Walk on Water--Discussion has begun!

Truth be told I found some of the back round scoop on this film to be almost as interesting as the movie itself! 'Walk on Water' is based on a true story about a former Mossad (Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations in Israel) agent who returns home from an assignment to find his wife has hung herself and left a suicide note blaming him. During his next assignment he breaks down and decides to leave the agency, enrolls in an arts and literature program at University, meets a young man with whom he has an affair, eventually meets this mans' sister and falls in love with her and they set up a family together.
The film is a collaborative effort between screenwriter Gal Uchovskey and 43 year old director Eytan Fox who are long term committed gay partners of 18 years. Fox was born in NYC , moved to Israel when he was two and grew up in Jerusalem. His dad is a conservative rabbi and Hebrew University professor. Lior Ashkenazi who plays Eyal the Mossad assassin is considered to be "Israel's Brad Pitt." He is 38 years old, heterosexual and openly speaks out about his harrowing experiences in the Israeli army as well as the one gay relationship he did have.
As to the film itself- it took me some time to realize that not only was it addressing how the history of the Holocaust still influences many of their lives and the current day Israeli/Palestinian conflicts, but also some of the deeply rooted homophobic attitudes in the Israeli culture.
I certainly picked up on the sensual/sexual vibes that were dripping off of Eyal, Pia and Axel in almost every scene. All three of them had a powerful and commanding sexual and personal charisma that I questioned continuously throughout: Was this intentional? What was the point, etc.. It occurred to me that there was not one sexually explicit act shown, not a breast, not a kiss, and yet the film felt incredibly erotic.
The entire day where Axel and Eyal are at the Dead Sea all the way through to their evening campfire was delicious and I could feel Eyal's transformation happening.
Everything that took place from the moment Eyal arrived in Germany was EOS and as good as any well written page turner with endless, fast paced yet quietly provocative plot twists till its climax with Axel dealing the final blow to his own Nazi grandfather when he sees that Eyal no longer has it in him to do so. Here we have the about face of both Axel and Eyal's initially presented characters, Eyal the ruthless hit man and Axel the naive 'Nudnick' bleeding heart liberal (at least as seen through the eyes of Eyal). That shift began to make itself apparent in a pivotal moment as the two were coming out of the subway after the fight with the skinheads. Axel turns to Eyal and with a cold stare says, "It's too bad you didn't kill him. (Eyal looks back at him stunned, "What?") These people pollute the world. They turn everything into shit."
From most of the reviews I read feelings regarding the end of the movie with the marriage between Pia and Eyal were mainly negative with a lot of disappointed viewers who thought this was a major 'sell out' to assuage a U.S. audience with a 'Hollywood ending'. I hope some of you will share your thoughts on this in your comments. Thanks for watching!

Looking for Richard -- Discussion has begun!

......King......Richard
LooKing for Richard

Some Americans love Shakespeare. They love his language, wit and insight into human behavior. Others find his work intimidating and too difficult.
Take Richard III. On the one hand it is a simple story: Richard lies, cheats and murders to become king; after gaining this power he self destructs and is killed. On the other hand it is a confusing mass of names, places and events. (i.e.: George's last name is Clarence? Richard's last name is Gloucester? How are they related? They're brothers?!?! And who is this Buckingham guy? Doesn’t he have a palace to look after?)
How can it be made interesting and accessible to an American audience? Can it be done without the “I’m so English it hurts” accents? Without snobbery about “high art” or “the theater?” Can it be done without dumbing it down (i.e.: changing the opening monologue to: “I’m ugly, I never get laid.”)
Al Pacino to the rescue! Pacino gives us what I wish every movie production, live performance and reading of Shakespeare would: the background information we need to understand the characters and plot. When I was in school Cliff Notes tried to do that, but I used them to avoid reading the play, not to understand it. Pacino does not let us get away with that.
He gives us a real chance to learn and enjoy Shakespeare by going through a scene several times. First using modern clothing and language, then with lots of “OK audience, this is what’s going on and this is who these people are.” Only when we have sufficient background does he give us the poetry, the costumes and the ACTING.
In this film Pacino raised many questions about Richard III and Shakespeare in general. Here are some that grabbed my attention (and a few of my own). Any thoughts on these?
*Why was Lady Anne (Wynona Ryder) walking around town with her father-in-law’s corpse? How long has she been doing this?
*Have you ever had a nightmare like Richard’s? (“Despair and die!”)
*“Was ever woman in this humor wooed? Was ever woman in this humor won?”
*Americans loved Shakespeare in the 1800s. What happened?
*And what about the quote by one of the men on the street that the crew spoke with, "If we felt what we said we'd say less and mean more"?


Written by David Greenberg for Lee Paris/Films off the Beaten Path