Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers to Eric and Stacy and Brian and the Worst Movie Ever. Maybe if the title had a comma after Lucy, I would have been more likely to digest at least some aspect of the film.

Now let’s move to the plot line. Even for a children’s animated film, the plotline is ridiculous. Yes, I’ve seen animated motion pictures about talking animals and toys coming to life, but Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers wouldn’t even pass the believability test of a 4 year-old child. The film begins with you guessed it—Texas Rangers, who struggle to maintain peace in fictional Dark City, Texas, against villain Jim Parasite. Seriously, Parasite? Out of all the villainous and demonstrative names the scriptwriters could’ve created, the best they could come up with was Jim Parasite? Anyway, for some undisclosed reason, Parasite randomly and sporadically comes into town shrinking people.

Parasite soon sets his eyes on capturing the Texas Rangers, and he shrinks them into pint size cowboys and places them in glass jars; however, Tom, one of the top Rangers, is accidentally pushed into a box of wine that is going to be sold in Boston, Massachusetts. Don’t ask why the dungeon of an evil man also doubles as a nationwide winery because I have yet to find out that answer myself.

Back in Boston, cunning businessman Bill Buster sells the box of wine to doddering idiot Ambrose. Wilber, Ambrose’s friend, who for no apparent reason wears a huge retainer and possesses supernatural strength, tosses Bill in the river (I’m assuming that this was supposed to funny, but you could hear crickets chirping in the theater). Later, kids Luke and Lucy and their Aunt Sybill, whom they call “Auntie,” visit their neighbor Ambrose and discover that there is indeed a man inside Ambrose’s wine box.

They all take Tom to Professor, yes that’s the only name we’re given, so that he can attempt to bring Tom back to human size. Tom urges the family to go stop Jim Parasite in Texas. So five people, including two kids, all with zero training and expertise, drive to Texas in order to find out who Jim Parasite is and how to stop him. They all immediately become Texas Rangers; once again, the audience is left with no explanation as to how this is all happening.

After meeting vivacious singer “Missy,” Aunt Sybill quickly accuses her of being Jim Parasite. But after a series of anticlimactic encounters with Parasite and after Wilber is shrunken and taken hostage, they discover that it is not Missy but instead the cowardly Sheriff who disguises himself as Jim Parasite. Here, we get a “Scooby Doo-esque” revelation scene in which the “mettling” kids find out the true identity of the villain and the villain says he would have gotten away if it were not for those “mettling kids” aka Luke and Lucy. After Professor is successful in bringing Tom back to his normal size, they fly to Texas and Tom awards Luke and Lucy with honorary Texas Ranger status. This happy ending matched my happiness of the film ending.

In addition to the boring and ridiculous plotline, the casting directors of Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers did a horrible job with the characters’ voices. If all of the main characters where supposed to be from Boston, Massachusetts, I sure couldn’t tell. With their country accents, saying things like “Auntie” and “fixin,” I thought they were from Georgia rather than Boston. This obvious mistake is crucial—how are we expected to invest in the characters if they don’t have the right voices and accents?

If I haven’t made myself clear by now, don’t go see Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers; you will have more fun being shot in the arm. I understand it’s a children’s movie, but it won’t even entertain its target audience. At the end of the premier, Brian, Stacy, and I were the only people left in attendance. And that’s because the director sat right next to us, blocking our exit! Luke and Lucy and the Texas Rangers is a shining example for what an animated film should never resemble.

The Chameleon (Le Cameleon)

(2010) Canada, France. 105 min
Director: Jean-Paul Salome
Production Company: Lightning Entertainment
Cast: Ellen Barkin, Nick Stahl, Famke Janssen , Marc-Andre Grondin, Emilie de Ravin
Rating: A-

Dear Ellen Barkin,

In your role as middle-aged Southerner Kimberly Barclay in The Chameleon, there is a powerful scene in which she uses a dirty syringe to inject drugs into a vein in her foot. The drugs flow straight into her blood stream for a level of euphoria well worth the risk. She grips the bed sheets, shakes uncontrollably, and mouths foul words to her son as he watches. Kim injects herself in a run-down apartment/hotel room adjacent to the apartment she actually lives in, reflecting her conflicting interests and unwillingness to commit to sanity.

Your character is so unstable; she is so strung-out; she is so helpless. And you portray each emotion in a way that makes me have some sense of sympathy for this tragic character even though I didn’t want to at many times throughout the course of the well-executed film.

That scene does more than draw attention to the fact that Kim is a drug addict. Although I counted the number of times you appear on screen without a cigarette in your hand (I counted only 2), Kim’s addiction extends further than recreational drug usage. It also represents her unwavering loyalty to the life and memory of her son Nicholas, who appears to be found in France four years after his disappearance from home in 1996 at the tender age of 12. It is only after we learn that Kim knew all along that the boy claiming to be Nicholas is not her real son, when we can allow ourselves to imagine the rationale behind her actions.

To be completely honest, I do not believe I have ever seen a film with you in it. I haven’t seen you in Ocean’s Thirteen (2007) nor have I seen you in Shit Year (2009). But judging from your performance in The Chameleon, I have more than enough evidence to praise your work as a versatile actress who takes her craft seriously. You get gritty and unglamorous for a portrayal of a layered woman juggling many roles in her life: childless mother, drug abuser, and worker.

The Chameleon, based on a true story, opens with the FBI calling off its search of a missing boy in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana area in 2006. The boy is Kim’s son—Nicholas Barclay. We then flashback to the year 2000, when French police find a young boy fitting Nicholas’s description. He doesn’t talk for weeks, but when he does, he drops a bombshell: that he is Nicholas and he was abducted by a group of men before being beaten, tortured, and raped.

This gruesome discovery, which should be a cause for celebration for Kim, her daughter Kathy, and her son Brendon, ends up being a mysterious and less-than-enthusiastic event. Although the boy who claims to be Nicholas fits the physical description of the same Nicholas that first went missing, Kim is the family member who seems to be the most unemotional and distant. She greets Nicholas or “Nicki” at the airport with a cigarette in tote, a discerning look, and a nonchalant attitude; a troubling homecoming of a missing son by a grief stricken mother. She doesn’t even allow Nicki to move in with her; he has to stay with his sister Kathy.

But the overall attitude with which you tackle the character and the smug, sarcastic way Kim continues to talk to Nicki expresses an undercurrent of an inauthentic mother-son relationship. Combine this with the fact that we get a glimpse into the year 2006, in which authorities are still searching the area for a missing boy, and there is reason for the audience to speculate that maybe Nicki isn’t who he says he is at all. Audience members share the same suspicions of Nicki’s identity as no-nonsense FBI agent Jennifer Johnson (Famke Jenson), who launches an investigation to confirm his identity.

Jennifer finds that the boy is a storied imposter and Frenchman named Fredrick Forten, who changed his appearance and accent to fit Nicki’s description. But why would the entire family continue to put on a show as if he is the real Nicki when they are sure it isn’t him? This inquiry frames not only the plot, but also frames the audience’s understanding of Kim.

But your character refuses any and every attempt to corroborate Nicki’s identity. Kim is convinced (or at least forces herself to be convinced) that the boy found is indeed Nicholas; she begins to warm up to Nicki, allowing him to stay with her for a while. Here, your acting is spot on as the audience begins to warm up to your character after we learn Kim’s motivations for her contradictory behavior; maybe Kim’s love for Nicki overshadows whether or not the boy found is the real Nicki. Kim accepts the boy as her son for the simple fact that she was missing a child and needed a son to love and fill that huge void.

Even when Kim knows Nicki is not Nicki but Fredrick, she takes him to a place dear to her heart, and a place where she is said to go and “look for Nicki” every day—the Bayou. Kim seems to find closure in the forested, swampy area. The Bayou is symbolic of a type of rehabilitation center. Kim goes there to get treatment for her addiction to the memory of Nicki; however, at the film’s conclusion, we understand that her addiction cannot be cured.

Again, Ellen Barkin, you deserve all the recognition and acclaim given to you for your riveting performance in The Chameleon. You turn an ordinary drama into a titillating film about a woman who will do anything to get her son back. Kim Barclay at her core is representative of any mother, and this is a key chord you strike through your portrayal of her.

With much appreciation,

Eric Jones

Mao's Last Dancer

REVIEWED BY: Eric Jones

(2009). Australia. 117 minutes. Director: Bruce Beresford Production Company: Celluloid Dreams Cast: Bruce Greenwood, Kyle Maclachlan, Joan Chen, and Chi Cao Rating: B

“China tells you what to do and what to say.” These are the words of Chinese born ballet dancer Li Cunxin as he confronts three life-altering options: 1) face political asylum in China for defecting to the United States 2) petition the Chinese government for an extended stay in the U.S., which will not be easy after the chaos of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and China’s suspicion of Western culture, or 3) become the spouse of a U.S. citizen. To the dismay of the Chinese government and his American dance professionals, Li chooses the third alternative.

What is the expense of Li’s enormous decision to defy a paranoid Chinese government? A lifetime ban from entering China, rendering Li unable to see his family, who he has not seen in more than 20 years after being selected to attend ballet school in Beijing. The weight of social, cultural, and political differences between Eastern and Western cultures rest on the shoulders of the talented Li as he struggles to make peace with his Chinese heritage and recent American lifestyle. This internal and external battle of cultures is a focal point reiterated throughout the course of the film, Mao’s Last Dancer, which is based on the autobiography of famous ballet star Li Cunxin, played by Chi Cao.

Mao’s Last Dancer creates a dichotomy of time in addition to the divisions made evident between Capitalist America and Communist China. The film begins in present 1981 in Houston, Texas, when Li first arrives in the United States and greets his dance instructor Ben Stevens of the Houston Dance Company. Li lives with mentor Ben during his stay in America. Then the film takes us on a journey via flashbacks to Li’s humble upbringings in a small, rural village in Shandong Province on the outskirts of China. Li Cunxin is the sixth brother of his family; a large family that barely has a shack to call their own.

After scenes detailing Li’s childhood, viewers are thrust back and forth between past and present and between the settings of China and America. This is the primary avenue by which we learn the details of Li’s complex life. In addition, the strategic alternating between cultures and time present stark symbolism. China represents the past—stymied and rooted in traditional practices and culture. The United States is contrasted by a more present, contemporary depiction—a nation adaptable to change and embracing of differences of opinion. The fear of rapid change and the loss of Chinese tradition form the basis on the government’s frustration with Li when he objects to return to China in lieu of a “better, freer” life in America.

The flashback scenes concerning Li’s early life are by far the more convincing, authentic moments of the film. The largeness of his family provides the audience a glimpse into how tough peasant life really is in China. There is one scene in which the entire family of 10 is eating at the table. Li’s father suggests that his wife and children eat the scraps before him, but his wife jokingly says that if the man of the house doesn’t eat, how in the world will he have enough strength to work in the fields to provide their next meal? The backdrop of Mao’s Cultural Revolution (which occurred during Li’s childhood) also adds to the believability of the flashback scenes; a historical event places the life of Li into context so that the audience can understand how radical the changing of his ideals are from the perspective of a traditional culture.

We soon learn that the Chinese government came to Li’s school when he was young in order to select children with the athletic potential to become prime dancers. After passing over the entire class, the teacher suggests Li, and he is sent to Beijing for what is literally the opportunity of a lifetime. While in the nation’s capital, Li struggles with the technique of ballet dancing. His teacher calls him “pig head” after he can’t perform a split that requires a lot of body strength. But Li doesn’t give up; he even ties weights to his leg so that he can split with relative ease whenever he decides to take the weights off.

World-renowned dance professional Ben Stephens travels to Beijing looking for ballet dancers to learn and perform under his wing. He admires Li’s dancing ability and decides to take Li back to the U.S. for schooling and dancing. But once Li realizes the amount of freedom granted in all areas to him, he also begins to realize how much he loves this newfound liberty to do whatever he pleases and whenever he pleases to do it. The problem with this is that Communist China does not agree with its citizens being influenced by the West. When Ben takes Li shopping for an entire new wardrobe, Li considers returning the gifts as he remembers how hard his family works for the little they receive.

Although the moments of Li’s childhood on screen are realistic, the present scenes are littered with lackluster acting and “cheesy moments.” For example, Li falls in love with an American ballet dancer after only a few dates. The juxtaposition of two opposing cultures is already given justice and his relationship with an American girl isn’t needed.

In addition, Chi Chao gives a decent performance as Li Cunxin, but the supporting cast does him no justice; Kyle Maclachlan of Sex and the City fame plays Li’s attorney, Mr. Foster, but he adds no substance to a pivotal role in the film. Mr. Foster is supposed to be the take-no-prisoners lawyer that stands up to the Chinese government and fights for Li’s stay in America. Although successful in keeping Li in the U.S., Mr. Foster comes across as a bit foolish and inept for such an important task.

The present scenes are also devoid of real emotion and sensitivity. For instance, when the Chinese government attempts to force Li to go back to China, the climax of the film turns out to be ironically anticlimactic. Chinese government officials lock up Li at the Houston Dance Company Studio and we are given no explanation as to how this is possible. The dialogue is incomplete, the action is weak, and the actual logistics of the situation are left unexplained.

The only true emotional moment of Li’s present life is when his parents surprise him at his national performance at Washington, D.C. Li’s parents are flown in from China to see their son for the first time in almost twenty years and see him dance for the first time ever. After his headline performance, Li looks into the crowd and makes eye contact with his parents. He doesn’t take his eyes off of them until they are at an arms distance. They all cry as Li’s mom and dad touch his arms, chest, and legs to make sure it is actually their son after all these years.

I would recommend Mao’s Last Dancer as a family film worth watching as its strengths (plot, flashbacks, theme) outweigh its weaknesses (present scene acting, simplification of events). This story of redemption gives hope to anyone that he or she can seize his or her own destiny by charting a path and pursuing it. After seeing Mao’s Last Dancer, you will dare to dream…or rather, dare to dance!

Love and Other Impossible Pursuits

REVIEWED BY ERIC JONES

USA. 2009. 102 min.
Director: Don ROOS
Production Company: ESSENTIAL ENTERTAINMENT
Principle Cast: Natalie PORTMAN, Lisa KUDROW, Scott COHEN, Charlie TAHAN

To say that love is a complicated thing would be the mass understatement of human relationships. Many strive for it, few attain it in its truest of true forms, and even fewer in today’s society are able to hold onto it for whatever reason. But why is love so difficult? Why does it take so much work? And is love sometimes not enough to save a marriage? Emilia Greenleaf, played by the talented Natalie Portman, struggles to find the answers to these age-old inquiries in the witty drama Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, set against the backdrop of New York City, providing an apt environment to mirror the fast-paced and fleeting nature of love.

Whenever we encounter movies about love or “chick flicks,” most of us put on our critical shield before the movie even begins, convincing ourselves that love itself is an illusion and that most films concerning the subject are fairy tales rather than romantic comedies. But I can assure you that Love and Other Impossible Pursuits is not your ordinary story of “Boy meets girl. Boy and girl fall in love. Girl gets mad at boy for revealing a secret. Boy apologizes, and boy and girl are in love at the end of the movie.” And its atypical storyline underlies the message that this film is trying to get across: love is anything and everything but easy; it’s a constant struggle that requires compromise on both sides.

The very title of the movie suggests that love comes with much more baggage attached to it, all of which can prove to be elusive to some that appeared to have had a grasp on love in the beginning. Despite other criticism, the acting, in my opinion, serves the purpose intended by displaying the many facets of love in a profound way without sugar-coating it with unrealistic events that may distort how love is applicable to life outside of film. Natalie Portman, known for her recent, memorable roles in V for Vendetta and Closer, utilizes her wide range of acting talents as she heads a stellar cast, including Friends alum Lisa Kudrow, who plays the vindictive shrew Carolyne Soule.

The film begins with associate lawyer Emilia Greenleaf (Portman) getting adjusted to a new law firm under married Senior Partner Jack Soule. After working together in Oakland, California on a joint case, Emilia and Jack begin a salacious affair that mixes business with a whole lot of pleasure. Unhappy with his marriage to Carolyne, who is a successful OBGYN, Jack soon leaves his wife, but continues to share joint custody of their son Will. Not long after the divorce, Jack marries Emilia, who does not get along well with the precocious and sarcastic Will (like mother, like son).

The plot then flash-forwards a few years in advance, elapsing a time in which we learn that Emilia and Jack had a baby named Isabel that died at 3 days old. Natalie Portman does an incredible job of playing that stepmother we all love to hate—the one that has an intense love for her own flesh and blood, but sometimes takes some of her frustration out on the stepchild. For instance, Emilia takes Will to a diner and insists that he order ice cream even though Carolyn would object on the behalf of Will’s lactose intolerance. Actions like this place her in the crossfire between her husband and Carolyne. After discovering what happened, Carolyne cuts Emilia’s parenting skills, saying, “Children aren’t safe around you…I think we’ve proven that.”

Although time has passed since Isabel’s death, we know that Emilia has not even come within reach of gaining closure, and her emotional withdrawal drives a wedge deeper and deeper between her and Jack. In the emotional zenith of the entire film, Jack and Emilia attack the most important problem at fault: love. Jack accuses Emilia of not loving Will at all and even pushing him away after the tragic death of their daughter. Jack questions how Emilia can love him as a husband when he is just like her father, who Emilia loathes for the way he cheated on her mother. In addition, Jack tells Emilia that she just is not the right fit for him and Will—ouch!

Within their back-and-forth exchange, Emilia makes a jaw-dropping revelation: she thinks that she smothered Isabel when breast feeding her the night she died. Although Jack dismisses her claim, Emilia goes into the details of what she believes happened. After she and Jack separate, Emilia still can’t forgive herself for what she thinks she did to her only child; however, an unexpected call from Carolyne shows a change in character for the bitter ex-wife. She tells Emilia that Will asked her to look into Isabel’s exact cause of death. He understood how much Emilia loved Isabel, and he wanted to do it for Isabel.

The new autopsy confirmed the original one performed—that Isabel died from an unfortunate case of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and not as a result of Emilia smothering her with her breasts.

Later, Carolyne, who becomes pregnant, is set to be married, but Will doesn’t want to go in the chapel. Guess who Jack calls in order to motivate Will? Emilia! This shows the increasing warmth of the once cold relationship between stepmother and stepson. She tells Will his favorite story about Lyle the Crocodile, which brings a smile on his face. Will then tells Emilia that maybe she’s the Lyle of their family; she may not always do the right things and/or fit in, but they are still a family.

The film concludes with a scene with Emilia and Will at Central Park. We assume that Emilia and Jack have reconciled as we learn that they have had another child, named Blair. Emilia presents Will with a toy ship as a birthday gift, but it isn’t Will’s birthday; it’s Isabel’s birthday. Although this is the last scene, it is a heartwarming one as it is the first scene in which Emilia and Will verbalize that they love each other.

Love and Other Impossible Pursuits is worth seeing no matter where you stand on the battlefield of love. Whether you believe it is an elusive endeavor or whether you are an eternal hopeful for true love, this movie explores the many stages of love that affect our relationships, not just romantic ones, that we have in life. Natalie Portman, Lisa Kudrow, and the rest of the supporting cast add value to the realistic theme and approach of Love and Other Impossible Pursuits: that not everything, most notably love, always works out the way we would hope.

Life, Above All

REVIEWED BY ERIC JONES

Germany, South Africa. 2010. 105 min.
Director: Oliver Schmitz
Production Company: Bavaria Film International
Principle Cast: Khomotso Manyaka, Lerato Mvelase, Harriet Manamela

After learning about the subject matter of Oliver Schmitz’s Life, Above All, one may be inclined to relegate it as another typical film concerning the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa; that this movie will get lost in the many portrayals of the disease’s effects upon a seemingly naive, tribal population. But Life, Above All does so much more and dives far deeper than that. With brilliant acting and dynamic directing, it encapsulates the deep intricacies of AIDS, an unspoken taboo, its disparaging guilt attached to the infected, and its contingent impact on life and death, but “life above all.”

I can honestly say that I was not expecting a film to disrupt my preconceptions and awaken my social understanding in the way that this breath-taking tale of heroics did. And every moment, every word or absence of dialogue, and every song contributes to the overall strength and depth of emotions that the movie not only evokes, but also forces the audience to feel and experience. Not too many films can do this and do it well. In addition, the acting performances of relative unknowns Khomotso Manyaka, Lerato Mvelase, and Harriet Manamela allow viewers a glimpse into a contemporary crisis; moviegoers are left with a lasting, indelible message about real life people through watching on screen actors/actresses.

Set in a small farming town in South Africa, Life, Above All follows the heroics of 12-year-old student Chanda as she struggles to maintain her family’s reputation after the mysterious death of her baby sister, Sarah. The film opens with Chanda (Manyaka) performing the role of head-of-household after Sarah’s death, as her mother is ill and her siblings’ father Jonah is a stealing and booze drinking cheat. Chanda’s mother, Lilly (Mvelase), is devastated, but even her family refuses to attend the funeral. They ostracized Lilly after she married Chanda’s father instead of an arranged suitor. Despite this, Lilly and her family have a friend in neighbor Mrs. Tafa (Manamela). Mrs. Tafa can relate to Lilly; she had a son, Emmanuel, who died not long before Sarah.

Chanda defies the pleas of her mother and Mrs. Tafa by remaining friends with local classmate and occasional whore Esther, who prostitutes herself to truck drivers for money. This is important in stressing the real-life application of the film’s message for many reasons. Firstly, child prostitution is a commonality in the region. Most importantly, this is a medium by which HIV/AIDS spreads at an alarming rate as these male truck drivers are having unprotected sex with various women/girls at every place at which they make a stop.

Esther’s participation in this web of sex and disease not only jeopardize her own health, but also serves to foreshadow the role of HIV/AIDS in relation to her best friend’s family. Lilly warns Chanda that her image as a great student will be vilified by hanging out with Esther, but Chanda insists that she does not care what people think, a remarkable declaration considering her village is framed around the gossip and opinions of its citizens.

Soon, suspicions of Lilly and Jonah’s failing health circulate. It becomes apparent that Mrs. Tafa, who is not immune to the fear and misconceptions of HIV or “the bug,” is not at ease with the possibility of AIDS being next door. She devises a plan to send Lilly back to her hometown in order to get treatment for what she tells Lilly is an internal demon. Mrs. Tafa later claims she did this in order to protect Chanda and her siblings, Iris and Selo, from the hurtful rumors people may tell. Mrs. Tafa’s behavior underscores the true taboo that is HIV/AIDS in the African community; they believe HIV/AIDS is not a disease, but a curse set out to punish evil people.

After she cannot get in touch with her mother, young Chanda stands up to her elder Mrs. Tafa, lashing out in an emotional scene that makes Mrs. Tafa understand her own hypocrisy and immorality. Chanda then sets out to find her mother, but her mother’s family continues to lie about her whereabouts. Once again, the undercurrent of forced removal due to having AIDS is brought to the surface. In one of the most emotional scenes in the film, Chanda finds Lilly far removed from civilization, lying down in filth and slowly being killed by AIDS. Chanda’s journey to find her mother and bring her back home displays the inner strength of a young girl who refuses to allow death to break her sense of familial responsibility.

Upon Chanda’s return with a dying Lilly, the community gathers around Chanda in anger, throwing rocks at her and blaming her for bringing evil into the community; however, Mrs. Tafa stands up for Chanda and tells onlookers how their own lives are not so saintly either. The audience is led to believe that Mrs. Tafa’s son did not die in a robbery as she says, but by the same disease that kills Lilly.

If you are looking for a movie that will shake you to your emotional core in nothing less than in a profound way, Life, Above All is that movie. This cautionary tale should continue to revived and discussed long after its debut at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival for its uncomfortable but necessary portrayal of everyday life in Africa. Chanda’s story is the story of many children in the continent who are impacted by a disease, NOT an unlucky curse, which leaves them motherless and fatherless. If the film does nothing else, it should at its base educate; educate the masses about how serious HIV/AIDS is and how it is a crisis that deserves and requires the attention of not just Africa, but the entire world as a whole.

Twice A Woman not Worth Watching Once

Twice a Woman (2009) follows the account of a French Canadian woman named Catherine, whose last name we are not given in the film, and her journey towards a new life with her son, Leo, after her husband’s physical and psychological abuse become more than intolerable. Along with the help of a network of female supporters and volunteers who endured the same types of grievances, Catherine gains not only the strength but also the resources needed to leave her rich and powerful husband and find her true purpose and meaning in life.

Catherine, who is later given the alias of Sophie Auclair, is first encouraged to leave her husband and marriage by a nurse, who gleans from the bruises on Catherine’s face that she has been beaten by her husband and did not fall down the stairs as Catherine suggests. After given a number for help, Catherine meets with Anne, leader of a secret network of women whose sole purpose is to help battered women like Catherine make smooth and safe transitions to new lives beyond their shattered ones.

Catherine and Leo’s sudden thrust into a new existence seems to disrupt their lives. Catherine cannot call her family to inform them of her whereabouts and/or condition; and Leo has an even more difficult time at his new school, encountering classmates that often bully him. It is not until Anne connects Catherine with a temporary job and Catherine begins to date a coworker when things become better; however, her husband finds her location and tells her that she still belongs to him. He insists that he take Leo back to live with him, but not before he beats up Catherine one last time.

From the film’s synopsis, one may realize that Twice a Woman is a banal theme found in many female-centered stories caught on film; from Enough starring Jennifer Lopez to the bevy of television movies on Lifetime, the film audience is fed an endless supply of a violent men/husbands attacking their innocent/docile wives, who discover that the only way for a better life is to pack up the bags, take the kid(s), and leave.

The only difference between Twice A Woman and its thematic contemporaries is that it is far less dramatic and entertaining. The plotline moves along from scene to scene, minute to minute, and line to line without any real “action” occurring. The movie addresses the issue of domestic violence and subsequent flight too mildly to be taken seriously.

For instance, the moment Catherine’s husband locates her whereabouts is anticlimactic to say the least. The audience expects an intense battle over their son, but instead gets a lackluster exchange that reveals how little Catherine has changed and how little independence and strength she has gained; the “reunion” scene between husband and wife serves no purpose in film as the husband physically overpowers Catherine, leaving her with new bruises and scars to remember him by in her new life.

On the other hand, the 94-minute production did attack an age-old societal construct: the fact that men have the power. The abusive husband in the film is a mirror image of the same abusive husband in society that performs an action (abusing wife), which leads the wife to react (leaving the house with her son before her husband returns home). In the beginning, Catherine is pessimistic and full of despair: “I know the weight of the dead…and I know the taste of blood.” Her husband’s violence is a push factor in Catherine taking their son Leo and running away.

Starting a new life as a working single parent forces the protagonist to maintain a warring, dualist personality: one as married Catherine and one as Sophie Auclair. Throughout the entire film, Sophie flees the violence that rigged Catherine’s everyday life while also wanting to return to the feeling of normalcy she always had with both her husband and child as a family. While the movie evokes a hidden message of redemption after struggle, it does so by implying that one must first defeat the internal battle going on between the new and former self.

Nature is used throughout the film as a safe haven and point of refuge for Catherine and Leo to turn to whenever they encounter adversity and/or struggle. Catherine retreats to the nearby forest when she needs clarity and relative peace of mind. Leo also finds security in the woods after he is bullied at school. Nature, as utilized in the film, can also be seen as a manifestation of peril and loss of direction. There is a scene in which Catherine simply wanders from one end of the forest to another, showing her loss of direction and need for more guidance.

Despite having a safe plot, Twice A Woman finds a way to disrupt an in-depth understanding of the characters and their inner thoughts. Besides a few lines of poor narration by Catherine, we get little insight into the feelings that motivate her actions. The same applies to Leo. We learn throughout the film that the boy enjoys filming on his video camera and even asks for help on a short film project at school. Leo then uses this footage, which includes that of his mom with a bruised face and her swimming in the nearby pool naked, to compile a video that he sends to his mom when he moves back with his father, but we never understand why he does this.

The film’s scene construction is also an impediment for character development. Every scene and course of dialogue ends with a long, gradual fade to black. Fading to black is a common aspect of movies, but every scene only lasts from 1-2 minutes and follows with a fade-to-black that feels longer than the entire scene itself. And by cutting scenes into short fragments with limited spoken dialogue, the audience cannot connect to the overall plotline let alone the motivations of the characters within it. I have never seen this technique used before in a movie and Twice A Woman is a strong case for why I have not.

When deciding to spend your invaluable time and energy to watch Twice A Woman, I encourage you to do what Catherine did after being abused by her husband—run. Run far, far away from this terrible film. The plot seems exciting and dramatic, but the movie is anything and everything but that. Twice A Woman should only be revisited to provide an example of what a great feature film presentation is not supposed to resemble.

Funfilm Distribution Inc. presents a film directed by Francois Delisle. Running time: 94 minutes.