COLCOA 2015: GEMMA BOVERY

Gemma (Gemma Arterton) and Martin (Fabrice Lucchini) in Gemma Bovary.

Madame Se(x)e

By John Esther

Rather than another adaptation of Madame Bovary, co-writer and director Anne Fontaine's Gemma Bovery is a light lit-crit cinematic reinterpretation of Gustave Flaubert's great novel.

After years in the publishing business, Martin Joubert (Fabrice Lucchini) has returned to the Northern France town of Normandy (the name of which works better as a play on words in English than in French). Martin may still be a voracious reader, but he now runs his deceased father's bakery. Martin is a natural at baking and seems happiest at work. At home, he has a nice wife, Valérie (Isabelle Candelier), plus a teenage son, Julien (Kacey Mottet Klein) who does not share his father's love of reading.

Life is fairly rudimentary in Normandy for Martin until the day his new neighbors from London arrive: Charles (Jason Flemyng) and Gemma Bovery (Gemma Arterton). For anyone educated in the French system, Charles and Emma Bovery are two of the most famous names in French literature. (Gemma is close enough.) For someone like Martin, the introduction to these people with such notable names is an existential punctum. 

Curious if life will imitate literature, Martin begins to watch Gemma. Sure enough, the bored housewife of Normandy begins to imitate the bored housewife of Normandy. Love, affairs, betrayal and tragedy ensue. But there are differences between the literary archetype and the cinematic simulacrum; only Martin ignores what does not necessarily fit into his narrative.

A film that could only be made in a country where literature is widely consumed and considered worthy of one's time, Gemma Bovery, is an entertaining, smart film with strong performances.

Read More

FILM REVIEW: AUSTENLAND

A scene from Austenland.

So bore-joy-see

By Don Simpson

The first film I ever saw at the Sundance Film Festival, director and co-writer Jerusha Hess' Austenland might purport to be about becoming so immersed in the world of fiction that we no longer see reality, but in fact it is about making fun of people’s fantasies. The fatefully named Jane (Keri Russell) is a diehard fan of Jane Austen’s. This is supposed to be showcased by the decor of her apartment which resembles that of a 10-year-old girl with an unhealthy fetish for bric-a-brac from 18th century England; instead, it feels like the production design team threw a ton of nonsensical clutter into Jane’s apartment in the guise of being Austen-esque. We are also informed that Jane’s unhealthy obsession with Austen has hindered her relationships. Her dream man, Mr. Darcy, does not actually exist, so Jane will always be disappointed in whomever she dates.

Rather than accepting reality, Jane runs off to vacation at Austenland, a hyper-dramatized recreation of Austen’s literary universe, complete with actors who are charged with the task making the female guests’ Austen-esque romantic fantasies come to orgasmic fruition. Jane is joined in the Austen motherland by two other women from the former colonies — Miss Charming (Jennifer Coolidge) and Lady Heartright (Georgia King) — who are embarrassing caricatures of American tourists in England and whose motives seem much less innocent than Jane’s.

The three women are expected to compete for the attention of two men, Mr. Nobley (JJ Feild) and Colonel Andrews (James Callis) yet Jane’s attention quickly turns to a man of a much lower class, Martin (Bret McKenzie). This is where things get confusing for Jane — and us — because she also develops a rocky, love-hate relationship with Mr. Nobley; and so the entire third act of Austenland is committed to keeping everyone confused about Jane’s true feelings.

There might be a great movie idea somewhere deep inside of Austenland, but it is totally smothered by so much over-baked cheesiness. Parts of Austenland are just too ridiculous for me to stomach. Ludicrousness is confused with comedy, and plot is eschewed in favor of nonsense. Austenlandturns into an embarrassing mockery of all things Austen, when instead it could have learned a lot from Austen’s toned down approach to romance and melodrama.

Read More