TIFF - Day 3 reviews (posted on Day 7)

Los Paranoicos 4 cats
About a sadsack of an Argentinian writer with writer’s block who finds out that, thanks to a longtime ‘friend’, he is famous in Spain as the quirky leading character in a hit TV show called The Paranoids…a character that shares his exact name. The friend comes back to get an Argentine version of the show undeway, girlfriend in tow, and our writer has a chance to put his foot down. Question is, does he take it? The director’s real life was the inspiration for the film – the director’s best friend really did base a TV show’s leading character on him. No wonder Daniel Handler, in the lead role, did such a great job in being so specific in his portrayal! The film is funny and appealing and heartfelt, and as an added bonus the soundtrack is fantastic.

Blind Sunflowers 4 cats
Maribel Verdu (Y Tu Mama Tambien and Pan’s Labyrinth) is a tour de force in this drama set in Spain during the 40’s, a few years after the end of the Civil War. Her husband, a republican, has been in hiding in a secret room for 4 years and her daughter is pregnant and determined to escape with her boyfriend. Meanwhile, at her young son’s Catholic school, she draws the attention of a young candidate-priest, newly returned from service in the army and now her son’s teacher. The priest’s obsession grows, and in turn so does the woman’s attempts to keep her family’s secret.

Flame & Citron 3.5 cats
Set in Denmark during its WWII occupation, the film tells the story of two famous Danish resistance fighters, Flame and Citron, and tells it with eyes open and no holds barred, which has made it quite a controversial film at home, according to the director. The two leads, Thure Lindhardt and Mads Mikkelsen are compelling, and the film conveys well the mood of paranoia, conspiracy and hidden brotherhood in a city and country that both protected and threatened these men. Unfortunately, the plot itself was more labyrinthine than it needed to be, and as the end neared, the good job of character buildup that had been done was itself betrayed by obvious twists and inexplicable choices, particularly by Flame. I wasn’t able to stay for the Q&A to find out how much of the film was based on true events – however I imagine that doing a first biopic about two legendary war heroes would make it difficult to change those ‘stranger than fiction’ events.

Blindness 3.5 cats
Okay, I first must talk about the spectacle first – the film’s premiere was at the Elgin, and it was beyond zooey. Seating took forever, and it was unbelievable how large the reserved section was. While looking for a friend, I was almost tripped by Geoffrey Rush, & nearly got bumrushed by Adrien Brody as he was being whooshed to his seat. Then the intro was a long one – I think about 12 or 13 cast members were up there, along with the director, writer and producer. A packed house, all around. As for the film – in an unknown city, a man driving down the street is suddenly stricken blind, from a mysterious disease that quickly spreads. We follow the plight of a blinded eye doctor (Mark Ruffalo) and his wife (Julianne Moore), who is feigning sickness, as they are quarantined with other sufferers in a military hospital, and basically left to fend for themselves. The cast is uniformly good (Maury Chaykin is intensely creepy) and the visuals are arresting. The director, Fernando Mereilles, does an effective job using washed out images and dislocating jump cuts to help the audience experience something of the disorientation and alienation felt by the characters. There is one section that is clunky and overstuffed – it almost breaks the overall tone of the film, but I mostly forgave it because it provided wider information critical to the rest of the film. My bigger issue was with elements of the plot, and the characterization of the wife. I couldn’t buy why she made many of the choices she did, and this kept me from caring that much for her, or for the people she felt responsible for. It’s not like I needed to cry tears of empathy, but I don’t think the intent was to feel as emotionless as I did at film’s end. I haven't read the book, and have a feeling I would have the same quibbles with it as I do the film - particularly since Saramago is so famously protective of his story, I doubt the filmmakers could have changed too much story-wise.