Chris_Docker
Joined Aug 1999
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.3K
Chris_Docker's rating
Reviews964
Chris_Docker's rating
Don't be put off by the obscure-sounding title. Or the fact that it is one of those "subtitled films from another country. When we look at the world today, this is a film that, once seen cannot be unseen.
There is a reason why it was Oscar-nominated and won multiple awards at Cannes.
The plot centres around a newly appointed investigating judge in the Revolutionary Court of Tehran and his middle class family. There are echoes of The Zone of Interest (set in the early days of the Nazi Holocaust) and I'm Still Here (set in the early days of Brazil's brutal Military Regime, 1964-85). Unlike those films, Seed of the Sacred Fig is set in a modern-day theocratic regime and mixes secretly filmed footage of live events with a thriller mix of suspense and top acting.
The lead character, Iman, after working on his law career for twenty years and with a stellar reputation for integrity finds (with his new promotion) that he is expected to sign documents authorising a death sentence and without time to review the case.
His wife tells him that, if his superior tells him he has to sign, then it is out of his hands. This raises a similar ethical dilemma as asking if someone in Nazi Germany was guilty when they were 'only following orders'. But in a theocracy, he becomes persuaded that the orders 'come from God'.
His teenage daughters rail against his regime obedience, righteous anger oblivious to family tradition and the danger in which such opposition puts them all.
This is a tense film. You are unlikely to want to miss a second of it to draw breath. What seems distant to the outside world is brought home with horrendous impact. As in I'm Still Here, deep friendships are caught up in the web of good intentions, yet here with added ambivalence of religious observance and a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't position of Iman's wife, movingly portrayed by Soheila Golestani. The first half is psychological terror, realistically portraying a hidden world with hard-hitting docudrama-style intensity. The second part is unexpected cinematic action, believably segued into the complex character development and a stunning backdrop of middle-eastern landscapes.
Before the film was released, we learn acclaimed Director Mohammad Rasoulof narrowly escaped to Europe with the footage after being sentenced to eight years in prison as well as flogging, a fine and confiscation of his property. Soheila Golestani, left behind due to an emergency surgery, faced 74 lashes, interrogations, house arrest and a year in prison for her lead role.
The title refers to a species of fig that spreads by wrapping itself around another tree and eventually strangling it.
There is a reason why it was Oscar-nominated and won multiple awards at Cannes.
The plot centres around a newly appointed investigating judge in the Revolutionary Court of Tehran and his middle class family. There are echoes of The Zone of Interest (set in the early days of the Nazi Holocaust) and I'm Still Here (set in the early days of Brazil's brutal Military Regime, 1964-85). Unlike those films, Seed of the Sacred Fig is set in a modern-day theocratic regime and mixes secretly filmed footage of live events with a thriller mix of suspense and top acting.
The lead character, Iman, after working on his law career for twenty years and with a stellar reputation for integrity finds (with his new promotion) that he is expected to sign documents authorising a death sentence and without time to review the case.
His wife tells him that, if his superior tells him he has to sign, then it is out of his hands. This raises a similar ethical dilemma as asking if someone in Nazi Germany was guilty when they were 'only following orders'. But in a theocracy, he becomes persuaded that the orders 'come from God'.
His teenage daughters rail against his regime obedience, righteous anger oblivious to family tradition and the danger in which such opposition puts them all.
This is a tense film. You are unlikely to want to miss a second of it to draw breath. What seems distant to the outside world is brought home with horrendous impact. As in I'm Still Here, deep friendships are caught up in the web of good intentions, yet here with added ambivalence of religious observance and a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't position of Iman's wife, movingly portrayed by Soheila Golestani. The first half is psychological terror, realistically portraying a hidden world with hard-hitting docudrama-style intensity. The second part is unexpected cinematic action, believably segued into the complex character development and a stunning backdrop of middle-eastern landscapes.
Before the film was released, we learn acclaimed Director Mohammad Rasoulof narrowly escaped to Europe with the footage after being sentenced to eight years in prison as well as flogging, a fine and confiscation of his property. Soheila Golestani, left behind due to an emergency surgery, faced 74 lashes, interrogations, house arrest and a year in prison for her lead role.
The title refers to a species of fig that spreads by wrapping itself around another tree and eventually strangling it.
Director Luca Guadagnino cannot be faulted for trying to bring some innovative tinsel to the story of a love triangle of tennis players. Whether it comes off is a matter of opinion. Guadagnino describes his directorial technique as that of a voyeur, and sympathising with such a position, like an onlooker, is perhaps the best way to enjoy the film.
Two young tennis players, best friends since adolescence share an obsession for Zendaya, a girl whose only obsession is tennis itself. The story jockeys between timelines, gradually filling in some of the back story. Apart from the good looks of all three, some LGB dialogue sparks up some interest for fans who are not quite so addicted to the process of hitting a ball with a racket. But tennis fan or not, we will need to pay close attention to the young men's style peculiarities if we want to make some sort of sense of the finale.
Without giving anything away, there are two Haneke-like conundrums in final tennis match. I say 'Haneke-like' in reverence to that great and very idiosyncratic film-maker. - and I'm thinking of Caché where one practically needs to be psychic to work out the ending first time round. But Guadagnino, although has turned out some reasonable movies, like the re-make of Suspira or the acclaimed gay romance Call Me By Your Name, is no Haneke. But earlier drama Melissa P fell rather short in its adaptation of a book, and Challengers similarly seems unsatisfying in its lack of substance. The confusing ending (which even experts seem unable to agree on) made me wonder what was the point of sitting through more than two hours of so-so cinema. Guadagnino claims it is not about tennis but about relationships, and the relationships in the film are immature at best. It's nice to see clever technique and hidden clues: but a film for me has to do something, such as entertain or inspire. Sadly, Challengers did neither.
Two young tennis players, best friends since adolescence share an obsession for Zendaya, a girl whose only obsession is tennis itself. The story jockeys between timelines, gradually filling in some of the back story. Apart from the good looks of all three, some LGB dialogue sparks up some interest for fans who are not quite so addicted to the process of hitting a ball with a racket. But tennis fan or not, we will need to pay close attention to the young men's style peculiarities if we want to make some sort of sense of the finale.
Without giving anything away, there are two Haneke-like conundrums in final tennis match. I say 'Haneke-like' in reverence to that great and very idiosyncratic film-maker. - and I'm thinking of Caché where one practically needs to be psychic to work out the ending first time round. But Guadagnino, although has turned out some reasonable movies, like the re-make of Suspira or the acclaimed gay romance Call Me By Your Name, is no Haneke. But earlier drama Melissa P fell rather short in its adaptation of a book, and Challengers similarly seems unsatisfying in its lack of substance. The confusing ending (which even experts seem unable to agree on) made me wonder what was the point of sitting through more than two hours of so-so cinema. Guadagnino claims it is not about tennis but about relationships, and the relationships in the film are immature at best. It's nice to see clever technique and hidden clues: but a film for me has to do something, such as entertain or inspire. Sadly, Challengers did neither.
Marilyn Monroe has the enduring persona that makes everyone want to know something about her. The film "Blonde" has enough glitz, once one has started to watch, to make one keep watching hoping for something pleasant, inspiring, entertaining or informative to come out if it. It doesn't.
The director claims (or defends himself by claiming) that it is "all fiction". Indeed, it was based on a work of fiction, a novel by Joyce Carol Oates of the same name. Yet it names Marilyn Monroe as its central character, the screen name used by Norma Jean and who, under whatever name, was not a work of fiction. It uses the most horrific events (or supposed events) from that person's existence more or less to suggest "this was the sum total of Marilyn Monroe's life".
There is no let up. Apart from a few brief moments of beauty in Arthur Miller's garden, it is a concatenation of misery. There is enough factual detail to make it 'authentic' - in the most tabloid-declamatory way, casually seasoned with large helpings of unerotic gratuitous nudity and constant close-ups - normally used in made-for-TV films - so that one doesn't miss expressions to which long shots would have given contextual clarity on a bigger screen - unsurprisingly as it is destined for the Netflix market.
There is one problem here. Marilyn Monroe was a superstar like no other. One of the most famous actresses of showbiz mythology. An icon that has never been replicated. The film shows only the sleaze. Even the famous and artistically beautiful shot of the white dress blowing up from Some Like it Hot, one of the most enduring images of the 20th century, is quickly reviled as it cuts to Joe DiMaggio beating her up for her 'lack of propriety'.
Most of the trauma in the personal life of Marilyn Monroe is on record. Any that isn't or not very well documented is gleefully extrapolated by director Andrew Dominik as if competing for the audience of the lowest, sleaziest tabloid. "Blonde" is akin to almost three hours of character assassination, as if it were all this great star stood for: the shameful atrocities inflicted upon her. Fortunately Marilyn Monroe is and was greater than that, and will endure longer than Andrew Dominik's shameful, 'fictional' biopic.
The director claims (or defends himself by claiming) that it is "all fiction". Indeed, it was based on a work of fiction, a novel by Joyce Carol Oates of the same name. Yet it names Marilyn Monroe as its central character, the screen name used by Norma Jean and who, under whatever name, was not a work of fiction. It uses the most horrific events (or supposed events) from that person's existence more or less to suggest "this was the sum total of Marilyn Monroe's life".
There is no let up. Apart from a few brief moments of beauty in Arthur Miller's garden, it is a concatenation of misery. There is enough factual detail to make it 'authentic' - in the most tabloid-declamatory way, casually seasoned with large helpings of unerotic gratuitous nudity and constant close-ups - normally used in made-for-TV films - so that one doesn't miss expressions to which long shots would have given contextual clarity on a bigger screen - unsurprisingly as it is destined for the Netflix market.
There is one problem here. Marilyn Monroe was a superstar like no other. One of the most famous actresses of showbiz mythology. An icon that has never been replicated. The film shows only the sleaze. Even the famous and artistically beautiful shot of the white dress blowing up from Some Like it Hot, one of the most enduring images of the 20th century, is quickly reviled as it cuts to Joe DiMaggio beating her up for her 'lack of propriety'.
Most of the trauma in the personal life of Marilyn Monroe is on record. Any that isn't or not very well documented is gleefully extrapolated by director Andrew Dominik as if competing for the audience of the lowest, sleaziest tabloid. "Blonde" is akin to almost three hours of character assassination, as if it were all this great star stood for: the shameful atrocities inflicted upon her. Fortunately Marilyn Monroe is and was greater than that, and will endure longer than Andrew Dominik's shameful, 'fictional' biopic.