DVDebut: The Munden/Coxon adaptation of THE CRIMSON PETAL AND THE WHITE

Not having the read the novel by Michel Faber from which this British television mini-series -- THE CRIMSON PETAL AND THE WHITE -- has been adapted, I will not ask you to skip the adaptation and read the novel, as did The New York Times critic who reviewed the mini series when it was first shown on American TV a week or so back. No doubt the novel was better than its filmed version. (When are they not, with the exception of John Fowles' The Magus?) I will only suggest that if you want to see a most unusual tale, filmed darkly and beautifully, well- (and in one major instance, surprisingly-) cast and acted, feminist and anti-class to its core yet strangely elusive, too, then take a chance on this story of 1870s London and its bordellos, bourgeoisie and bonhommie (the latter among men, at least; the women here are not so lucky).

Adapted by Lucinda Coxon and directed by Marc Munden, this story of a prostitute named Sugar who is determined to better her station in life and perhaps wreak revenge on the males who have tampered and toyed with her, the 244-minute, four-part series begins with Sugar visiting a prostie friend who's been beaten to near death by two clients. The dank, ugly ambiance, shown in brief, deft strokes, coupled with the utter sadness of this scene grabs us immediately and lets us know that we are in territory imagined with a good grip on reality.

Sugar is played by that excellent and increasingly versatile actress Romola Garai, above, and she is by turns lovely, frightening and exquisite. She keeps a part of Sugar's character from us, and this is all to the good, since she also learns about herself and about life as she moves along.

Garai is expectedly excellent, but the performance by the fellow who plays her would-be savior and symbolic/literal "Sugar" daddy, William Rackham, is anything but expected. Rackham is played by Chris O'Dowd. Yes, the numbskull from The IT Crowd who has lately appeared in U.S. films from Gulliver's Travels to Bridesmaids to Friends With Kids.

O'Dowd is a terrific comedian, with a special kind of denseness that is securely his own. That this same denseness would travel from comedy to drama and the tragedy of senseless class distinctions is somewhat of a shock. How did they have the idea to cast this actor, and he to go for broke with all cylinders burning?

However, it happened, O'Dowd is simply astounding in this role -- which should open up all sorts of new possibilities for his career.

Also excellent are Amanda Hale as Rackham's unstable wife (at left) and Gillian Anderson, below, as Sugar' madame-and-more. Every role -- including those played by Richard E. Grant and Shirley Henderson -- is cast with enormous smarts and delivered with conviction and style. 

The Crimson Petal and The White, from Acorn Media -- the company currently giving us the best in British --  is available tomorrow, Tuesday, September 25, on DVD in a two-disc set, with 16:9 widescreen format and SDH subtitles, for sale or rental. Extras include deleted scenes, interviews with cast, director, and key crew, and character biographies.   

Camilo Vila's 186 DOLLARS TO FREEDOM, Peruvian prison movie, opens in NY & L.A.

We've had naive, young Americans hauled off to a Turkish prison in 1978's Midnight Express, a Chilean prison (1982's Missing), a prison in Thailand (1999's Brokedown Palace) and now a Peruvian prison in the badly-named 186 DOLLARS TO FREEDOM. There have probably been a number of other Americans-in-foreign-prison films, but these four jump quickly to mind, the last because it just opened this past Friday here in New York City and will open this coming Friday in Los Angeles, the other three because they boasted big-name stars and/or were somewhat-to-very successful.

Formerly (and much more interestingly) titled City of Gardens, the new Dollars/Freedom film, based (and ain't they all) on real-life events, tracks Wayne, a young American surfer/
teacher riding waves and working in Peru, who is arrested one sunny day for little or no reason and then imprisoned on trumped-up drug charges. As co-written (with Monty Fisher) and directed by Camilo Vila (shown at left), the film is part romantic drama (mostly via flashbacks), part political
/cultural treatise, and part torture porn. As you might surmise these parts do not work together well to provide an edifying whole.

The problem is not so much that the parts could not coalesce as that they simply don't. The flashbacks are used in clunky fashion, the expository treatise sections are explained to our imprisoned hero with i's dotted and t's crossed ("I had no idea there was so much suffering here," he then exclaims), and the torture porn (above), when it finally arrives, has our naked hunk trussed up and bled like a pig. And then suddenly -- spoiler just ahead -- he's seen sprinting off to freedom when, by all rights, he ought to be bleeding to death. Filmmakers, please: If you insist on feeding us this sugared crap, would you at least try to make it a tad believable.

On the plus side, the cast assembled for the movie is certainly watchable. In the lead role is one, John Robinson (above). Remem-ber that platinum blond kid from nearly a decade ago in Gus van Sant's Elephant and Lords of Dogtown? He's grown up some and here sports a nice body, on display a lot. Facially, he looks like he could easily play Patrick Wilson's younger brother. His acting? Acceptable, if not inspired. However, his character is way beyond the adjective naive. (In the movie, Wayne calls himself stubborn, yet in these particular circumstances it registers more like stupid.)

In prison Wayne makes both a good friend and a bad enemy -- played respectively by Johnny Lewis (above) and Alex Meraz (below). The former has a secret rooftop garden that makes the movie's former title even more pertinent.

The seen-mostly-in-hot-flashbacks lady in Wayne's life is played by the very beautiful Anahí de Cárdenas (below), who brings a hint of passion -- not something we get much of from Mr. Robinson -- to the proceedings.

Probably the best-known performer, film-wise, would be Deborah Kara Unger (below), as the glacial and exceedingly unhelpful representative from the American consul.

The award for weirdest role/performance goes to Grant Bowler (below), who plays Jesus Christ. Mr Christ, an inmate rather than the original (though the latter might have proven more original) comes onto the scene out of the blue (or the murk) and quite late in the film, and from that point on, things move from hairy to hairier, culminating in a whirlwind of carnage and idiocy, followed by the ususal title cards that advise us what happened -- to Peru and to our hero. If this movie is based on fact, then somebody, as a certain Señor Ricardo used to say, has some further 'splainin' to do.

186 Dollars to Freedom -- from Four Fish Films LLC, and running around 100 minutes -- opened this past Friday in New York City at the Quad Cinema and will open on Friday, September 28, in Los Angeles area at Laemmle's Monica 4-Plex.

Nat Christian's MONDAY MORNING gets its New York debut via New Filmmakers at AFA

This past February TrustMovies reported on a new film just then opening in Los Angeles, that, though it proved a mixed bag, had some wonderful stuff in it. He is happy to report that the film will be making a one-screening stopover between festivals here in New York City, under the auspices of New Filmmakers at the Anthology Film Archives building in Manhattan. It screens this Wednesday evening, September 26, at 9pm, and has also been chosen as part of the 29th annual Long Island Film Festival this October. The film is titled MONDAY MORNING, and the filmmaker is a fellow named Nat Christian, who wrote, directed and plays a supporting part in the movie. It's worth seeing and thinking about, so here's my original review, below, in case you missed it first time 'round -- along with an interview with the filmmaker:

What a strange film is MONDAY MORNING, the new genre mash-up (maybe unintentional) combining politics, fantasy and gritty documentary technique from writer/director/producer/editor Nat Christian. Mr. Christian even plays -- and very well -- one of the more interesting of the homeless characters who dot the film and give it its lasting resonance and meaning. Before you take this post as yet another rave from TrustMovies, let me first say that, on a certain level, Monday Morning seems, even as it grabs hold of you, to be a rather silly movie, in that it uses a fantasy gimmick (a slightly bizarre homeless woman with near-magical powers) to get its hero/non-hero -- a popular right-wing radio personality named Thomas Bach -- to experience life as one of the have-nots, rather than the "have" to whose cushy existence he feels entitled. (Well, as Stephen Sondheim once lyricized, "You gotta have a gimmick.")

Thomas' mantra, which he voices consistently in the beginning of the movie, seems to be that unrestrained capitalism guarantees competition, which leads to a healthier society. Instead, of course, we're seeing capitalism, as practiced in America, leading to a monopolistic society that is turning us all into wage-slaves. The filmmaker, shown at left, sees to it that Thomas (very well-played by a handsome, four-square, mostly-television actor named Victor Browne, below), whose only perceived negative (other than his attitude) is his diabetes, wakes up after that whack from the homeless woman with his memory impaired, his wallet and ID gone, and his diabetic symptoms beginning to kick in. But, ah, he gets to discover -- in fact, join -- the American underbelly.

In its spirit and, well, its naïveté, the movie may remind you of some of the Capra-corn from the 1930s and 40s: It reminded me of It's a Wonderful Life turned inside-out, while my companion saw it more as an updated Sullivan's Travels but without the crack casts, budget, and, yes, a certain gee-whiz sentimentality that those films possess. Instead, Christian manages to give us certain scenes that are surprisingly powerful, often upsetting, that involve his homeless. And we must deal with these as best we can -- including an ending that is much more complicated than feel-good.

The movie is un-rated, and when you see it, you'll understand why. There's a literal shit being taken by a homeless woman, as we (and the camera) look on; later, another of the homeless must give a blow-job in order to earn enough money to get something to eat, and we catch a glimpse of what's being sucked. These people look like the real homeless, too -- the filmmaker gets their teeth right -- rather than merely one step away from it. They're addicts and crazies and more, but they are also human and are definitely, at the remove of the motion picture experience, worth spending time with. This is the achievement of Christian's movie: We actually grow to care about these homeless, and even about Thomas, who for a time becomes one of them.

The idea of a right-wing talk show host discovering what the director calls "his better nature" (see interview below) and doing right by more than just the "haves" of our nation is a subject that merits all the time, money and art that could be lavished upon it. And if Christian manages only about half of the job, still, his movie is worth a shout-out. Those of my readers in the Los Angeles area, try to see Monday Morning during its week's theatrical run, beginning Friday, March 2, 2012, at the Laemmle Music Hall 3 (in Beverly Hills, yet! That's really rubbing it in). Depending on attendance, the film just might make it to theaters in other parts of the country. Let's hope.

****************

TrustMovies had not planned on doing an interview with the filmmaker of Monday Morning, but when he asked the film's excellent publicist for some art work, he was asked in return if he'd like to speak to Nat Christian. As TM had only just watched the movie the evening prior, it was still rolling around in his head, so "Sure!" he answered and later that day found himself knee-deep in some really delightful conversation -- which, of course, he couldn't begin to type fast enough to catch all of. What remains is below -- in which TM appears in boldface, while Nat Christian (shown again, below) speaks in standard type.

The first thing I have to say is just about how impressed I was that, despite what seems like a silly fantasy element in the film -- where the bag lady whacks your hero and knocks him out -- you still manage to...

You got that?! I'm really impressed, because subliminally she is a very symbolic character, and the symbolism was not meant to be so clear. It was subliminal sort of like the "atmosphere" in a room can become a character.

Really? Because it seemed pretty obvious to me.

Good. And I understand that the beginning might seem silly. Yes, I wanted the beginning to come off like some kind of soft romantic comedy: So we have this guy who is basically a horn dog having a great time and then, bam! -- he is hit by the bag lady. But so is the audience. What was my little secret, and no one is supposed to really get, but it helped me direct, was that the bag lady was waiting for the birth of Thomas's true nature. But no one is supposed to get this. It was much more of an intriguing question mark: a coincidence that comes around later. After that, with the lady that takes a poop, I was hoping that the viewer would say "Okay, this story is going somewhere"

Is that the same bag lady that we see at the beginning of the film?

No. The bag lady who is in Minnesota, who asks for money, is another character. She sort of looks like the bag lady who whacks Thomas. They have a certain similar look in their eyes. But that bag lady who whacks Thomas does appears again in the movie.

Right --

And when she hits him, it's really the best thing that happens to this guy. By getting hit, Thomas finds his true nature.

Yes, but can he hold on to it? How you handle that is, well, interesting.... And how you handle the homeless sure is, too!

I wanted to make a movie about homelessness that took the subject seriously. The homeless in my movie are the hard-core homeless. Not the ones who were one paycheck away from being homeless, but the hard core. Those who can't do. Who can't bag groceries. I've heard people say "Well they could work or bag groceries..." They can't. There is something going on in their minds. I feel that it would have been hypocritical for me to have a soft cushy ending while making this movie about them. I mean, I feel funny sometimes, just when I wear some nice shoes....

Oh, honey -- so do we all! Well, some of us, anyway. 

 The reason I made Monday Morning is out of guilt. I don't know why. I don't know, but that is why I made it.

You show some awfully real-looking stuff in your movie: the shit, the cock.

Yes, there are explicit scenes in the movie, but that is what is going on. I've seen it. I saw a woman on 57th St in New York stop and go to the bathroom and then just move on. I 've seen deals going down between people in back alleys. So I show it. I mean you can go to a museum and see explicit work. Mainstream directors have done this years ago. Just the other day I was watching Paul Verhoeven's Spetters, and there are a lot of explicit scenes in that. Great movie. And he made that in the eighties.

God, Spetters was a wonderful film! I haven't thought of that movie in quite awhile.

Yes, and I think you need to show things as close to "as they are" as you can. This all goes on, and it's only the half of it. I did my research.

You sure did.

I am amazed that you got all this -- you understood it -- and even the dream sequence....

Well, when you see enough movies, you tend to catch stuff like that.

I tried to bring a little magic into the reality. Let's call it "real magic" That was the idea behind the bag lady.

What did this film cost to make?

The total budget for the movie was under $74,000.

Whew -- that is very little, considering your fine cast and the look of the film. You really got a good cast, together -- from the leading man, right down to the smaller roles.

Yes, wasn't Victor Brown phenomenal. But everyone was terrific and so willing, and it wasn't always easy for them. Molly Kidder, Jessica Spotts - the whole cast and crew, just wonderful. With the cast, locations and vendors, I've found just being honest with people about what you want and expect can really help you make your movie. The whole cast and crew worked so hard. Victor dove into that dumpster. He jumped into any situation, and for a good-looking guy like that to be able to access all the emotions that he does, it's just wonderful.

I was also pleased (Editor's note: maybe a spoiler ahead) that you didn't feel it necessary to provide a happy ending where everybody wins.

My point of view is that I'm a guy with a flashlight shining into a dark corner of a huge warehouse and I am saying "Look: this is what I see," knowing that many have seen that exact same corner and still see it their way, while I'm presenting it in mine. Look, if you're middle class, you have to have the homeless in order to be middle class. It's all relative. If everyone had ten million dollars then there would be no "rich." So we are middle class or rich because there are many who are poor. They define us.

I don't have the answers to how to solve the homeless situation. I mean, it would take some major changes. I'm not a politician. I can only show what I feel. This is how I feel. Hopefully, we can all come to a place where we a little more grace towards these people and each other. Grace. Let's just have some grace -- instead of all the vitriol that's out there. (There's a pause)  I don't mean to go on like this.

No, no, its great. It's good. You should go on: That's what an interview like this is all about. And it lets me understand how you feel as person and as a film director.

It's funny, because when I got this money, I had the opportunity to do a movie about girls on motorcycles with machine guns....

I'm glad to opted for this one.

Before I forget, I want to share something with you. About digital techology. When you see these old movies - some of those directors were great. They couldn't go back to the film a year later and replace a tree for a chair. The film was cut (I mean it would take an awful lot of money and labor to do that). Well, with Digital Technology, you can. Everything is file-based: cutting and pasting (in the most basic terms). Movie makers nowadays can keep working on their movies far longer than they used to. There is a saying, I can't remember who said it - Coppola? Truffaut? Who? - and I'm paraphrasing - "You never finish a project, you abandon it." Well, moviemakers are taking a lot more time before abandoning their projects. I was up till 5 this morning with my editor fixing some technical problems, and watching the movie again to make sure everything is fine. If a moviemaker so desires, he/she can work with everything in the digital world. Now here's a theory: we're into digital technology. They even have digital billboards now. And with digital cinema, if everything is projected digitally, then theoretically, if a studio head decides he wants to change a movie that he owns, he could even change the ending of that movie from wherever he is over cable or Wifi.  He may have an alternative ending shot and ready. Digital is just amazing, and it's scary, too.

I think your film is coming to us at a good time, what with Occupy Wall Street, and all its incarnations around the country and the globe. And speaking of the better nature that your character seems to get in touch with -- for awhile anyway -- isn't that part of what Occupy is all about?

Yes, because the Occupy Wall Street people were and are sacrificing without with any reward in sight.

That 's right -- that is what they are doing. And that is certainly an element of a person's better nature. One little thing in the movie that I liked that shows Thomas indeed has a better nature happens when he saves that ant. But then when he's faced with a whole bunch of ants, he just can't deal with it and so gets out the water and just drowns them. We all have a better nature, I guess, but just don't ask too much from it.

This'll sound funny, but in my mind I can see a musical production of this work. Maybe someday. What I wanted to do with the movie was to entertain people while depicting a very dark arena -- to start with something light and goofy like the feeling you get from Wedding Crashers at the beginning. Then hit them when we get to the poop, and.... You know, there are real statistics about the homeless, particularly the women, and why they let themselves get so horrible and smelly. Can you guess why?

I would think maybe to keep men away from then, from raping them.

Exactly.

Before we end this conversation, I should tell you how good I thought you were in the role of "Damn." You were an actor first, right, and then went into the rest of it, and now you do a little bit of everything? In what job are you happiest?

For me, the most satisfying of the processes would be when I finish the final draft of a screenplay, because I have used my imagination in directing it or acting in it. And no amount of locations or equipment can compete with your imagination. You asked me if I was happy. Well, I don't think I can understand true happiness - I mean, I think it was Tennessee Williams who said: Happiness is insensitivity. Maybe I can feel content at times. Digital Technology has allowed a lot of us in this business today to be multi-hyphenates. Everybody does everything. What is beautiful is that a kid from some small town anywhere can make a great movie. I guess I just like to tell stories, and to share experiences. Where I would like to see movies go, is where music is now. I aspire to be where you can make a movie and get that same powerful experience the hundredth time you see it. Just like you can do with a great song or a great symphony. I aspire to be able to make a movie that will do that.

Maybe music doesn't demand as much from you as a novel or a film? Music is more immediate and on a single level. You just listen and experience.

Yes. Maybe it's the manipulation going on in the movies, the twists, the surprise elements in stories, and music doesn't have as much of that manipulation, I think.

I know Monday Morning is only opening for now in L.A. But would you bring it to NYC?

I would love to. If it does well in L.A. then maybe. You know, at the end of our shoot, we had four hours of movie to deal with, to cut down. I told all the extras that we would list them in the credits. I wanted to personally go to every actor and tell all the ones who were cut out of the film how good they were, even so. But really, you can't do that because, by that time, they've gone on to other jobs -- unless you did it by email.

Oh, yes: one more question, I'm from L.A. I grew up there, but I don't ever remember as much rain as I saw in your movie.

(He laughs) Yes, they're sure is a lot of rain in this movie -- and that's because we shot it in the rainiest season in all of L.A.'s recorded history!

Netflix streaming tip: PLAN B from Marco Berger -- and news of a new Berger flick, HAWAII, and its Kickstarter campaign -- plus an email Q&A with the filmmaker

If there is anything the world needs right now (short of a quick solution to global warming, and, here in America, any means, short of armed revolution, to wrest our political elections and hence our political leaders, out of the hands of the wealthy, powerful and increasingly corporate/global), that need -- movie-wise -- is some kind of way into the labyrinthine world of Netflix streaming. There are simply so many choices. To that end TrustMovies is going to try to devote a post, at least once weekly, to a Netflix streaming tip. A new friend has even suggested that I devote an entire blog to this, and indeed this problem could use many blogs. (I know that one such already exists, and it is quite good -- if a little too mainstream. Click on the previous link and try it.) 

But as there is only one of me, and currently I am asked to cover an impossible amount of movies (last week, here in New York City, 25 new films opened theatrically!), I will do this as often as possible -- sometimes with a film I have only just seen, others times by re-posting an old review of a film now available to stream via Netflix). So let's start with this revisited and slightly edited post about a very important film from two years ago....

On one level PLAN B, the currently streaming and DVD-ing Argentine film by Marco Berger, is a fun and funny little movie about romance and revenge gone goofily awry. When Bruno (newcomer Manuel Vignau), the hirsute, hunky but rather hollow young man who's been dumped by his girlfriend Laura (another newcomer Mercedes Quinteros) decides to get revenge on her and her new boyfriend Pedro (played by the very interesting, works-a-lot actor Lucas Ferraro), he suggests to Laura that her new guy looks gay -- and then begins a clandestine relationship with Pedro to try to prove his point. Berger's movie works perfectly well on this level, providing charm, smarts and even -- depending on your sophistication level and how many movies of this sort you've seen -- some surprises.

On another level (several of them, in fact,) the movie opens up a Pandora's Box of questions that, once asked, need to be further explored, if not answered fully, since those answers will most likely differ from person to person. Mr. Berger, shown at right, appears (on the basis of what we see and hear in Plan B) too smart a guy and too good a filmmaker not to know what he has wrought in his little rom-com-cum-stealth-missile. Is gay attraction and behavior absolutely built-in or can it be learned? Can two presumably straight guys fall in romantic love over the long haul merely by spending time together and growing attached?  If so, just how malleable is sexuality?

Over the decades, Kinsey and other sex researchers have tried to answer questions like these, but given the strictures places on sexuality by religion and social mores, not to mention mankind's (male version) tendency to want to appear as macho as possible, getting an honest reading on the subject seems well nigh impossible. All of which makes Berger's little effort the more subversively explosive.

The two men bond easily and quickly around a few subjects they find in common, particularly games and icons from their youth. Alcohol and light drug-use help, too, as do the very natural, laid-back performances from the two actos (Vignau is shown above, right, Ferraro at left).  It would make sense that neither of them would possess a trace of behavior that might appear gay -- why would they? -- so their increasing friendship seems both natural and suspect, particularly on the part of Bruno, since his original intent was to "reveal" his opponent.  Revelation can come in many different ways, of course, since we all wear masks.

As a filmmaker, Berger trusts his instinct to stay away from not only the overly expository but, surprisingly, even dialog itself. The first four minutes of the film are dialog-free -- all ambient sounds -- and often along the way, the writer/director opts for his characters to remain silent. When it does arrive, his dialog is always believable and cogent, but the film's most memorable scenes may be those that are nearly silent: at the beach, people-watching, or a character lingering over a letter until he fully comprehends it. As director, Berger also seems to enjoy showing us odd shots of local architecture -- why, I am not sure -- but these do not distract much from our enjoyment.

Plan B just may be the longest pre-coital romance in cinema history, and to the filmmaker's credit, this full-length flirtation works better than it has any right to. (Still, at 103 minutes, the movie would have profited by being cut by at least ten, so as not to test our patience quite so much.)  For a film with strong gay content, the movie is surprisingly chaste, which actually adds to its charm. When our boys wake up in the morning (above) they have their shorts on, of course, and nothing has happened -- except some typical early morning tumescence. Finally, it's the performances by Vignau and Ferraro that do the most to bring home Berger's message: "In order to understand you, people have to see through your eyes."  Plan B allows us to do this, and the view is alternately sad and warm, foolish and funny.

Wolfe Video, increasingly important as a source for GLBT films, is the distributor of Plan B, which became available for sale or rent on October, 26, 2010 --and now can be streamed via Netflix.

*******************

TrustMovies recently heard from Mr. Berger (shown at left) about his new film titled HAWAII, which is currently being partially funded by a campaign on Kickstarter. The campaign -- to raise some $40,000 in the next four weeks (27 days actually remain) ends of October 19, so if any of my readers out there can come up with extra money (and yes, I know how difficult that is these days), please do.

I think Berger is among the better young filmmakers working today. I am still hoping to be able to see his second film, Absent, about which I hear wonderful things but can currently only be "Saved" on Netflix (which is often not a good sign re actual availability, ever).

So click here, please, and take a good long look at Hawaii's Kickstarter campaign. Watch the filmmaker's intro/trailer (it's lovely), read about the film and what Berger hopes to accomplish, and if you are able, contribute.

*******************

Normally TM would wait until all of a particular post was available before he posted. But because I want to get world out ASAP about this Hawaii campaign, I am posting now. As soon as I hear back from the filmmaker about his responses to my above review of Plan B, what he agrees with and what he doesn't -- a critic is not usually lucky enough to get this kind of feedback from a filmmaker (at least this one isn't) so I am looking forward to learning what he thinks -- I'll get the remainder of this post up.

OK: Marco has weighed in (and I apologize because it has taken me awhile to find time to post his comments). But here they are, along with my questions/responses. Below, TM is in boldface, and Marco in standard type:

M.B.: I think your analysis of the film is brilliant.

TM: I don't know that even I would go that far. But thanks!

It is true I wanted to question sexuality, taste and the roots of desire & attraction, but I don't dare to answer, just to question.

I am glad to hear you say that because, I don't know that any of us has many answers regarding sexuality -- except maybe where we ourselves are concerned.

I only wanted to say that love is a very strange thing that probably anybody can understand. But there are many that don't understand what it means to be gay, and so with Plan B, they can maybe reflect themselves onto the film and at least get closer to understanding why sometimes we choose the same sex.

What you describe above is one of the most difficult things for a person to do, I  believe. But I also think Plan B comes as close to helping us achieve this as any other movie I've seen.

Some of your doubts about the film are mysterious to me, even if I made the film.

You mean about the shots of the architecture?

What I said above is also the reason for the long building shots. I never meant to bore people, but I wanted to let them think about every little scene in the film and to take their own conclusions. That's why it may be boring if you are already gay, but if you never understood gay people and then see this film, you can be in Pablo or Bruno mind and put yourself in their situation and understand a little better.

Right. And you really do let us get into their mind and feelings.

So I could say Plan B is a gay film but also is oriented to everyone, to make them think about the meaning of choosing something different. The biggest challenge of the film is to make ANY spectator wish that these two end up together. Thank you very much again for the review and I hope this explanation fills some of your doubts.

It does. So you are welcome -- and thank you for your movie!

Special thanks to Movie Screen Shots 

for the use of the final four photos.)

In DIANA VREELAND: THE EYE HAS TO TRAVEL, a younger Vreeland, Perlmutt and Tcheng dissect a legend and her legacy

If you follow this blog much at all, you'll have probably encountered one post or another that takes out after fashion and its ludicrous industry. TrustMovies has little good to say about this particular f-word and its many "fashionistas" who follow it like flies on the trail of fresh excrement. And yet he thoroughly enjoyed the new documentary, DIANA VREELAND: THE EYE HAS TO TRAVEL, which was co-directed and co-written by Vreeland's granddaughter-in-law, Lisa Immordino Vreeland (shown below, right), together with Bent-Jorden Perlmutt (shown below, left) and Frédéric Tcheng.

This is the fledgling outting for young Vreeland, although Perlmutt has produced, directed, edited and written a few other works, while Mr. Tcheng was both co-producer and co-editor on another enjoyable fashion documentary, Valentino: The Last Emperor. The threesome has managed to put together quite a feast of information and photos, and though the film is overwhelmingly historic and archival, it remains consistently fascinating as it tracks the life, times and work of a strange woman with a gift for gab -- and style.

The quote on the poster (at top) is indicative, I think, of both fashion and the doyenne who ran it for several decades in the middle of the 20th Century: "Style is everything... Style is a way of life. Without it, you're nothing." This statement is, in a word, bull-shit. It applies only if you're in fashion. Think of anyone, everyone, from Stephen Hawking to Robert J. Oppenheim to the woman at IBM who invented the JPEG. Or think of yours truly and the literally hundreds and hundreds of good people I've known -- better: think of those that you've known -- throughout our lives who didn't have much style and couldn't care much about style (or at least Ms Vreeland's idea of it) and yet did very nicely over-all, thank you.

Fortunately, Diana (you pronounce it Dee-anna, not Die-anna: that's something I learned from this film), had some other interesting things to say and do and places to go and see. Somewhat on the order of a female Oscar Wilde (with perhaps not quite so lasting or important a gift to give the world), she was not a particularly attractive person who made the most of what she had and kept a new bon mot up her sleeve for use at every occasion. (On looking out at a lovely sea view: "Water is god's tranquilizer.")

She is a consistent delight to listen to here, in transcripts from interviews done with the late writer George Plimpton. The film is a mixture of the Plimpton interviews, historical footage, and interviews with many others who knew and worked with her, including actress Ali McGraw, who was her assistant for a time, and has a very funny anecdote to tell.

We get quite a bit of her younger years growing up with a nasty mom and a decent dad. Mommy managed to instill in her that she was not at all pretty, and this of course stayed with her for life. Perhaps it was Daddy (above, with Diana on the right) who implanted a strong enough sense of self that she was able to rise in the fashion world and maintain her place there long after others had fallen.

This woman, who lived from 1903 to 1989, knew and loved everyone from Buffalo Bill to Twiggy (that's Yves St. Laurent with her in the shot to the right). She managed to land a very attractive husband (below), whose fidelity may have been in question, yet the marriage lasted and produced a couple of kids for whom, it appears, Diana had little interest. (She was perhaps less of a mother to her brood than her own mother had been.)

But the work she inspired and produced in the pages of, first, Harper's Bazaar and later Vogue -- the really clever and original Why Don't You... columns (below) for the former, and the drop-dead, knock-your-socks-off fashion spreads for both magazines -- remain today as original and enticing as they seemed at the time they were created.

From the little we see and hear about and from her family, it is clear that they missed her, for even when she was there, she wasn't present. Yet she must have been great fun to be around (perhaps at a little distance) for those who did not need to depend on her too much. In any case, she proves an utterly entrancing, commanding and nifty subject for this documentary. Were Diana herself able to view the film, I suspect she would be quite impressed, if a tad angry, at how very well she's been captured.

Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel, from Samuel Goldwyn Films and Epix Pictures, with a running time of 86 minutes, opened yesterday (and I apologize for my tardiness in posting: It's been too busy a week!) in New York (at the Angelika Film Center and the Lincoln Plaza Cinema) and Los Angeles (at The Landmark), and will expand into other cities in the weeks to come. Click here to see all currently scheduled playdates, with cities and theaters listed.