Lore

‘Lore’ is based on one of three stories in Rachel Seiffert's novel ‘The Dark Room’. It is set in Germany at the very end of World War II.

The father of fifteen-year-old Hannelore or Lore (Saskia Rosendahl), an SS officer, is abandoning the family home. Destroying evidence and shooting the family dog as he goes, before heading off to the front, where he’ll probably meet his death.

Then Lore's mother prepares to leave too. After hearing a radio announcement confirming Adolf Hitler’s death, she surrenders to the Americans. Now her children are left to fend for themselves and Lore, as the eldest, is in charge. Her mother tells her to find a way to their grandmother's in Hamburg, a mere 500km away.

Finding out that the trains are not running, they start their journey across Germany on foot. This is a new Germany, a defeated Germany that lies in ruins, people are starving and sick. They find that some people are willing to help them whilst others most definitely are not and in fact are a danger to them.

This is journey that is viewed mainly through Lore’s eyes and from her perspective. A journey which is as mental as it is physical, as she attempts to comprehend how her country, the supposedly superior one, is now occupied and divided into Russian, American, British and French zones.

Across the failed Third Reich many people mourn their dead leader and condemn the lies the Allies are spreading about him. The Americans post up photographs from the liberation of the concentration camps which many Germans decide are mere propaganda but Lore knows otherwise. We see her tearing away a piece of one of the photos, one that contains the image of her father .

With that Lore realises just how much her father, and probably her mother, were involved in the atrocities. Then she meets Thomas (Kia-Peter Malina), a Jew who was supposedly liberated from one of these camps.

Although Thomas may not be all he appears. It is revealed that the identification papers he carries are not his own. He tells one of the other children that he is not Jewish, but carries the papers because the Americans like Jews. Again though Lore knows otherwise, that is if she realises what the numbers tattooed on Thomas’s wrist mean. They may not be his papers but clearly Thomas has survived the camps and perhaps suspected that the other children would not accept his help if they thought he was Jewish.

An uneasy relationship builds between Thomas and Lore, there is some attraction but mainly it’s out of a necessity to survive as Thomas helps them cross out of the American zone.

When they finally reach Hamburg, Lore finds it hard to settle in at her grandmothers. She has much on her mind. Forced to abruptly grow up, to question her engrained beliefs and to rethink her entire ‘National Socialist’ outlook on life. Then there’s the guilt she feels for how they betrayed Thomas.

‘Lore’ is not an easy film to follow but it’s a good one, although it could have perhaps done with a spot of narration. It’s a film that grows after you’ve left the cinema and it shows a part of history that is rarely shown. Well worth a look.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games was actually a bit of a disappointment. I didn’t get to see this at the cinema because L and Daughter went without me but I wanted to see it, as it sounded like a similar idea to Stephen King's The Running Man. Which was a great book but an awful film. The concept of the Hunger Games was similar but the film was very different, it was probably more like the Truman Show or even Rollerball with its reality TV angle.

Actually the Hunger Games was potentially more evil than the Running Man with its premise of children killing each other to survive for the pleasure of a TV audience in an X Factor meets Big Brother style competition. The problem is it's called the Hunger Games but where’s the hunger? The principle of the book, as I understand it (because I haven't read it), is that kids from the poverty struck 'districts' where they have no food are being forced by an evil regime to fight each for food. The very pleasant on the eye Ms Lawrence doesn't look particularly starved and it's all a bit too nice, like they didn’t want to upset anyone. I would hope that the books are a bit more evil and depressing.

In the end, of course, love or implied love conquers all and Katniss (our Jennifer) survives and wins the games by... well,  not doing very much at all actually. Hiding most of the time which is what I do when I play Laser Quest or Paintball. It’s not very endearing but quite effective.

Zero Dark Thirty

‘Zero Dark Thirty’, half past midnight, is the codename for the US Navy SEAL raid that took out Osama bin Laden in May 2011. The film, directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written/produced by Mark Boal, concerns itself with the CIA’s decade long search for him and more specifically the obsession of one woman to get her man.

It is a fictionalized account that is apparently as 'accurate' as they could be and is partly based on what was in the book ‘No Easy Day’ by Mark Owen, who participated in the operation. It is told very much from the US perspective and that has left the film open to accusation of propaganda. I have no idea how realistic it all is but I’m open to anyone’s account. It is also not your typically polished Hollywood production, thankfully, and is more of a documentary drama.

The woman with the obsession is Maya (Jessica Chastain). We never find out much about Maya other than that she was recruited right out of high school, so clearly she wasn’t your typical teenager. She maintains her focus on bin Laden throughout despite the numerous attempts by her, usually male, superiors to dismiss her theories.

The film opens in audio only from the 11^th September 2001 with recordings of the emergency telephone calls from people trapped in the Twin Towers. It is occasionally difficult to watch. There are a few torture scenes at the beginning, which although they aren’t too graphic are still quite disturbing. If it is disturbing to the viewer, it is also disturbing to Maya, at least at first. When we first meet her in 2003 at a 'black site' (e.g. secret site) she is observing another CIA officer called Dan (Jason Clarke) interrogate a detainee using waterboarding and other forms of torture. Maya looks distinctively uncomfortable throughout but she soon gets the hang of things.

Then via other terrorist atrocities such as the London bombings we gradually home in on bin Laden, zigzag style and perhaps more by chance than anything. As for anyone who is levelling claims of propaganda, I’m not sure if they mean this in a positive or a negative way because although they eventually kill bin Laden, at times it’s more of a film about their failure to find him. What were they messing around at?

Even then, some of their successes seem improbable, like when a terrorist finally spills the beans over lunch. Almost as improbable are their failures, the relaxation of security so that they won’t spook an informer ends in the entirely predictable explosion of a military base and several deaths. Not very bright.

Much of the film takes place in meetings full of middle management and at times it can be confusing as to the approach they’re taking or not taking. In the end the entire operation hinges on catching a courier who they seem to find only because somebody discovers something they overlooked years earlier. It doesn’t actually make the CIA look very good at all but they got there in the end.

Still, I was riveted by it all and I’m a total sceptic. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if ten years down the line they say well actually guys it wasn't actually bin Laden we killed... So if this is just sort of the truth, sort of as it is now, then that's fine. Good film.

Les Misérables

I go into this blind, although not blindfolded (there’s a thought). I have no idea about the story, as I haven’t seen either the musical, any of the previous film versions or read Victor Hugo's book. Naturally I knew there was going to be a lot of singing in it or rather, as is often the case, elongated talking. Something I’ve experienced before, the awful Sweeney Todd springs to mind, but that is often better than sitting through a singing frenzy, like say Evita. OMG I’ve done so many musicals, I sound like an expert.

Set in post first Revolution France, the film tells the story of prisoner 24601 Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) who stole a piece of bread and got sent to do hard labour for 19 years. Well, it turned into 19 years after several escape attempts. He is then released on parole which he breaks. He then steals from the only man who wants to help him, a priest. He gets caught but the priest forgives him, tells him to keep his ill gotten gains, as long as he makes something of his life. We fast-forward in time and I reach for Wikipedia, I’m confused already because Hugh Jackman doesn’t look like Hugh Jackman.

That ‘making something of his life’ translates to taking in Anne Hathaway, which is way beyond the call of duty even for an ex-convict. Give that man a royal pardon please but no, he is set to be constantly hounded for the rest of his life by a rather jobsworth of a police inspector called Javert (Russell Crowe).

Hathaway’s character Fantine gets sacked from her job for reasons I didn't fully understand, then sells not only the desirable bits of her body but also her hair and teeth to feed her child. The really odd thing is that someone wanted to buy these. Becoming a prostitute for money I can understand, that's a service that sells, but hair and teeth? Hmmm. Is this just an excuse to get a teeth pulling scene in, which is a good analogy... Meanwhile I’m still trying to work out why the supposedly reformed Valjean was hanging around the red light district in the first place.

Thankfully within minutes of being on screen Hathaway has died, again not quite sure of what, without us even finding out anything of note about her. With her dying on his watch, Valjean’s task to make something of his life is already looking a bit ropey. This is why I guess he decided to take care of Fantine’s daughter Cosette.

Then we’re into the lesser known second French Revolution. Which I’m sure there must have been more to than some students piling a load of furniture up in a side street whilst they were between lecturers. Amongst them, and clearly lost in France, is a little street urchin kid with a worryingly broad Cockney accent.

Mid-Revolution the rather feeble Marius (Eddie Redmayne) sees Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and instantly falls in love. They don’t actually speak, words are not necessary. Unbelievably Marius hasn’t noticed the far more gorgeous female beside him, her friend and his, Éponine (Samantha Barks). Who would opt for the incredibly plain Cosette over her, not me. It can’t be because of her personality because; well they still haven’t spoken to each other. No wonder Éponine is so upset. Forget him love, he’s into precious, boring, rich girls who wouldn’t be seen dead on the frontline, you’re too good for him girl.

Valjean is initially worried Marius is going to take his adopted Daughter away from him, for about twenty seconds that is, then clearly he realises how expensive Daughters are and changes his mind. Suddenly he is so intent on getting her married off that he carries the now wounded Marius through the sewers to safety.

Only to come up against the mad singing policeman again. Finally, having been shown mercy himself several times, Javert has a moment of enlightenment and lets them go. Then promptly throws himself off a bridge, still singing. You couldn’t make it up. Well clearly someone did, didn’t they Mr Hugo but I guess if you’d précised your own book, which clocks in at 57 hour 51 minutes on audiobook (I checked), you’d have perhaps done it a bit differently.

Moments later, Valjean dies too, not that we even knew he was ill and that’s the problem really. We don’t know much at all. Les Mis isn’t into character development and therefore we know jack all about everyone.

It’s a shame because I got the impression there was a really good story in there somewhere fighting to get out but there was so much plot missing that it simply didn’t make any sense. Clearly they expected people to know the story and/or had seen the musical. It's has, however, made me want to see one of the film versions (with no singing obviously) to find out more.

Still, it wasn’t as bad as I expected and although lightweight, it was broadly entertaining. Cast wise, my expectations of Russell Crowe were that low, I actually thought he did alright. Hugh Jackman was ok too, while Anne Hathaway was, as you’d expect, distinctly average. Helena Bonham-Carter was as brilliantly maniacal as ever and along with Sacha Baron Cohen brightened up the whole affair with their comical supporting roles. Ah Corgette, how we laughed. 

Both have musical previous of course, in the aforementioned Sweeney Todd and are much better in this. Meanwhile Eddie Redmayne looked simply lost, Amanda Seyfried was, shall we say, very hard on the ears and Samantha Barks, well, I’ll have nothing said against her.Cue gratuitous photo.

Singing wise, the men sang low which worked, the women sang high, which generally didn't. The street urchin child showed them all how to do it, albeit in Cockney. There were also a few actors who had done the stage show, good on you Sammy, and you could tell.

Clearly Les Misérables is a film you’ll either love or hate. If you aren't a fan of musicals, skip it. It’s a total mystery to me as to why the score has been such a hit. If you are a fan of a decent plot, err, I would definitely skip it too.

Overall I feel rather proud that I got through it and if they were selling ‘I survived Les Misérables’ t-shirts outside, I would have bought one.