Heartbeats - Fail

Sorry for the much too long break! I didn't stop watching movies but I spent most of the time watching documentaries, not fictional movies. I struggle with getting documentaries into the bedchel test because the whole approach and set-up of them is so different. If anyone got any ideas of how to make documentaries fit the criteria or how to include them, please tell me!

I changed the way of the "formula" of the test, too. Hopefully it is a bit easier on the eyes now!

Title: Heartbeats

Original Title: Les Amours imaginaires

Genre: Drama /Romance/ (Comedy)

Country: Canada

Year: 2010

Director: Xavier Dolan

Starring: Xavier Dolan, Monia Chokri, Niels Schneider

Plot: The two friends Marie (Chokri) and Francis (Dolan) get to know Nicolas (Schneider) at a friends' dinner party and get along well. The next weeks they spend more and more time together, until they eventually both fall in love with him. While Nicolas is flirting heavily with both of them (or at least, this is how they perceive his actions - and any sane person would) they get more competitive and their friendship disintegrates. When they confess their love to Nicolas they are both rejected and are left in a horrible lonely state. Eventually Marie and Francis rekindle their friendship.

Bedchel Test:

At least 2 Women? Besides Marie there is Nicolas' mother, Marie's friends at the dinner party and several other girls at Nicolas' birthday party.

Talking? The only point where we get any women talking is at the dinner where Marie and Francis meet Nicolas for the first time.

...About something other than men? No. They're talking about Nicolas.

Opinion:

While the movie features almost no women at all, I don't hold it against this movie, because here it mostly makes sense. Heartbeats is less about love than it is about obsession. Marie and Francis are obsessed of the idea of being with Nicolas and therefor hardly talk about anything else and don't focus on anything else.

There are quite a few slow motion scenes of Nicolas, that might look ridiculous if you take them at face value, but if you recognize them as the idealised portrayal of two people obsessed with the idea of that "perfect being".

It's also interesting to note that the object that is "perfected" in their heads, that is superficialised and even partly reduced to his body (regarding the focus on his youthful beauty) is a man and not a woman. It was in interesting twist on the old-fashioned "femme fatale"theme.

I enjoyed the way that the sexuality of both was not put in question, that their lust and love for Nicolas was not portrayed in any different light "according" to their gender. There was one small thing that irked me, but it was put forward in an amusing way so I'm not critiquing it, just questioning it: In between the movie there are short sequences of men and women talking about their failed love affairs with (presumably) Nicolas. One man says the old and clichéd and still often heard assumption that being bisexual clearly means you're not able to decide between men and women, and that you must know! When you're in a supermarket you either look at penises or at breasts!

Obviously this assumption is not endorsed by the director or the film as such, but it's just put out there with no critique to it, either. It irks me because you get to hear this stuff so many times as a bisexual. The latter part irritated me the most, but maybe that's just me being strange: When I'm looking at people their sexual organs tend not the be the first or only thing I look at. Not to be going all "spiritual" on you, but I'm never ever attracted to someone, man or woman, if the person as whole doesn't fit together. Of course appearance is a big part of who someone is, but merely one part of that appearance? But hey, maybe that's just me not getting all horny by breasts or penises without bodies to go with them.

Back to the film: it had a very European vibe to it, and was clearly heavily influenced by French cinema. I'm not just talking about the characters' habit of constantly smoking but a lot of slow motions, long visual scenes with little direct "story content" to tell. I enjoyed that, especially because it seemed very consciously chosen and ironic. In the same way that these Francis-obsessed two people focusses so much on their appearance and small things (Francis hugging them! Francis being cute to them!, etc) the movie did, too. It was a great approach to make the viewpoints of the two characters more understandable.

All in all it's an enjoyable, amusing and definitely entertaining drama, that is less about love as it's about the tragic of peoples' obsession with it.

69/100

Verdict: Fail & Recommended

Nanny McPhee & the Big Bang - Pass

Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang (in the USA & Canada released under the title "Nanny McPhee Returns", I wonder why, is the original British title somehow religiously offensive?) is the 2010 sequel to the 2005 family/children film "Nanny McPhee".
The movies were adapted into screenplays by Emma Thompson and are based on Christianna Brand's "Nurse Matilda" books from the 60s. They were directed by Susanna White.

Isabel Green (played by the wonderful Maggie Gyllenhaal) lives with her children on a farm in England during the second world war. While her husband is at war she has to keep the farm running, work her job in a village job (alongside the slightly mad Mrs. Docherty) and take care of her three children Norman (Asa Butterfield), Megsie (Lil Woods) and Vincent (Oscar Steer).

When her sister's spoilt rich children Cyril (Eros Vlahos) and Celia (Rosie Taylor-Ritson) are sent to the farm to live with them, and all children start fighting Isabel doesn't know what to do anymore.

This is where Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson) is coming into play.
After a bang of her stick, the children soon realize that they cannot go on fighting, and eventually learn to tolerate each other.

Isabel's brother-in-law Phil (Rhys Ifans) desperately tries to make Isabel sell the farm, using many mean ways to make her do so. One including convincing her that her husband is dead. The children now try everything to prove it isn't so. Obviously they succeed, or this wouldn't be a very good "family" film at all. At least not one in the way you expect it to be.

The story is very predictable and old-fashioned but overall it's well-executed.

The actors are wonderful, from the main actors down to great appearances of Ewan McGregor, Billy Bailey and Sinead Matthews (not as well known as the former two but she should be! She plays the wonderful kooky Jenny on British comedy-drama-tv show "Ideal", my favourite tv show that airs, by the way).

The setting and clothes are very well-done, as well. There are some nice touches like Nanny McPhee's putty eating bird Mr. Edelweiss, or the Germans dropping a bomb by accident due to sneezing three times.

In regards to the test: it's passed easily here. Both of the girls have strong personalities, and of course Nanny McPhee herself talks to all the women in the movie.

There are also some rather interesting empowering moments. When the kids have to dismantle a bomb it is the girl Megsie who succeeds in doing so.

However, there are several things about that movie that irk me very much.

I can't put my finger on it, but there is something weird about the way the military and the war is portrayed. Of course that is a challenge to portray in a kids movie that is overall very carefree and quirky, but it felt just a bit too much trivialized to me. However, I can see how that would be problematic not to do in a movie with such a light tone set in the second world war.

The thing that I found really irritating was something else, though:

In addition to emphasizing discipline and manners (which I already find a bit questionable as a moral to children, to be honest) Nanny McPhee has five lessons to teach, each of which correspond to her various unattractive physical attributes: gray hair, two large moles, a unibrow, and a snaggle-tooth making her look like a stereotypical witch.

When all five lessons are learned, Nanny McPhee transforms from ugly to beautiful.

• Lesson #1: To stop fighting - Upper wart disappears.
• Lesson #2: To share - Lower wart disappears.
• Lesson #3: To work together - Unibrow disappears
• Lesson #4: To be brave - Hair goes from gray to brown.
• Lesson #5: To have faith - Snaggle tooth disappears.

Now what exactly is that supposed to teach kids? That being "good" and disciplined is somehow directly connected to beauty? That by cleaning your room regularly and being friendly to people you can't stand, superficial attractiveness to other people can be achieved? I find that a very questionable and confusing message to send out to young kids.

Still I wouldn't over interpretate it. It's just very unnecessary, the whole plot would have worked just fine without it.

Verdict: Pass & Undecided