Alexandra's Project

[Goldenblue]

Has anyone seen this movie?

It would have to be the most powerful movie I have ever seen. I won't go into too many details as there may be some who have not seen it, but as an Aussie movie, it would have to be up there with the best.

Garry Sweet and Helen Buday are fantastic in this movie, especially Helen and the way she played the role. It was a movie that I could not find myself liking either person, but in the end, as much as the character that Sweet played was an arseh*le, I just wanted Buday's character to die a painful death.

I have to admit that since I have seen it, it has been on my mind for 3 days. It is a great movie to watch, the tension and the emotions keep you on your toes.

I admit, I am not a fan of Aussie movies as we tend to make a lot of crap, but this one is one I recommend everyone to see, and in my DVD store, I am suggesting it to everyone and my customers are coming back and telling me it was a great movie. I am yet to hear a bad thing about it so far.

This is a must see.

 

[sandeano]

Utterly brilliant film...but the only movie in a long time that I was on the verge of walking out of when I saw it at the cinema, it affected me that much.

It is a very diffiult film to talk about on a message board without giving too much away, but all I can say is SEE IT, especially with someone of the opposite sex, better still if you are in a relationship with them. You will be talking for days.

It left me pretty scarred, in a number of ways.

 

[Portmagpies]

Agreed. Rolf de Heer is Australia's most important director. He makes brave films and and has almost gone to the wall several times to get them made. Spurned Hollywood too.

As as aside his 'The Old Man Who Used to Read Love Stories' is finally coming out next year, four years after it was finished. It stars Richard Dreyfuss. Better late than never I guess.

 

[SCRAY72]

Saw it, the lowlight was seeing Gary Sweet naked. Not pretty.
Anyway I enjoyed it, agreed, powerful stuff.

 

[B2..]

See my thread some few months ago:

www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69504&highlight=Alexandras+Project

Yeah, great movie. I guess it's one of those arthouse movies that are so detested by the likes of Tim56; If they don't make a quid they're a waste of time.

EDIT: Link works now

 

[B2..]

Interesting you say that, because that was my reaction too - stirred up a real hornets' nest within me, and Mrs B2 and I were discussing it for days.

Your other comment re Aussie films is relevant to the discussion I was having with Tim56. These "arthouse" movies have a bad name, and undeservedly so in many cases. Purely on reputation, because they're not "mainstream", they won't make money, which is a shame.

If people could get over their prejudices with these film, they'd be pleasantly surprised. I had a blackspot recently about European films, particularly those with subtitles, but I'm getting over it.

My question to you is - what made you go and see it? Just interested. The review was enough to suck me in.

Originally posted by Goldenblue
I have to admit that since I have seen it, it has been on my mind for 3 days. It is a great movie to watch, the tension and the emotions keep you on your toes.

I admit, I am not a fan of Aussie movies as we tend to make a lot of crap, but this one is one I recommend everyone to see, and in my DVD store, I am suggesting it to everyone and my customers are coming back and telling me it was a great movie. I am yet to hear a bad thing about it so far.

This is a must see.

 

[B2..]

Yeah, I felt that way too. I saw a group of women who were innocently leaving the cinema, laughing loudly amongst themselves, but after sitting through this movie I was ready to explode. It wasn't their fault - I just hated women at that particular moment

I love a movie which draws a strong reaction from me.

Originally posted by sandeano
Utterly brilliant film...but the only movie in a long time that I was on the verge of walking out of when I saw it at the cinema, it affected me that much.

 

[Magpira]

Originally posted by SCRAY72
Saw it, the lowlight was seeing Gary Sweet naked. Not pretty.

Indeed...I loved the movie.....Except the part where Gary Sweet was naked...That had me terrified for days

 

[sandeano]

Originally posted by Portmagpies


As as aside his 'The Old Man Who Used to Read Love Stories' is finally coming out next year, four years after it was finished. It stars Richard Dreyfuss. Better late than never I guess.

I saw this film about three years back when DeHeer himself presented it at the Melbourne Film Festival. A much troubled production in which financing fell through at a number of points and DeHeer was sacked, but re-instated at the demand of Dreyfuss (top bloke!) who said he would walk, otherwise.

An beautiful, lyrical and strangely haunting film, it is akin to a cinematic version of the magic realism of the likes of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and his ilk. In the end it perhaps just does not quite work, but the journey is a very rewarding one. It is a must to see on the big screen though, seldom has the Amazon ben so gorgeously captured. I doubt if it will be in cinemas for long, so catch it if you can.

 

[eagleskickass]

well im annoyed. I went to the video store to get it out, found the DVD on the shelf, took it to the desk and after 2-3 minutes the attendant says "sorry, i cant seem to find this DVD" so i couldnt get it. Not impressed It was the only copy of it they have too.

 

[Goldenblue]

Re: Re: Alexandra's Project

Originally posted by B2..
My question to you is - what made you go and see it? Just interested. The review was enough to suck me in.

I never read any reviews, but as I work in a video store, I had a copy of the Phone Booth / Alexandra's Project DVD preview and I only watched PB at the time and took it back.

I recently saw the new previews that are coming out in Feb / March next year and they looked pretty lame, so I decided to grab PB again as I enjoyed it and then decided to see what this Alexandra's project was all about.

I have to agree with many others, it affected me a lot too.

 

[raskolnikov]

I'm surprised at the reaction of women in this thread.

I thought Gary Sweet was meant to be a sex symbol.

 

[Magpira]

Originally posted by DonFan
I'm surprised at the reaction of women in this thread.

I thought Gary Sweet was meant to be a sex symbol.

Gary Sweet a Sex symbol?

Maybe to women over 40

 

[B2..]

Re: Re: Re: Alexandra's Project

I suspect a lot of 'blokes' would have been squirming a little as they watched it. Without giving anything away I could see aspects of Sweet's character in myself (I'm ashamed to admit).

Having said that, I felt a great deal of empathy for him. Prior to this I'd thought Sweet had become a parody of his ocker image, not to be taken seriously, but left feeling he is one damned fine actor.

Anyone else seen "The Tracker?" I haven't, and think it would be good film to catch. Yet another 'arthouse' movie, heh. Pass the chardonnay.

Originally posted by Goldenblue
I have to agree with many others, it affected me a lot too.

 

[B2..]

A bit harsh, you lot! Geez, your own mate must look like the Terminator.

I work pretty hard at keeping in shape, and being a few years younger than Gary, I thought he looked bloody great for a guy his age.

I'll be happy to look that good when I'm in my late 40s.

Originally posted by Magpira
Gary Sweet a Sex symbol?

Maybe to women over 40

 

[Uncle Steve]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Alexandra's Project

Originally posted by B2..
Having said that, I felt a great deal of empathy for him. Prior to this I'd thought Sweet had become a parody of his ocker image, not to be taken seriously, but left feeling he is one damned fine actor.

A great actor, and a former Glenelg reserves player (suited up in the 1979 reserves GF loss, IIRC) and number-one ticket holder!

 

[Portmagpies]

I hate the term 'arthouse' cinema. It means nothing.

'Alexandra's Project' is a drama.

 

[sandeano]

Originally posted by Portmagpies
I hate the term 'arthouse' cinema. It means nothing.

'Alexandra's Project' is a drama.

In a perfect world "Alexandra's Project" would be classified simply as a drama, however the distribution and exhibition of films have, since the sound era, been dictated by the conventions of classical Hollywood form and content and in turn, viewers have certain expectations of what they will see when they plonk down their cash at the box office.

Using this film as an example ....

***SPOILER ALERT***

Had Alexandra's Project have been made in America (through the studio system) I suspect a great many changes would have occurred. For example, for the narrative to run the course it does, Sweet's character would have to be an utter bastard to get the treatment he receives and on the same point, Buday would be seen as a complete victim, finally gaining the empowerment she deserves.

Conversely, the roles could be reversed, with Sweet having total audience sympathy and Buday being the bich from hell (in this case, imagine Mike Douglas and Glenn Close in the roles), which the husband managing to find an escape route in the final reel and locating his kids at the airport, or something.

For the film we are discussing has too much ambiguity in the characters to conform to audience expectations. Sweet is a bit of an arseh*le, but not entirely deserving of his fate and Buday, although we can sympathise with her predictament, goes way overboard in seeking revenge.

Add to that the fact that the film offers no catharsis. Going by the replies so far I was not the only person to leave the cinema angry, frustrated and shaken. Sweet never gets a right of reply and she gets away with her plan fully. In Hollywood terms this is box-office poison, for it defies the golden rule of melodrama - in the Manichean battle between good and evil, the hero and the villian must be easily identified and, after much hardship, the villian must be thwarted and order restored. This film does not allow that. We are thrown out of our comfort zone and into a world that we just do not want to have to comprehend.

For that reason Alexandra's Project is an arthouse film. Audiences will go to it KNOWING they will see something different from the usual multiplex fodder and that all their preconceived notions of cinematic expectations are bound to be confounded and confronted.

Hollywood does what Hollywood does well and yes, there is a place for it, but sometimes we need to be challenged and the arthouse alternative is oftten the place to start. Don't get me wrong, there are woeful arthouse films out there too, but Alexandra's Project is one of the best of recent years.

 

[B2..]

Oh, I agree. I suspect many who use it see it as a term to denigrate the quality of a film, by implying that it does not have broad appeal, and by extension, is not popular, or "worthy" of critcal acclaim.

Funny thing is, many of these 'arthouse' films DO receive critical acclaim, but not box-office success.

Originally posted by Portmagpies
I hate the term 'arthouse' cinema. It means nothing.

'Alexandra's Project' is a drama.

 

[B2..]

Brilliant summary, Sandeano!

Yes, we need to be challenged, and half of the excitement with this film (for me, at least) was that we knew it wouldn't have a predictable outcome.

I could easily see it again, and would probably appreciate it more next time. The film is full of subtlety, that doesn't leap out at you cartoon-like as with so much from Hollywood.

Your observations about Douglas and Close are spot on.

Originally posted by sandeano
For that reason Alexandra's Project is an arthouse film. Audiences will go to it KNOWING they will see something different from the usual multiplex fodder and that all their preconceived notions of cinematic expectations are bound to be confounded and confronted.

Hollywood does what Hollywood does well and yes, there is a place for it, but sometimes we need to be challenged and the arthouse alternative is oftten the place to start. Don't get me wrong, there are woeful arthouse films out there too, but Alexandra's Project is one of the best of recent years.

 

[B2..]

*****SPOILER ALERT******

Yeah, right on this point. The beginning of the film has Sweet forced outside in the cold of the morning for a smoke. It is apparent he is under a fair degree of control, too. That part really stuck in my mind.

Originally posted by sandeano
For the film we are discussing has too much ambiguity in the characters to conform to audience expectations. Sweet is a bit of an arseh*le, but not entirely deserving of his

 

[Portmagpies]

No offence people, but a lot of this is film theory bullshucks.

 

[Portmagpies]

Oops...

By that rationale, you could argue Hollywood never made a film in the 1970s.

But the truth is, Hollywood subsidise a lot of independent films. And despite everything else, it's where every filmmaker wants to work (except for maybe Rolf de Heer and Lars von Trier).

 

[sandeano]

Originally posted by Portmagpies
Oops...

By that rationale, you could argue Hollywood never made a film in the 1970s.

That is a fair comment, as the 1970s are, to a degree, the exception to the rule. But we have to jump back a bit, to the mid 1960s, to see why.

By the late 1950s the studio system was in dissarray. RKO had folded and the others were really suffering the effects of the infiltration of television into the homes of the suburbs, where the post-WW2 generation had moved, preferring to stay home in front of the box, rather than venture out to the theatre. Fads like 3-D only worked for a very short while to lure people back, although the likes of Cinemascope (and its equivalents) were much more successful in providing a size of screen unavailable in the loungeroom. Add to that the big epics of the day - Ben Hur, El Cid, Ten Commandments, How The West Was Won, Longest Day etc and the studios managed to tread water for a while, although it was a very costly process to keep up.

After Cleopatra virtually bankrupted Fox studios, and The Long Ships and The Fall of the Roman Empire lost fortunes, the epic kinda died off. Then, when all appeared doomed for Hollywood, along came The Sound of Music which struck a chord with middle America and smashed all existing box office records. Trouble was, everybody tried to emulate its success and the fiscal carnage that resulted from Paint Your Wagon, Hello Dolly, Funny Girl, Star!, Darling Lili, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Dr. Doolittle et al lay much of Hollywood to waste. It appeared that audiences just were not interested in such 'family entertainment' and were just plain bored of typical Hollywood pap. Now by this point most of the studios were owned by multinationals and unlike in the grand days of the great moguls, those in charge knew little about reading an audience's desires and curent trends and in desperation they followed whatever fad seemed to be turning coin.

Funnily enough the sort of films that WERE striking a chord with audiences by the late 1960s were the foreign art films and in turn these flicks influenced the young film makers to a greater degree that previous Hollywood classics. On top of that, the Production Code, as decreed by the Catholic Church, finally bit the dust and audiences were demanding 'adult entertainment' that reflected the turbulent times in which they lived.

This led to a number of hits - Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch, The Pawnbroker, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider that were relatively inexpensive and very profitable. These were new and current films, that mirrored a cynical nation undergoing great social upheaval.

Of course this continued into the 1970s, with The Godfather 1 & 2, The Conversation, M*A*S*H*, The Exorcist, Straw Dogs, Clockwork Orange etc, which all defied classical norms and set Hollywood right on the cutting edge. However, this 'director's cinema' which allowed the film maker free reign eventually saw these egos shoot themselves in the foot with such titles from previously golden directors as Zabriske Point, Honky Tonk Freeway, Daisy Miller, Quintet, Zardoz, Missouri Breaks, The Fortune, The Last Movie, Heaven's Gate, Sorceror etc all biting the dust at great expense to the studio. Even Steven Speilberg sullied his fine record with $31 million piddled away on 1941.

Concurrent to this era of flops, Hollywood had seen the high concept hits of Jaws, Star Wars, Rocky, Superman etc raking in the millions by sticking to classical Hollywood themes and as it became evident that audiences were returning to the cinema in droves and that their preference was for tried and true formula over difficult, risky arty stuff, the Hollywood arthouse party came to an end and they reverted back to what they had succesfully done for years.

So the 1970s was kind of an abberation and one which the industry could not sustain due to its unpredictability. By the 1980s action, sci-fi and horror, three genres once deemed as kids stuff and 'low art' by Hollywood became the focus of its biggest budgets and star power, a trend which continues to this day. There is too much money riding on films these days for them to prove difficult for audiences, so any kinks are ironed out long before they go in front of the camera.

But the truth is, Hollywood subsidise a lot of independent films. And despite everything else, it's where every filmmaker wants to work (except for maybe Rolf de Heer and Lars von Trier).

Oh yes, all dream of conquering the giant and in the process avail themselves of all it has to offer....but most return, burnt and shaken from the experience. Either that or they conform and work within the system, not against it.