Introduction
Now I know that I have had this coming for a while. A Woody Allen fan who has not been disappointed … it was inevitable really. There are films which are weaker, granted, but more often than not, an awesome cast approaching a high-concept comedy-drama will always have merits. Fact of the matter is, Husbands and Wives
simply doesn’t have enough scope in its concept and the characters – notably Mia Farrow and Judy Davis – are simply not likeable or relatable for us, as an audience, to enjoy their company for a hundred minutes.
while Jo starts on a Lindsay Lohan journey, discussing how 
are.
which combines comedy and music to potent effect.
but, thank God, the Marshall Brickman/Woody Allen script for Annie Hall has no murder element whatsoever. But, Allen does team up with Marshall Brickman to complete this script so it does remain as chirpy as Annie Hall but without the heart. I think it was Madonna who said that "there are all the songs about people breaking-up and getting together - but none about staying together". This film has a great strong central theme in how couples can stay together.
is similar in its controversy: humanizing people who are seen by many as inhuman. Even merely animals. While Four Lions focuses on four/five would-be terrorists plotting to bomb London, Elephant focuses on the Columbine School Massacre. Not only did this film come to my mind due to the similarities between the two, the main reason was the choice of Elephant being the 'best film of the decade' by Matty 'Ballgame' Robinson on the 
and 
- this film seemed to come way out of left field. So, we come to my film-dilemma - how can I call myself a film fan if a presenter on a hugely-successful podcast names a film as best-of-the-decade - and yet I haven't seen it! Thats madness. So, to my favourite store 
...
was the winner of the Palme D'Or at Cannes '09, and as we build up to Cannes 2010, it seems the appropriate time to raise a few points on this film. As always - and especially with this film - the scope of this film is much larger than the small section I will explore. I only saw this film once - at the good ol' Barbican - and am keen to watch it again ... but, this is additionally the first Michael Haneke film I have seen and currently the sweet 10-film boxset (not available in USA by the looks of things...) has been spotted for £40 in Fopp... time will tell ...
in black and white because whenever he was told about the holocaust and educated about World War II, it was always through black and white photographs and footage. In a potentially similar way, 'The White Ribbon' is shot in black and white though, as I heard through Filmspotting, this was due to a production issue - the company wanted a version in colour to show on TV (???) so, Haneke shot the film in colour and then took the colour out in post-production. It does give the film a historical weight and importance.
. Though less art-house, both films focus upon the corrupt attempts authority have to control the children in their care. In a strange way, the limited palette of Shyamalan and Haneke also strike true - whilst personally I prefer the fog and marshy space surrounding Shyamalans village opposed to Hanekes cold and shiny village. The colour that attracts 'those that we don't speak of' becoming void in Shyamalans village create a fascinating yellow and green colour scheme, whilst the black and white coolness of Hanekes village make a much more underlying sinister horror opposed to the more obvious and explicit horror in 'The Village'.
- do you want to know more? Check out