2003 Foreign, Alternative and Independent Films

hmm, I saw the trailer for Blind Spot on something I rented recently and was considering it.

Didn't end up going to Stevie or anything else. Did some work and watched How To Succeed In Advertising and some Speed Racer episodes instead.

I saw STEVIE yesterday. It's a fascinating film - it starts off promising but not "holy crap this is interesting", and then a big dramatic revelation 20 minutes in throws everything open.

What's interesting about it is that it winds up becoming about as much as the making of the film as the character ostensibly being profiled - Steve James (the director) becomes a major onscreen character, and is grilled on his motives by others in the film. If you took the BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE model of filmmaker/narrator but made it honest - can you imagine Michael Moore saying "I wanted to get some damning footage of Charlton Heston, so I brought along a picture of a dead girl to ambush him with?" - you'd get something along the lines of STEVIE. Some may find James a little defensive at points, but I think it's an honest reflection of what he's feeling.

I will say that it's also one of the ugliest films I've ever seen. Apparently it was shot on super 16mm and then mastered on digital and printed to film from there, but plenty of shots looked just like flat out bad dv (though, thinking about it, I guess there was greater color depth than usually seen in DV, but that's about the only exception). There's also places that aren't entirely in sync, even. So if you have to see it at home, it's probably not the end of the world - although being in the theater did help a lot with the relentless feeling of being trapped in this world that Stevie, and those around him, must feel.

Check it out Brook. Anyone with an interest in history should see this film. It is also worth it to see the self analysis by the secretary.

It is just that it is not necessarily a good movie. But a fascinating one.

I just saw Stone Reader and loved it. Anyone will enjoy it, but if you appreciate books and reading I think you'll like this one even more.

The Believer

First there was the Sundance Grand Jury Prize in early 2001. Then came the cable showing on Showtime. It finally hit the theaters in limited release in the Spring of 2002. Now, it is out on DVD. Still, the only comment that I can find about this film is the one from Michael Reuben in the 2002 indie thread:


In my view, this criticism is a valid one and becomes the film’s strength as well as its weakness, but more so towards the latter. In the end, The Believer is a character study. After all, Daniel goes from one extreme (a Jew) to another (a pro-Nazi skinhead). It is a big gap that needed some sort of bridging. And within the framework of Daniel’s character to which director Henry Bean heavily relies his narrative on, it needed to be dealt with. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center shares these same concerns.

I found the film to be just as confused as the character to which the film is grounded on. Two other storylines in the film were underdeveloped. These include Daniel’s relationship with two fascist members (Theresa Russell and Billy Zane), who are trying to recruit him, and a girlfriend, who in the end, becomes fluent in Hebrew and is seen attending a prayer service at a Jewish synagogue in a relatively short period of time. Sounds like a stretch? Not according to Bean. But their presence within the film’s bigger canvas remains dubious at best.

However, the performance of Ryan Gosling is one that will be remembered most in this film. It is a more seasoned performance than the one he gave in his recent film, The Slaughter Rule. The Believer is an actor’s piece in a failed attempt at a more compelling and insightful subject to which it tries to explore.

~Edwin

In America

Sometimes, you're just primed to like a movie. Just as swarms of people have gone gaga over a bunch of short people taking a seeming eternity to rid themselves of one unwanted piece of jewelry over the past few years, I was extremely excited when I first started seeing trailers for Jim Sheridan's In America in December. I love immigrant stories, I'm partial to cute kids done well, and Samantha Morton was in it to boot. When I saw that Sheridan had co-written the screenplay with his daughters, I was even more intrigued.

Then came the waiting - Fox wasn't planning to release it until May. And by the time I saw the listing for its preview during the Boston Irish Film Festival, the studio had delayed the release until fall, possibly to increase its chance at awards.

It deserves a bunch of them, even if it wasn't exactly the movie I was expecting. It's not really about the Sullivan family as immigrants, but as a family trying to heal from the death of their youngest child. That they arrive in New York with nothing but the clothes on their back is almost incidental.

The story is primarily told from the perspective of the two daughters, Christy (10) and Ariel (6), with Christy narrating; Christy also carries her camcorder everywhere, recording everything. The two are played by real-life sisters Sarah and Emma Bolger, who are both incredible. Emma is naturally cute but also able to be serious, which is really something incredible from a seven-year-old. Lots of little kids are adorable, but Emma Bolger is doing much more than smiling on cue - the girl is acting.

Equally impressive is her older sister Sarah. While usually when young siblings are in a movie, it's the older one who is cast first with the younger added so that they look alike, but according to Sheridan's comments before the movie, Emma Bolger was cast first and then the script was rewritten to accomodate Sarah (Christy was originally 14, and the closest thing this movie has to a fault is that she still sometimes comes off as being older than the actress playing her). Anyway, she's quite good - she comes across as observant and strong, though that strength can be mistaken for "mere" innocence.

Paddy Considine, as the father, is also a relative newcomer who turns in a strong performance. He's a natural clown, with a lanky figure and almost-handsome features. He gives the appearance of wearing his heart on his sleeve, though something has been locked away inside him since his son died.

Samantha Morton, as the mother, is just as good as you would expect what with her being Samantha Morton and all. Her part is a little underwritten, but she absolutely pours herself into it.

And, finally, there's Djimon Honsou, as their artist neighbor. He's a bit of a stock character, the angry hermit who warms to the cute kids, but Honsou gives him both dignity and wit (which may be more important - too much dignity makes this archetype a cliché).

The story is simple - a family looking for a new start after a tragedy enters America illegally and sets down roots: The girls go to school, the father tries to find work as an actor, the mother gets pregnant, they befriend a troubled neighbor. What's incredible is the way it's told. I believed in what was happening, even though the cast often seemed more expressive than real people (though, with Considine, Morton, and the Bolgers in the cast, that's almost a given). The cinematography is also brilliant - the parts of New York where the Sullivans live look sordid and lived-in but also pregnant with possibilities.

This movie is not subtle. Sheridan claims that his experience coming to America for the first time twenty years ago was "far madder", and told anecdotes beforehand to verify that he'd reeled himself in. Still, the lightning bolt could be construed as a bit much. Another example is a very light spiritual/fantastic feel to the narration, with Christy saying she had been granted three wishes and how they had been used. It's an element that seems foreign to Jim Sheridan's gritty Irish films, but which I'm told often appears in daughter Kirsten Sheridan's work.

I loved this movie. There will be some who take it less seriously because it does retain a certain childlike innocence, but I usually think it's much harder to do that well than to tell a cynical story. Expect reminders of this movie's greatness come November.

Laurel Canyon

It’s hard to knock a film that means so well. Here we have a bunch of good and capable actors who rise above a very lightweight and not-so-memorable material. Christian Bale, Alessandro Nivola and especially Frances McDormand are the reasons to see the film. But I really wish that there were more meat to the story.

~Edwin

Chaos

I'm told that this movie was booked at the Brattle after being a hit at the New England Women's Film & Video Festival (or some such; at any given time, the Boston area has two or three programs calling themselves "Film Festivals" going on, so it's hard to keep them straight). Certainly, you wouldn't choose it for entry at a "Men's Film Festival"; probably the most sympathetic male character in the movie is an elderly john who comes across as merely pathetic. (Well, okay, there are some professional but personality-free police detectives)

And yet, despite the charicatured portrayal of men, the somewhat skimpy looking production values, and the more-than-occasional overacting, this is still a very watchable movie. Why is that?

Well, in part, because it crams a lot of movie into it 109-minute runtime. It seems like a silly thing to say, but there's not a minute that goes by in this movie without something happening; writer/director Coline Serreau at times seems like she's afraid you'll lose interest and change the channel or walk out.

While she's heaping events and characters on the viewer, though, she keeps it quite easy to follow. Many thrillers will set up elaborate achronological structures, but Chaos tells its story pretty much in order, except for a sustained flashback sequence that is set aside with narration. So while there are a lot of plot twists and side stories here, there's very little reason to look back at any specific part afterwards and say "what was that about?"

The film's big weakness, I think, is that it looks amateurish at times. Many of the recent French films coming to America feel very polished (consider Brotherhood Of The Wolf, He Loves Me/He Loves Me Not, 8 Women), but Chaos is often grainy, and with lighting that seems just a bit off. The acting, too, is often on the border of hammy.

But it's entertaining. The story starts out straightforward enough - on the way to a party, Paul and Hélène come across a prostitute running from pursuers. Paul callously locks the doors of the car even as the girl screams for help, and leaves her for the police to find while he goes to a carwash to have the blood washed off his windshield. A few days later, Hélène helps Paul avoid seeing his mother, only to see her own son Fabrice's fiancée do the same, and this jolts her out of her complacency, and makes her see what a lout Paul is and how their son is becoming just like him. She looks for the girl, eventually finding her in a coma at a local hospital, and resolves do what she can to help this "Noémie". Soon, she's spending far more time with Noémie than with her own family, and finds herself involved in an adventure when Noémie's pursuers appear again.

That's the first fifteen minutes. After that, things get complicated.

One of the issues an American audience may have is with how this movie is billed as a "comedy-thriller". Humor often doesn't translate well, and some of the "comedy" fell somewhat flat to me. I mean, "guys not knowing how to do dishes" jokes in the twenty-first century? I guess the movie is exaggerating for effect (although when a man makes a movie as disdainful of women as this movie is of men, it doesn't get much critical acclaim), but I was often laughing more at the clunkiness with which a joke was made than at how funny it actually was.

Still, the central idea of this movie, women retrieving their pride and self-respect from the men who are determined to take it from them, is worthwhile. It's also just plain fun, using what Roger Ebert described as the "one damn thing on top of another" story structure - stuff happens to Hélène and Noémie, then more stuff happens, and so on until it ends.

Kind of simplistic, but also quite entertaining.

¼

ALL THE REAL GIRLS

David Gordon Green’s second feature film uses the same style he used in George Washington but this time, with a more forward narrative to tell a story about the affairs of the heart between two young people. Green likes to show things that happen around his human subjects such as the movement of the clouds in the sky and the manner in which a tree sways during a gentle breeze. All of these provide for a more contemplative reflection.

One element that I like about Green’s films is his characters and the manner in which they talk. Their dialogue sounds very natural rather than staged or forced, especially when the spoken words come from the heart. With George Washington, I liken his style with that of Terrence Malick. In All The Real Girls, shades of John Sayles’ writing and direction come forth. These elements from these two directors are woven together and developed into Green’s own style of filmmaking. Those familiar with the films of Malick and Sayles will more likely enjoy Green’s latest offering.

As a love story and one dealing with relationships in a small Southern town, All The Real Girls works as there are moments of true warmth and honesty. The film is very low-key and is to be enjoyed with the right frame of mind.

~Edwin

Confidence
You pretty much can’t go wrong with a con movie. Sure, if you go backward, they’re predictable and full of holes, but forward, they’re pretty damned entertaining. This one is highly derivative of previous films in the genre and the script is weak, but it’s fun and very well-cast. Average, but worth seeing.

Film release list updated.

~Edwin

Well, I'm off to Detroit again to see another film that is usually not released in my locality. After thinking about Levity, Irreversible, and Nowhere in Africa. I think the latter film is my choice for today.




Crawdaddy

I was very disappointed by Neil LaBute's The Shape of Things, but my reaction may not be a good indicator of how the film will play with most audiences. I saw the Off-Broadway production of LaBute's original play, which featured the same cast, and it worked better on the stage. LaBute hasn't found a cinematic equivalent for the play's staging, and the result is that you spend much of the film's running time looking at talking heads. If you don't know what those heads are going to say, the story probably still has a bite, but I did, and that left me plenty of time to think back to the (superior) live presentation.

Filming the play has another unforunate side effect. Rachel Weisz's character, Evelyn, is supposed to be off-putting. She's an eccentric would-be artist, and her bizarre dress and hairstyles are supposed to make her both exotic and somewhat intimidating. But the camera emphasizes faces, and Rachel Weisz has a face that the camera loves; the filmed Evelyn is just too attractive to be right for the character.

One other notable change from the stage production is the design of the final sequence, which I can't describe without spoiling the movie. The play was written before 9/11, but filmed afterward. The last ten minutes or so are set against a background that's so aggressively red, white and blue that it leaps out at you. I'm not sure why LaBute went in this direction, since the context can only be an ironic one.

The film is about the budding relationship between two college students played by Rachel Weisz and Paul Rudd and named Adam and Evelyn (get it?). The counterpoint is provided by a second couple: Gretchen Mol, who has a crush on Adam, but couldn't get his attention; and her fiance, Frederick Weller, who plays Adam's friend and former roommate. Let's just say that no one is entirely what they first appear to be, and leave it at that.

M.

I just saw that Jason is keeping a linked list of the various art films which I find very helpful. So here is my City of God review from the official thread. I saw it a second time and my opinion remained unchanged.

City of God
10 of 10
#1 film of the year till something really awesome steps up to the plate, and I can imagine that such a film might not come out this year, including ROTKing.

Goodfellas for the child gangs of Rio slums, spiced with touches from Pulp Fiction and Trainspotting. The film makes the most of the photographer angle of the film's narrator. Titles for "chapters" in the film also are highly effective. The film has fun in jumping back and forth in time, though that is not quite how the film resembles Pulp. That comes more from it's method of stopping to say "hey, let me tell you this individual's story" as well as the fact that so many actions and lives end up interrelating and interacting in a multitude of twists and turns driven mostly by violent power plays.

All the while the greatest shock might be in how quickly the audience comes to accept this gangland behavior from teens or even younger. The most depressing aspect is that we are seeing true stories of children's lives in Rio.

The film grabs you with Soviet Montage style editing to open the film, goes into a Bullet-time style circling shot shortly after that, and then into a Goodfellas style freeze and "let me tell you where this all began" that leaves you thinking of Ray Liotta telling us stories of mailmen thrown into ovens. And then it delivers on all the promises that such a diversely vibrant opening makes.

I left thinking "wow, did I just see an amazing flick".

PS - let me add that I'm a sucker for music used well within a film, and this one shares that aspect with the previously mentioned Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, and Trainspotting as well. All varieties of music and each really drives the scene it is in. Never has Kung Fu Fighting exuded such real tension than in this film (and you thought Sister Christian was used well in Boogie Nights). As that song explodes into the soundtrack, so too does the tension of the moment burst forth.

Great review of City of God, Seth. I have to agree...I don't know if I'll see a finer film this year (it didn't play here until March).

Bruce

I finally caught up with (OK, limped over to) Laurel Canyon and absolutely loved it. Granted I am sucker for good rock & roll movies -- Almost Famous is an all time fave, but even for the harder to please, it is impossible not to love Frances McDormand's and Alessandro Nivola's performances. Only Kate Beckinsale left me a little cold -- they should have cast Chloe Sevigny

I was a little surprised that several reviews I saw (including our own Michael Rubin) have said that they liked Cholodenko's High Art better. I enjoyed it well enough, but have pretty much forgotten it, a sure sign of less than greatness. Perhaps I should give it another shot -- does anyone know if the German R2 DVD (the only one in existence??) is any good?

Ted

That's Mr. Reuben, to those who misspell it.

Welcome back, Ted! I hope the limp is just temporary and passes quickly.

M.

P.S. Re: High Art. There are scenes from that film that are still stuck in my mind. Few films have captured both the allure and the terror of an utterly reckless existence with such delicate precision. In many ways, Laurel Canyon is the West Coast comedy version, and while I enjoyed it, it didn't get under my skin like High Art did.

THE GOOD THIEF

For a caper plotted picture, there are essentially two stories at work here: a character study, more successfully tackled in Sexy Beast, hidden behind a heist film (Ocean’s Eleven). The result is an uneven film with decidedly mixed results saved only by a charismatic performance by Nick Nolte. However, it needs to be noted that Nolte, at times, mumbles through some of his dialogue making him very hard to understand - a complaint also heard from other audience members.

For the heist to actually work, all the pieces must fall in their respective places. This is not an exercise in examining whether the pieces of the heist actually work but rather a predetermined acceptance that it does work in order for the entire story to work - an element that actually does the film more harm than good.

Surprisingly though, Nolte and co-star Nutsa Kukhianidze (boy, is that a mouthful) work good together and their scenes inside a Monte Carlo casino is the most memorable part of the film and is even more exciting than the actual heist itself.

~Edwin

Surprise to see that there isn't more comments on Raising Victor Vargas. Anyone else seen this one?

~Edwin

I saw Raising Victor Vargas a while back, but I didn't have anything to add to the published reviews, all of which say pretty much the same thing. It's a gem, graced by utterly convincing performances from a non-professional cast and shot in a documentary style using real locations that's the opposite of Hollywood -- nothing is prettified. The story is simple; the relationships are not.

M.

my wife and kids are going out of town tomorrow and I have a free night to see a couple of movies. Trying to decide between He Love's Me, He Loves Me Not; Chaos; Raising Victor Vargas; or The Shape Of Things

wow, I'm disappointed that UNKNOWN PLEASURES was so abruptly dismissed. It's not for everybody's tastes, yeah, but for those who like Tsai Ming-Liang it's well in keeping with his style. Lots of long takes, lots of quiet wry humor and observations on anomie, how American culture impacts Chinese culture, and so on. I say give it a spin if you get a chance, unless you already know you're terminally averse to it from the description here.

Agree with Doug D. regarding Unknown Pleasures; that, more than other film from the NY Film Festival really stuck in my head and couldn't help think about for a long time. It's funny, pathetic, disturbing, and sad all at once.

Anyway, I found the old NYFF 2002 thread, and my "immediate" comments to the film were on this post: Unknown Pleasures. It ended up being my #3 film for the year, behind Tian Zhuangzhuang's Springtime in a Small Town and Abbas Kiarostami's Ten (both NYFF screenings too).

I would agree with the previous opinions on He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not. While in several ways it would fit comfortably in the "from Hell" genre, its split storytelling brings something fresh to the table and hooked me. Entertaining and fun to watch all the twists and turns play out. It pushed much further than I thought it was going to go and surprised me several times.

While I can understand why you were let down by The Shape Of Things Michael; for me, this was the first outstanding American film of 2003. Combining the philosophies of Fassbinder with elements of Godardian self-awareness, the movie is as biting and explosive as his previous, In The Company of Men and Your Friends And Neighbors.

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the film, I can't really see a way to talk much about it without spoiling it. As for the acting, I had initial misgivings about Paul Rudd but he brings just the right touch of tentativeness, sensitivity, and naivete. Rachel Weisz is a revelation, who knew action-girl had it in her? I thought her physical beauty was perfect for the role, rather than someone off-putting and weird, this is somebody that men would definitely be willing to change for.

LaBute has definitely been learning how to create a visual style. The compositions, designs, and framing are improving with each film (I haven't seen Possession yet). He also does some interesting things with sound.

Michael, a question, Are we supposed to know what Rudd and Weisz whisper to each other? It sounded like they were speaking decipherable words, but the volume was too low to make them out.

If you aren't a fan of LaBute's already, this movie probably isn't going to convert you. It takes a certain sense of humor to appreciate, much like watching someone else get kicked in the nuts, you laugh and cringe at the same time.

But where the movie really steps up is thematically. What does it take to create art? Are there boundaries that an artist should not cross, or is complete freedom of self-expression necessary for creation?

And as I said earlier, he borrows several of Fassbinder's pet themes - What is the place of artists in society? Does the need to be loved change who we are? Why does love make us so vulnerable? How does loneliness and our own self-perceived inadequacies shape our personality?

And I loved how LaBute comments on his own work and pokes fun at himself with wink-wink symbolism and my favorite, during a particularly grueling portion when a character stands up and yells "THIS IS FUCKED UP!!" Indeed.

I think that was invented for the movie; I don't recall a similar scene in the stage play. Of course, by that point the audience is too wiped out to concentrate on the details.

EDIT: My wife (who saw the play but not the movie) says she remembers an exchange of whispers in the play, but she's not sure where it occurred. And no, the audience didn't learn what was whispered.

WARNING: The following spoiler-protected comment is specifically for Brook K. Do not, under any circumstances, read this comment if you have any interest in seeing The Shape of Things, now or later. This is truly a spoiler and may seriously undermine your enjoyment of the film on first viewing.


Warning Spoiler! Click to show

M.

THE WAY HOME

The full impact of Jeong-Hyang Lee’s The Way Home lies in the understanding of the simple, yet arresting words spoken in sign language. It is important not to misinterpret the true meaning of these signed words as they provide much of the film’s emotional impact.

Interestingly, the film stayed with the more commonly used words in sign language that its meaning is universal enough so as not to be misinterpreted even without the benefit of a translation by another character in the film or through its subtitles. (Still, that American Sign Language course I took in college came in handy.)

The story centers on a spoiled seven-year old city boy who has to spend some time with his mute grandmother in a rural town while his mother looks for a job. During this time, he learns about respect, love for other family members and the value and simplicity of life itself.

At another level, the film hints at the important issue about parental abuse and abandonment. With a very personal foreign film such as The Way Home, it is important not to forget the context and the audience to whom it is being targeted at. In many respects, the film is trying to make a statement.

Bottom line: Simple yet insightful.

~Edwin

Russian Ark, which may have already been discussed in the 2002 thread. But as I have just had the opportunity to see this for the first, I’ll comment briefly.

It is probably impossible to not start a discussion of this film without acknowledging the overwhelming technical achievement of shooting an entire feature film of almost 90 minutes in one single take. This takes Hitchcock’s concept of a handful of takes in a single film to its ultimate conclusion. Or staying within the Russian filmmaker family, if one thinks that Tarkovskhy has some long takes, this goes to the extreme. As one critic put it, this is anti-Eisenstein, rejecting completely the montage concept.

How then does Sokurov’s tour of Russian history and the Hermitage work as a film, not just as a technical achievement? The answer for me, is very well indeed. Set just before the Russian Revolution, we see the elegance and decadence of Czarist Russia in its most sumptuous setting. Along the way we meet several historical personages such as Catherine the Great and Peter the Great. Actually they are introduced in almost a throwaway fashion, in that it is never explained to the audience who these people are—we are expected to know. For example we briefly see young Anastasia—full of herself and of life. But we are expected to know both her place in Russian history (and society) and her fate, as no real information is given at all.

This is a film (and a filmmaker) that makes substantial demands on its audience. But for those who are interested in Russian history (Brook, are you paying attention?) or how far filmmaking can be pushed or in an intriguing (though enigmatic) story will put this film high on their list. But this film is definitely not for everyone.

Any mention of this film cannot be complete without acknowledging the effort of the DP and stedicam operator, who actually shot the film. I read one review (here in Dallas) that mentioned that he had 60 pounds of equipment on his back. For an hour and a half. In a crowd. And no chance of a retake (they only had the museum for two days—one to light and one to shoot, and as it was winter, only four hours of daylight each day). How did he do that?

Russian Ark is firmly in my top 3 of last year and probably will be this year depending on how it is counted. Lew, for your thoughts on historical explanation, see your own writing on Rabbit-Proof Fence. This is a Russian film made by a Russian, he does not need nor want to provide a blow-by-blow history lesson. His history lesson is more subtle.

For me, it was an amazing meditative experience, not just confined to looking at artwork or certain events in Russian history but about the nature of art itself as history, a focul point for man's creative spark throughout time. A way each generation can communicate with the next. And the museum serves as this spiritual Ark, just as Noah saved humanity and the animals to ensure our survival as a race, a museum serves to shepherd our artistic soul; inspiring even more great art and communicating man's greatest achievements.

On a 2nd level you have the historical events surrounding The Hermitage as a physical location within Russia and informing us of its proud history. Events that took place within it's walls or that shaped it's purpose to become such an artisitic repository or in a few cases, shaped the nation that serves as the stormy sea this Ark sails upon.

The 3rd level would be the cinematographic achievement, and an astounding one it is. But as you can read, I completely reject the notion the film is a cold, boring experiment in technique.

Lew, if you can track it down and have not seen it, check out Sokurov's Mother And Son (or anything else, but M&S is generally the only thing available on video) and see why he is the heir to Tarkovsky. His follow-up, Father And Son is playing at Cannes this year.

Just as in Rabbit-Proof Fence I don’t think that we should be given any more background by Sokurov. I only comment that if you don’t know a little history, this will be harder film than if you do.

I’ve not seen anything else by him and you are the second person in two days to recommend some more. Discussing this film with my son yesterday, he mentioned that since it was inevitable that someone would make a one-take feature, he was just glad that a real filmmaker did it first. Then he went on to say that he considered this Sokurov’s most accessible film.

The more I think about it, the more I think I’ll go back and see this one again. As you can tell, I also consider this far more than a technical exercise. But how can you not talk about that part? So impressive.

RAISING VICTOR VARGAS

is a realistic look at teenage relationships and growing up at three different stages as it chronicles the lives of three adolescents living with their grandmother in New York. It deals with the subject of teen anxiety, insecurity and search for their own identity. At first, it appears that not much happens in the story. But its final half hour packs a wallop.

~Edwin