Monthly Archives: March 2022

  • Hive

    Zgjoi

    Blerta Basholli (2021)

    Like Pedro Almodóvar’s Parallel Mothers, writer-director Blerta Basholli’s Hive explores maternity, female independence and unresolved national trauma.  Unlike Almodóvar’s film, Basholli’s debut feature aims for and achieves sustained synergy between these themes.  In 1999 the Kosovan farming village of Krushë e Madhe was the site of an attack by Serbian forces that left 240 local men dead or missing presumed dead.  The latter include Agim, the husband of Hive‘s heroine, Fahrije (Yllka Gashi).  The action begins in 2006, seven years into her life as, in effect but unofficially, a war widow.  Fahrije looks after her and Agim’s two children, her elderly, wheelchair-bound father-in-law, domestic DIY, and her husband’s hive of bees.  The honey she sells is now the family’s sole source of income.  The disappeared of Krushë e Madhe are thought to lie in mass graves whose location the Serbs still refuse to disclose, though human remains sometimes turn up.  In the film’s opening scene Fahrije furtively searches a tented makeshift morgue in the hope and fear of discovering something there to identify her husband.  She then climbs onto the back of a stationary truck that contains white body bags.  She unzips one, glances at what’s inside, and hurriedly zips it closed again.  When a soldier spots Fahrije and shouts that she’s trespassing she walks away.  The soldier is far from the last man to tell her in the course of the film that she has no right doing what she’s doing.  He is the last such man whom she meekly obeys.

    Fahrije belongs to a group of local women, their lives in limbo, who meet regularly for moral support and to discuss opportunities, few and far between, to improve their financial situation.  Word of an initiative offering free driving lessons reaches the group; several other women encourage Fahrije to take advantage of it; after some hesitation, she agrees.  A quick learner, she soon has her own licence and, through the support group, a secondhand car.  As the village’s seemingly lone woman driver, she also instantly acquires a notorious reputation.  The honey doesn’t generate income enough to keep her family going so Fahrije tries her hand with another foodstuff – ajvar, a red pepper-based condiment popular in Kosovo and cheap to produce.  Accompanied by her older friend Najzmike (Kumrije Hoxha) and a supply of unlabelled jars of ajvar, Fahrije drives to a supermarket in Pristina, with the aim of persuading the manager (Adem Karaga) to stock the product.  The manager isn’t among the men that try to warn her off:  he tastes and commends the relish, and says all it needs to sell well is a branding label.  This success means that Fahrije succeeds, too, in vindicating the village animus against her.  A female driver is bad enough, a female entrepreneur beyond the pale.

    The opposition faced by Fahrije expresses a-woman’s-place prejudices intensified in a rural community that has become, in light of the massacre of its younger men, a peculiar kind of gerontocracy.  The bar owner and the gaggle of middle-aged-to-elderly men who sit in the street outside the bar are the epicentre of violent hostility towards Fahrije.  Her relationship with her teenage daughter, Zana (Kaona Sylejmani), is increasingly fractious; the tensions between them culminate in Zana calling her mother ‘a whore – like everyone else says’.  The behaviour of the pepper wholesaler, Bahri (Astrit Kabashi), who asks Fahrije out for a coffee (she says no) and, the next time she comes to his premises, tries and fails to force himself on her, startlingly illustrates the perception that, because she’s acting independently, Fahrije is declaring herself to be unattached and is therefore sexually available.  A major strength of Hive, though, is that Blerta Basholli reveals the antagonism towards Fahrije to be, at least in some cases, more than just benighted misogyny.  To use terms familiar in contexts more banal than the one Basholli depicts, Fahrije is a case of someone failing to ‘move on’ or to ‘find closure’ in relation to her husband’s presumed death.  A main reason she can’t move on is that any sign of doing so is interpreted by others as a betrayal of Agim, who could still be alive.

    This is dramatised chiefly within Fahrije’s household.  Zana’s anger with her mother is fuelled in large part by grief at the absence of a father the girl is old enough to remember well.  (Fahrije’s son, Edon (Mal Noah Safqui), is younger and less hard for her to handle.)  Agim’s father, Haxhi (Çun Lajçi), to some extent represents the resentful chauvinism of the village’s older men but he’s also in mourning for a loved son.  Fahrije receives occasional visits from representatives of a (presumably national) agency for tracing the disappeared.  To help find Agim, Ardian (Shkelqim Islami) and Edi (Blin Sylejmani) ask for a DNA sample, which Haxhi refuses to, perhaps daren’t provide.  Basholli’s focus on the central family means the audience can’t feel that similar allegiances underpin the outward attitudes of the other villagers but we can assume that’s the case:  it’s essential to the story that Fahrije’s family’s situation isn’t unique.  At the same time, by majoring on the behaviour (rather than probing the motivation) of the old men who throw stones at Fahrije’s car and, later, vandalise her stock, Basholli gives due weight to the noxious face of patriarchy in the community – a tradition that obviously predates the recent war and its consequences.

    Hostility towards Fahrije isn’t exclusive to the local men; it’s felt by women too, even including a few in the support group.  Concentrating on the protagonist and those closest to her doesn’t work so well in this aspect.  Female envy and suspicion are allayed a bit too suddenly and comprehensively – to allow a sisterhood cottage industry to flourish, as the women join forces producing batches of ajvar.  Within Fahrije’s family, though, the distaff side’s complicated feelings are very well conveyed.  Zana, once she’s on board, admits it was ‘everyone else’ branding her mother a whore that caused Zana pain and to call Fahrije the same.  As for the heroine, despite the new lease of life the business venture gives her, she’s still rooted in what she has lost but can’t let go of.  I wasn’t sure, when Haxhi wouldn’t give a DNA sample, why Fahrije didn’t go behind his back and get her children to supply one instead:  she may simply feel it would be wrong to ask this of them; she may, at some level, be relieved by her father-in-law’s intransigence, which reduces the chances of Agim being confirmed dead.  Haxhi provides the DNA eventually but this seems to be his decision rather than the result of Fahrije’s pressure.

    In the climax to Hive, the women gather to celebrate their growing commercial success, drinking and dancing together. (Zana joins in the dancing; Edon, the only male present, sits looking a bit baffled and bored.)  It’s dramatically apt and effective that Basholli follows this scene with the reappearance of Ardian and Edi, who bring news.  The film ends, or nearly ends, as it began but this time Fahrije inspects grim evidence by invitation.  She drives to a building where she’s ushered into a vast room, full of numbered piles of clothing and pairs of shoes (a setting that naturally brings to mind the epilogue to Jasmila Žbanić’s Quo Vadis, Aida? (2020)).  Fahrije is directed towards the pile on which traces of her husband’s DNA have been found.  Until this point, she has seemed fearfully controlled, expecting to be confronted with what she needs but dreads to find.  Now she breaks down, sobbing that the clothing isn’t Agim’s.  Ardian and Edi quietly and sympathetically insist that it is but Fahrije won’t have it.  Is she in denial of unarguable evidence of her husband’s death or is she somehow right and his fate still unresolved?   This ambiguity seems only right:  Basholli’s closing legends note that, twenty years on from the conflict, there are 1,600 Kosovans still ‘missing’, including sixty-four from Krushë e Madhe.

    In dreams, Fahrije sees herself and Agim (Armend Smajli) deep underwater, struggling and failing to reach each other.  Although effective enough, these occasional sequences have the look of dreams of someone who watches more arthouse cinema than Fahrije does.  Basholli makes fine use, however, of a less eye-catching water supply – the family’s basic shower (which Fahrije at one point is shown struggling to repair).  She washes her father-in-law under the shower and we sense his mute discontent at being so dependent on her.  Edon tells his mother not to look when he’s about to emerge from behind the shower curtain:  moments later, he’s combing his hair in front of the mirror and Fahrije’s face makes painfully clear that her pre-adolescent son is starting to remind her of his father, who isn’t there to see his children growing up.   That may also explain her tears in the shower room after a conversation with Zana about her first period, although Fahrije could be reflecting too on what the future holds for a young woman in this society.  As well as the water motif, there are resonant repeated images of broken glass – the window of Fahrije’s car, the smashed jars of ajvar, the photograph frame containing a picture of Agim that Zana flings to the ground in the big argument with her mother.  The cinematographer Alex Bloom’s palette is nearly always subdued but it’s remarkable how much tonal variety is achieved within his grey-greens and browns, and there are welcome moments of increasing light.  Julien Painot’s simple, unassertive music always helps the narrative.

    It’s conventional, at least in Anglophone cinema, for a film to announce at the start that it’s based on a true story – as if daring the viewer to find what follows less than credible.  It’s refreshing (especially for someone who’s just seen The Duke!) that Blerta Basholli confirms only at the end of Hive that she has dramatised, as well as an historically real situation, the experiences of a real person. Alongside images of her, we learn that Fahrije Hoti is still running a successful business producing and now exporting ajvar and other comestibles.  According to what I’ve read about Hoti subsequently, her husband was indeed one of the sixty-four men from Krushë e Madhe whose bodies have never been found.

    In the very last scene of the film, Fahrije is back at the hive that Agim started (and whose bees, she recalls, never stung him).  This may not be a winter film in terms of the seasons shown on the screen but the emotional weather is often hivernal (funny coincidence, the first four letters of that adjective).  For anyone familiar with Sylvia Plath’s great poem ‘Wintering’, the themes of bee-keeping and male absence, and Fahrije’s determination to create a future, can’t fail to evoke Plath lines (‘The bees are all women … They have got rid of the men, / The blunt, clumsy stumblers, the boors. / Winter is for women … / Will the hive survive? … / The bees are flying.  They taste the spring’).  Ylla Gashi, like Blerta Basholli an Albanian Kosovan, is wonderful in the lead role.  With her swarthy colouring and features that are handsome rather than pretty, Gashi is dourly beautiful and a compelling presence.  At first, her looks recall more glamorous, exquisite faces – Sandra Bullock, even Juliette Binoche.  As Hive goes on, you keep thinking there’s someone else she reminds you of and, by the end, you realise who.  Ylla Gashi has made such a strong impression that she reminds you of herself.

    7 March 2022

  • The Duke

    Roger Michell (2020)

    It’s that time of year again.  As awards contenders thin out in the schedules, along come unassuming British heartwarmers to make you laugh and cry.   Later this month, it’ll be the turn of Craig Roberts’ The Phantom of the Open, starring Mark Rylance as Maurice Flitcroft, ‘The World’s Worst Golfer’.  First, it’s The Duke.  Thanks (presumably) to Covid interruptions to normal cinema service in early 2021, it seems to be arriving a year behind time, having premiered at Venice in 2020.  In the lead roles are two more Oscar winners, Jim Broadbent and Helen Mirren.  The film is remarkable too as the last made by Roger Michell, who died last September.  It’s par for the post-awards course in that it’s determinedly innocuous – as George Fenton’s perky music immediately announces.  Yet the man whose story it tells, and the beliefs that drive him, aren’t innocuous.  This may be The Duke’s most infuriating aspect though it’s far from its only one.

    The film is named for the Duke of Wellington, whose portrait by Goya was stolen from the National Gallery in London in August 1961 – very soon after the Macmillan government had stepped in to buy the painting, for £140,000, and save it for the nation.  (The portrait had recently been purchased by an American art collector who planned to take it across the Atlantic.)  The Duke‘s prologue takes place in the Old Bailey, where Kempton Bunton (Jim Broadbent) is standing trial for the theft.  Roger Michell then moves into an extended flashback, describing events leading up to the crime, before returning for a courtroom climax.  Bunton had for some time waged a lonely, fruitless campaign for free television licences for the elderly, and been jailed more than once for refusing to buy a licence for his own set.  He was enraged by how much the government was prepared to spend on a painting.  In the wake of the theft, he issued anonymous ransom demands for a donation to charity of £140,000 – to be used to fund TV licences for pensioners unable to afford them.

    Government intervention to buy the Goya obviously made headlines though it’s hard to believe it got the sustained TV news coverage The Duke suggests.  There’s a mock-up press conference featuring the Home Secretary, Rab Butler (Richard McCabe), and the National Gallery director (Andrew Havill), as well as Pathé newsreel (on television?) – all this on the small screen of a family that can’t only get one channel.  Kempton has removed the ‘BBC coil’ from inside the set and thereby, in his view, the only possible objection to not having a licence.  The film’s early scenes are among its best.  There’s instantly tedious broad comedy as Kempton and his younger son Jackie (Fionn Whitehead) take on Little Hitlerish TV licence-checkers patrolling their terraced street but Kempton’s chronic sounding off gives a fair idea of who he is.  Named for the racecourse where his mother backed a good-priced winner, Kempton is an autodidact.  He has a low opinion not only of government policy but also of the Duke of Wellington’s treatment of his troops.  He regularly sends the BBC not just letters about the licence fee but play scripts knocked out on an ancient typewriter.  Thanks to his tongue, he goes through jobs like loaves of bread (the jobs do include a stint in a bakery, as well as cabbing).  The combination drives his long-suffering, careworn wife Dorothy (Helen Mirren) up the wall.  A more reliable breadwinner, she cleans for well-off Mrs Gowling (Anna Maxwell Martin), as well as keeping her own house in order.

    At the start, there’s more than enough scene-setting information.  The clerk of the court (Heather Craney) reads the charge sheet, giving the date of the theft as 21st March 1961 [sic]; at the end of the Old Bailey prologue, the screen announces ‘Six months earlier’ then directs us to ‘Newcastle, 1961’.  This early attention to chronology comes to seem puzzling, and not just because the film compresses the actual timeframe of events considerably:  Kempton Bunton wasn’t arrested or tried until 1965.  The screenwriters, Richard Bean and Clive Coleman, are also cavalier in their approach to historical accuracy.  Trying to butter up Dorothy, Kempton suggests they go to the pictures to see West Side Story.  It’s just as well she pooh-poohs the idea because the film won’t arrive in British cinemas until the following year.  The Buntons watch Coronation Street with Jackie, his elder brother Kenny (Jack Bandeira) and their respective girlfriends, Irene (Aimée Kelly) and Pamela (‘Pammy’) (Charlotte Spencer).  Keen to make clear she’s above Corrie, Pammy points out that Play for Today will be starting in ten minutes.  It won’t actually start for the best part of ten years.  

    Does this matter?  Yes, if you’re setting a story in a specific time and place (and especially if you underline this, as The Duke‘s opening does).  Two other questions:  how hard would it have been to get these things right and what would have been lost as a result?  West Side Story is mentioned only to give contemporary context.  It’s not as if Kempton knows the show is one of Dorothy’s favourites – he feels it necessary to tell her it’s Romeo and Juliet in present-day New York.  The writers could easily have chosen instead one of the many films you really could see in Newcastle in 1961.  As for Play for Today … All Bean and Coleman needed in order for Dorothy to tell Pammy that the Buntons can’t watch BBC was a BBC programme (the free-access online BBC Genome gives comprehensive daily television and radio schedules throughout broadcasting history).  In fact, the script didn’t even need a particular programme.  If Pammy had simply trotted out ‘I don’t watch the commercial channel’ (a durable mid-twentieth-century tool of social one-upmanship), Dorothy could still have told her there was no option and Pammy’s pretensions could still have been dealt a blow.

    I’m making a meal of these errors but they’re symptomatic of larger defects in the facile, lazy screenplay.  Kempton and Jackie hide the stolen Goya in the wardrobe of the spare bedroom.  When Kenny and Pammy come to stay, they sleep there; one day, Pammy opens the wardrobe and sees the Duke of Wellington’s eyes staring back at her.  Hasn’t she looked in the wardrobe before?  If not, why now?  Answer:  because it’s time for her to discover what’s in it.  The only reason Pammy is snobbish is to reinforce her place in the story as Bad Girlfriend, just as petty criminal Kenny – an improbable beau for Lady Muck Pammy – is Bad Son.  (A quick bit of anal sex against the bedroom wall seems to feature as bizarre confirmation of their Badness.)  Though a bigger role than Kenny, Jackie is purely and simply Good Son, the strength of whose devotion to his father goes largely unexplained.  Worse still is the plotline around Kempton and Dorothy’s late daughter, Marian, killed some years ago in a cycling accident.  Whereas Kempton visits and talks to her grave, grief-stricken Dorothy can’t bear even for Marian’s name to be mentioned.  When she discovers Kempton’s latest play-writing effort, ‘Girl on a Bicycle’, Dorothy is horrified.  From what Jackie says to his mother, her failure to deal with bereavement is the root cause of tensions and problems in the household.  While Kempton is away on trial, Dorothy comes to terms with Marian’s death and her husband’s response to it – just like that.  She even visits the grave.  Problem solved.

    At the trial, the packed public gallery includes some familiar faces.  There’s Jackie, Irene (Good Girlfriend) and Javid, Kempton’s colleague from the bakery, who was regularly abused by a racist supervisor: Kempton spoke up for Javid (Ashley Kumar) and was fired as a result.  It may not have been easy for any of these three to travel from Newcastle and stay in London during the trial, but the film has by now forgotten the financial challenge of working-class life in the North East, which seemed to matter at the start.  Also in the public gallery is Mrs Gowling, who can afford the train fare and is bored with her stifling middle-class existence and husband, a councillor and stalwart of the golf club.  She may even have grown tired of her little daughter, though it’s probably safer to assume the film has forgotten about this child too (despite her being played by Roger Michell and Anna Maxwell Martin’s daughter).  When a guilty verdict is delivered on the charge of stealing the frame to the Goya portrait the incensed Mrs Gowling launches into a protesting solo of ‘Jerusalem’, which the furious judge, Sir Carl Aarvold (James Wilby), struggles to halt.  The protest is premature:  the defendant is acquitted on all other charges, including theft of the painting itself, which Kempton has returned (he got three months for stealing the never-recovered frame).  And it’s hard not to wonder if Mrs Gowling sings just in order to give Anna Maxwell Martin, wasted in her feeble role, something to do.  Yet that burst of ‘Jerusalem’, as dependably middlebrow Roger Michell surely understood, is crucial to The Duke‘s appeal.

    The film’s numerous admiring reviewers are nearly all keen to point out that it captures-the-spirit/harks-back-to-the-glory-days of Ealing comedies, which famously championed the eccentric underdog and made fun of a spoilsport establishment.  The Duke duly makes a hero of Kempton and its skewering of authority figures is automatic.  One of Kempton’s ransom demands is written in verse, rhyming ‘fortitude’ and ‘sportitude’.  ‘The man’s a bloody poet’, quips the Home Secretary, ‘perhaps we can lock W H Auden up at last!’  Some of us may feel almost nostalgic for a Tory politician as relatively principled as Rab Butler but the script and Richard McCabe make him suitably unappealing – suitably because Butler is A Politician and, as we know, they’re-all-as-bad-as-each-other (a knowledge that gets you a government led by Boris Johnson).  The film derides Sir Joseph Simpson (Charles Edwards), Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, both for abject failure to track down the thief and, years later, for not reopening the case because a further prosecution risks failure and more embarrassment (in reality, Simpson was dead when the latter decision was made).  In the courtroom, the judge and the prosecuting counsel (John Heffernan) are standard-issue pompous killjoys, repeatedly wrong-footed.  Even a handwriting expert (Sian Clifford), though she gives what seems an accurate psychological analysis of the ransom notes’ author, comes across as somewhat ridiculous.  The film-makers appear to subscribe to the view that the people of this country have had enough of experts.

    By making this lot ridiculous, The Duke renders them inoffensive and reinforces the link to Ealing, which liked to present the English class system, of which the upper crust and the spunky dissident were both part, as an irresistibly motley crew that, all things considered, rubbed along pretty well.  The unignorable difference between the ‘classic’ Ealing comedies and The Duke, however, is the latter’s factual basis.  It’s blithely indifferent to historical detail.  It’s a roguish, even smug celebration of the supposed British sense of fair play.  You often think it might as well be fictional.  But the film can’t quite let go of its true-story credentials, affirmed at the start and reiterated, in bogus fashion, at the end.  Once the action is over, a legend informs us that free TV licences for the over-75s were introduced in 2000.  These weasel words seem designed to suggest Kempton Bunton’s efforts weren’t in vain, though the advent of free licences obviously had nothing to do with him.  Bunton died in 1976, barely a decade after standing trial, in obscurity, without obituaries.

    Much as I dislike The Duke, I can’t feel the same about Jim Broadbent’s performance.  This isn’t just because, as a screen presence, Broadbent is very hard not to like.  It’s also down to the actor’s willingness, despite his empathy with the man he’s playing, not to stint on his infuriating qualities.  Broadbent conveys how passionately Kempton feels about social injustice; it’s the genuineness of that passion that exposes the cute sentimentality of the film he’s in.  It isn’t so difficult to find Helen Mirren annoying but she’s admirable here, especially considering the narrow conception of the role she’s saddled with.  She never overdoes exasperated Dorothy’s clenched misery.  She also delivers her tart, terse putdowns expertly.  The only time I laughed was at Mirren’s contribution to an exchange with Kempton after Dorothy discovers his new play manuscript in the spare bedroom.  ‘What were you doing in there?’ he asks.  ‘I live here’, she replies.

    Kempton’s defence counsel (Matthew Goode) naturally gets kinder treatment than his legal colleagues – a small mercy but a mercy even so, given Jeremy Hutchinson’s distinguished career in public life.   (He was also one of Peggy Ashcroft’s husbands, information that enables Kempton to regale counsel with his knowledge of The Cherry Orchard, in which Ashcroft is currently playing Ranevskaya – as she really did, in late 1961.)  Hutchinson, who had previously worked for the defence at the Lady Chatterley trial, successfully makes the case that, because the Goya has been returned, Bunton is not guilty of its theft, on the grounds that he never meant to keep the painting indefinitely.  It’s ironic that what sounds like sophistry invented for dramedic effect is true[1].  But Hutchinson’s clever argument and a couple of bits of irrepressible Kempton playing to the gallery are the only bright spots in the courtroom scenes, which are directed with a sledgehammer touch.  It’s soon obvious the defence has decided not to cross-examine prosecution witnesses but Michell never lets up on the yawning pauses before Hutchinson says no questions, each time the judge invites him to ask some.  The camera repeatedly fixes on the faces of the judge, the prosecution, the clerk of the court, a sympathetic female juror (Michelle Thomas), giving them all ample time to over-react to key remarks.

    The coverage of the theft itself is contrastingly discreet, for good reason:  it transpires that Kempton, on his trip to London to lobby the BBC and Parliament, didn’t in fact steal the painting.  This is the narrative’s big reveal and it’s well handled.  While Kempton is awaiting trial, Jackie informs Dorothy that he was the thief – as it were on his father’s behalf – but that Kempton has insisted on taking the rap.  (It was in 1969 that Jackie Bunton eventually made a confession to the police, who decided, on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, not to press further charges.)

    Kempton and Dorothy do finally get their outing to the pictures,where they see a spy film rather than a musical.  The theft of the Goya portrait had become such a media story that Dr No (1962), the first Bond, really does include a scene in which 007 looks curiously at the painting, which is hanging in the title character’s lair (the copy was painted by production designer Ken Adam).  What’s more, the portrait was still missing at the time of Dr No‘s release:  it was ‘four years after the theft [that] Bunton contacted a newspaper, and through a left-luggage office at Birmingham New Street railway station, returned the painting voluntarily.  Six weeks later, he also surrendered to the police …’ (Wikipedia).  Roger  Michell’s Dr No postscript is agreeable enough but it’s also typical of the prevailing emollient tone of The Duke.  When they see the Goya  on the big screen, the Buntons chuckle, at a kerfuffle that’s now safely a thing of the past.  If the script had stuck to the real timeframe of events, they would have had to look at Dr No differently – knowing, unlike the rest of the cinema audience, the true location of the Duke of Wellington’s portrait.  It’s doubtful either Kempton or Dorothy would have found it a laughing matter.

    3 March 2022

    [1] According to Wikipedia, ‘In a direct response to the case, Section 11 of the Theft Act 1968 was enacted, making it an offence to remove without authority any object displayed or kept for display to the public in a building to which the public have access’.

     

Posts navigation