By Ellisha Izumi von Grunewald.

Do You Dream in Color? is a documentary following four blind high-school students and the hurdles they face to achieve their individual dreams. The film explores the institutional and social difficulties they must work through; revealing how the system that is meant to work for them actually works against them. Unfortunately, much like the system, the film lets these kids down; portraying their experiences in a well-meaning but artless film.

The film sets up their dreams and charts their progress: Nick is a musician who wants to play gigs; Conor skateboards and wants to be sponsored to compete; Sarah wants to complete her senior year in Portugal; Carina is a second generation Mexican-American who wants to be the first person in her family to graduate from high-school. The teens vary in their charisma and eloquence but all have an honest presence, both awkward and confident in a very adolescent way. A lot of their difficulties are not in a failure to do something – each are highly competent in their abilities – but in proving to institutions that this is the case. For example, Sarah has an excellent grasp of languages and can navigate confidently in public spaces, but has to fight for the education-abroad program to even consider submitting her application to collaborating countries. It’s moving to see how hard they have to work to experience what are regular milestones to most teenagers – travelling, graduating, prom. The film is sad but not overwhelmingly so, with a light touch and a thick bed of music that is unsubtle but not overtly manipulative.

We observe their lives, see interviews with themselves and their parents, witness the important conversations and significant phone calls. While their Kickstarter shows sincerity behind the filmmaker’s intentions, in their hands the film is awkwardly shot and awkwardly handled. However, they do succeed in highlighting some troubling inequalities. It tells us that almost one third of blind people fail to graduate high school and 70% of blind people are unemployed. Through the experiences of the kids we see these statistics manifest themselves first hand; how hard they have to work to even access to their school’s curriculum.

The film occasionally attempts artistry; one instance of provocative editing raises the intersecting issue of class. One student’s middle school was unprepared for his needs two weeks before school started. His mother describes how she took two months leave to work on her son’s case for the access to the curriculum and tutelage he legally requires. She then asks: what about families that can’t afford to take two months off work to fight for their kids? The filmmakers cut to lower-middle class Carina whose mother’s income and vulnerable status as an immigrant means they can’t afford to fight the frustrating long-term administrative battle for her right to access education. The documentary also includes hidden-camera footage of a decisive meeting in Carina’s case. The footage shows us that the system that’s supposed to be there for the blind actually serves to reduce the work the privileged have to put in.

With these techniques the film resembles better documentaries but fails to present their startling revelations in a truly compelling way. An occasionally inspirational, often boring film on a topic that needs more attention. Each of the high-schoolers offer expressive insight to their perspective as a blind person. But I wish they had a better film to better call attention and stir empathy to their plight.

Do You Dream in Color? is released on VOD on February 10^th and will be released in select US theatres in 2017.

Directed by Abigail Fuller and Sarah Ivy.

Weird yet wonderful. That’s a saying that I have come across many times. That I have used many times myself too. We’ve all seen those films that are weird yet wonderful, sometimes they are among our very favourites. And why not, it’s in the title of this phrase. But do you know what’s harder to gage, if a film is weird yet wonderful or just plain weird. That is where ‘Doll in the Dark’ comes into it.

‘Doll in the Dark’ (or ‘The Melancholy Fantastic’ according to IMDb, just to confuse you more) is a film by Alejandro Daniel in his directorial debut. So what’s the story? Well that’s a little hard to explain. Not that the film is ‘Inception’ levels of complex, it’s actually simple in structure and pacing, but it’s a very visual and at times unconventional story which everyone will experience and tell in their own way. The basics, a depressed young woman with a tragic past has almost successfully cut herself off from the outside world. Her only company, and her constant torment is a mannequin-sized doll call Mor. Mor, as far as this young woman is concerned, can talk to her and is very domineering in its treatment of her. All starts to change when she meets a young man called Dekken, one who seems to understand her and they both share mutual feelings for. Which, with Mor around, is extremely dangerous for both of them.

Despite the set up and some of the films imagery I wouldn’t call it a horror film, or even a thriller film. It can only be described as a macabre drama. There is plenty of suicide imagery to this film, which I can tell right away is going to get under some people’s skin. I know people who I wouldn’t feel comfortable showing this to with such imagery. Suicidal tendencies and depression playing as major themes of the film throughout. But that is where the very story and character of the film come out. While our characters do have the odd monologue or two to give us indication as to who they are, what we are really told lies deep within the cinematography and mise-en-scene. What lies in the foreground and background is always important and meticulous.

Daniel have obviously taken inspiration from the likes of Guillermo Del Toro, J A Bayona and Alejandro Amenabar. And why not? These three have become powerhouses in the medium of visual storytelling. The opening credits alone made me realise this and, in defence of the film it did get me interested from the get go. Accompanying such imagery is an eerie, almost dreamlike musical accompaniment. In fact the music in this film works the same way as the music in ‘Jaws’ did, in that if it was removed then a huge part of what made this film would be lost completely. And between the music and the sets and costumes we get given a unique and immersive atmosphere which really does make the film feel like we are watching a dream at times. Everything feels odd and off-key, both the good and bad and it only makes sense once you wake and experience the end of the dream or sometime after a little thought.

The cast do a good job as well, most impressive given the bizarre and difficult topics that are being covered within the film. The lead of the film is played by Amy Crowdis, who successfully comes off as a more modern and female spin on Norman Bates. You can tell from the get-go that she means well, despite her obvious deliberate isolation; but you can also tell that there is something disturbed living underneath. Some scenes play on this a little too much, I think, with the stand out moment being her eating a sandwich of mouldy bread. I feel she shines through at her best in the more quite moments, with body actions and facial expressions carrying her character forward and making her compelling for the viewer. Alongside Crowdis we have Robin Taylor (best known as The Penguin in Fox’s ‘Gotham’) as Dukken. Dukken looks like if the character T-Bird from ‘The Crow’ wearing the make-up of, well The Crow; who is himself very supporting and patient with our lead, clearly has feelings for her and provides her with a light in the darkness. I did rather enjoy this character and his philosophy and Taylor played him extremely well, nearly stealing the show. But what I liked most about his character was his unworldly presence. The sense that he gives us as the viewers is that he may be real, or he may not be…adding deeper layers to our lead and in turn making Crowdis’ performance all the more impressive.

‘Doll in the Dark’ does prove that you don’t need a budget to tell a story or make a compelling film. However, it does often fall into the trap of having the audience playing “guess the metaphor”. It’s focus on visual storytelling does often have me wondering what certain images or scenes mean. However, that is a double-edged sword. Because while I am looking for answers to the imagery I was getting distracted by the search for the answers. Some films like ‘The Orphanage’ played this kind of film making to their advantage, leading to a satisfying film that had you so engrossed in what you saw that you forgot that you were looking for the answers all along. ‘Doll in the Dark’ never really got past that barrier, and while the end made some sense I still felt that the film was a little too cryptic in its delivery. The dialogue I found, while poetic, was confused at times and at some others was just inconsequential.

Once ‘Doll in the Dark’ had ended I found it to be less weird yet wonderful, and more strange yet standard. Compelling characters, good performances, visual flare and simple love and ambition towards the project definitely saves the film from what feels like a muddled script and overly cryptic themes. There are improvements to be made for certain, but I was impressed with how this film played out overall. It’s certainly not for everyone, and I’m not entirely sure it was the film for me in the end, but for those who respect the work and dedication that was put into it, as well as its macabre themes and imagery then I would say it’s one to check out at least once.

http://www.safecrackerfilmdistribution.com/doll-in-the-dark

Forget what you know about German films being bleak and say hello to Toni Erdmann. Toni Erdmann is already on my shortlist for favourite film of the year. At its core is a story about the everyday extraordinary that of the dynamic between adult father and daughter. Yet in this multi-layered dramatic comedy from writer/director Maren Ade we also explore: family, love, splattered with a little social commentary on multi-national companies using and disposing of local workforces and observe the excruitaitng, yet brilliantly observed thing we all do – life!

The film takes place in Germany and Romania and as such is in both German and then English. Yes even for those of you who recoil in horror like a vampire from the sun, about 10 minutes into the film you forget about the subtitles. The principal actors Peter Simonischek who plays Winfried and his alter ego Toni Erdmann and Sandra Huller who plays his daughter Ines dominate the screen and are both captivating.

The basic story focuses on Ines who’s a career woman, with a complicated love life who is trying to maintain her position in a male dominated company. She is the best at what she does -essentially making people redundant in order to generate the most money for the consultancy and multi-national company that employs that consultancy. Her father Winfriend just wants to see Ines happy but well she finds him exasperating.

One memorable scene  is when Winfried arrives unannounced to surprise his daughter. She asks him how long he plans to stay. He, with a wry smile, replies a month. There is a pause as her eyes dart back and forth and then he replies – “that’s real terror that is”. The film is filled with so many witty observations.

Why does it work? Yes, the father daughter dynamic has been done to death in a sweet way as in Father of the Bride and most recently Little Miss Sunshine for the quirky family thats not quite perfect and you wonder, really wonder what is going on. This film explores the archaeology of the family as well as showing the father/daughter story in all its raw, visceral glory – it is happy, sad, good, bad and at times downright dangerous to know. Just how do we get to an age where we think we can’t deal with our parents but yet (insane laughter please) realise that we’re in danger of turning into them. Why is Maren Ade’s film so good because it is interlaced with humour at every turn – you’re not laughing at the characters but the situation and that is what creates the connection and empathy. Also the central characters aren’t always likeable and that’s what makes them human and even more appealing.

There are so many more stand out moments but the rendition of The Greatest Love of All written by George Benson and sung by both him and Whitney Houston is given a spotlight moment here. The use of the song is similar to how Steve McQueen used New York, New York in his film Shame when it was sung by Carey Mulligan. Oh and the party scene…I will leave it at that.

Toni Erdmann packs an emotional gut punch in a deftly written script. It is long though at nearly 3 hours but honestly the time flies by.  As previously stated you will laugh and cry in equal measure and at many moments squirm in the knowledge that you’ve been that close to losing it with a parent, colleague and yourself!

Toni Erdmann is released in cinemas across the UK on Friday 3 February.

ILIA tells the story of amateur footballer TARIK BEN BRAHIM and how he used football to help a forgotten community of Afghan refugee children living in Shahr-e-Rey, Tehran.

Director Louis Chan has an interest in the places where different cultures overlap, as is apparent in his 2014 short Pastiche, and with ILIA he has moved from fiction to documentary. This film uses the football club as a window into the lives of Afghan refugees in Tehran.

ILIA consists of the elements necessary for a satisfying documentary. It has a good balance of situational footage and talking heads. The director does not include himself in the film (always a good move), allowing individuals – teachers, coaches, and children – to speak for themselves.

Ten minutes is the perfect length of time for this story. It is succinct yet emotive. Chan’s representation of the subject is more social than political. The fact that migration occurs as a result of civil war is touched upon, as well as the prevalence of addiction among male refugees, but ILIA is not about apportioning blame.

The footage of the club and the community is beautifully shot, creating a warm atmosphere. The result is compassionate. It is a testament to the positive results that can come from providing structure and purpose for vulnerable children in any society. I will be interested to see which direction Chan takes with future projects. Highly recommended.

When was the last time anyone heard the name Mel Gibson connected to a film? Oh, he has been in the press fairly often, but for completely different reasons. But let’s be kind and not bring up any of that, it’s not my place to make comment. But Gibson does seem to have avoided the directing chair for quite some time. I’m not entirely sure what brought him back, but I will say that his return did have me worried, especially given the story being a true one in World War II.

I will be honest, I have not done my homework on the events of ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ so for those who are wondering what the historical authenticity of the film is, I cannot say. I’ve heard that it is actually fairly accurate, but given Mel Gibson’s track record with historical films I do have to call in into question. The story that the film ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ provides is a character focused wartime drama about a young medic in the US military called Desmond Doss. Doss refuses to kill people, going so far as to not even hold a gun; this being a war, comes into clash with his superiors and squad members. Despite the ridicule and even life threats he joins the American’s in Okinawa where he saves over 70 of his fellow squad members.

It is very easy to see this film in two parts, not dissimilar to ‘Full Metal Jacket’; we have before he goes to war, where we get character focus and all attention is placed on the actors, and then we have the war film which supplies enough body parts to make Frankenstein’s monster and enough organs to put ‘Repo Men’ to shame. Personally I much preferred the former. Not only was it well written, but it was well directed, paced and acted. Gibson downplays any pretentious tendencies he may have, in hopes of delivering a smooth, simple and completely relatable world for our characters. Everything has some form of gloss over it, which does give the feeling that this is the 1940’s and the costumes help out immensely too. In contrast the wartime part of the film loses all gloss in favour of gritty, bloody and unrelentingly cruel action. Appropriate for a wartime film perhaps, but I say action and not war or battle is because that’s exactly what it comes off as. Any realism is often washed away by people performing stunts that I can’t see actually happening in a way. This involves kicking grenades in mid-air, to using a severed torso as a human shield, to pulling the pin out of an enemy’s grenade and using him to cover the blast. It’s all a bit too fanciful at that point.

But going back to what I touched earlier, the acting from all involved is spot on. This is a pretty impressive cast that includes but is not limited to Andrew Garfield, Hugo Weaving, Sam Worthington, Teresa Palmer and Vince Vaughn of all people. Garfield is the lead man who many have already said deserves an Oscar nomination for his performance, and I must say they may not be wrong. He captures the character of Doss perfectly. The real Doss is dead now, as the film generously tells us in the end, so there is no way of telling what he would say to it or what he was really like. But this fictionalised version of him is very well realised. Garfield had a lot to work with and worked superbly with it, and he’s not an actor I really go for (his Peter Parker in ‘The Amazing Spiderman’ was a disappointment to me). This is helped by the backstory that is meticulously delivered to us, allowing us to see exactly what got him to be the man he is in this moment. There are a number of out of character moments for him, the biggest being his reason for joining comes out of nowhere, and the accent is clearly put on at times, but on the whole it works very well.

However, it was Hugo Weaving as the father that won me over. Weaving (Elrond in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and Agent Smith in ‘The Matrix’) is a great actor, even when the film is bad he still delivers a more than admirable performance (who else could have given us the Smith laugh from the third ‘Matrix’ movie). In this he plays a drunk, abusive man who beats his family and has obviously had a negative effect of his two sons. But he is also a veteran who lost everything in the Great War, one who hasn’t learned to cope with the loss to this day; he also ultimately wants what’s best for his children too. This is perfectly caught in Weaving’s performance and nobody else could have done better. We even got a surprisingly good dramatic Vince Vaughn performance, and anyone who has seen Vaughn’s more “serious” work knows that that’s a rare thing.

When the action does happen it is undoubtedly impressive but as previously stated is just too fanciful, which is not helped by Gibson’s pretentiousness finally coming out. The film is extremely gory at times but that shouldn’t come as a shock. Also, considering that this is the story of a medic, it feels appropriate. It’s much more a case of strange framing and religious imagery that just jar with what we are meant to be seeing. Religion plays a big part in this story, and from what I hear Doss was a religious man. I have no problem at all with the inclusion of religious themes, especially in a war story. But when they are hammered in and hammered in so often it does start to grate after a while. The pacing is also a little off in the war scenes. It feels like we could have lost about ten minutes of the film without really losing anything to the overall product. I would, however, say that ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is easily Mel Gibson’s best directing effort. It felt less like ‘Braveheart’ and ‘Apocolypto’ (two films that ultimately disgusted me with their offensive inaccuracy towards the history and cultures of their tales) and more like ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and ‘Gladiator’ (even if it doesn’t reach the heights of those two); finding a story and accounts during a period in history and using them to make something epic and character-based that works as a story in itself.

‘Saving Private Ryan’ it is not but ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is a perfectly enjoyable and interesting wartime character study. I can see why it is raved about and why it has a shot at the Oscars. Don’t think too much and you’ll ultimately enjoy it for what it is. For me though, it is a one watch wonder, I will never see it again. Still there’s nothing wrong with being happy with one watch. Don’t be afraid to call the medic on this…let’s just hope Gibson keeps up his efforts here in the future too.