Under the Sea - Sandsculptures, Frankston (2013)

Under the Sea - Sandsculptures, Frankston (2013)

This is the tenth year that Frankston has hosted this marvellous artistic display and the third year straight (fourth for my husband) that the trip to the 'other' peninsula has been more than worthwhile.

Put simply, this is sandcastles on steroids! Sand artists from various parts of the world come and create giant sculptures with the most fascinating intricacy using sand.

Now don't get me wrong. This is not kids stuff. These are full scale sculptures, extremely detailed and amazing to think that they are made of sand. But this is definitely something for kids as well as adults to enjoy. The sand that is used is not beach sand, but specialist builders sand, and this means that there is a beautiful finish as it is so even.

This year's theme is "Under the Sea", and the sculptures display the diversity of ideas that the theme offers. From the recreation of the entire city of Atlantis on the back of a giant turtle, to a representation of Graeme Base's brilliant children's book Sign of the Seahorse. The Burgs is a collection of animals from the two polar region, both real and cartoon (lots of penguins and walruses), mermaids depicted as sirens, with the remnants of dead sailors. Evil monsters, cute characters, each turn presents something new.

A couple of standouts include 'Octopus' Garden' which has recreated the wonderful world created by The Beatles in their songs Octopus' Garden and Yellow Submarine,

a war scene that was entitled Battlefish, that included puffer fish as the sea mines,

and the turtle that is carrying the city of Atlantis.

I won't add any more photos, because I will fill it all up, haha. But if you are looking for a great family experience, or if you are interested in sculpture it's wonderful. It doesn't take too long to walk around, but there are other activities, such as sand sculpting workshops, other sand crafts, a cafe and a huge sandpit, and depending on how early in the exhibition you go, often there are still sculptors working on extending the sculptures, adding new ones or performing maintenance on them. And every time you look at one of the sculptures you see something new.

btw, all these photos were taken by myself and my husband.

A large sandy 4 and a half Orsons.

Silver Linings Playbook (2013)

I have seen the trailer for this film at several of the recent film screenings I have been at, at the idea intrigued me. Pretty boy rom-com star Bradley Cooper (The Hangover) playing a man with a mental illness, with his parents played by Robert De Niro and Australian acting Royalty Jackie Weaver.

At the time, I did not know that Jackie Weaver would receive an Academy Awards nomination, or that Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games). All the more intriguing.

Cooper plays Pat Solitano Jr, who has just been released from a psychiatric hospital against the wishes of the doctors but at the insistence of his mother (Weaver). We are lead slowly through the information about how he ended up there, but we do know that he had been diagnosed with bi-polar after a serious incident that involved his wife.

Bradley Cooper plays the character with heart and depth, and often we can feel the pain and confusion that he is faced with. He wants to fit back in, he wants to return to work as a teacher, he wants his wife back, and he is prepared to work hard to get all this. However, there are too many people who have experienced him at his worst to trust that he is on the road to stability and his desperate wish to achieve his old life without medication means that there are several incidents that cause concern for those he comes in contact with.

His best friend Ronnie (John Ortiz) invites him for dinner, and he meets Ronnie's sister-in-law, the young widow Tiffany (Lawrence). At first they are confronted by each other's behaviour, and then they start to realise the need for them to accept help from each other. In order for each to move on, they need to both control impulsive behaviours that are dangerous, his being anger and violent outburst, hers outlandish sexual behaviour.

The film is directed with warmth and compassion by David O. Russell who really has only a handful of films to his name, particularly I Heart Huckabees and Three Kings. Mental illness (both bi-polar and depression) are not used as excuses, not seen as quickly curable but also not presented as humourous. He has stayed away from many of the cliches, which is a real difference for a Hollywood film.

Whilst this is an excellent film, and the performances of both Cooper and Lawrence are fabulous and right on the mark, the advertising that includes large numbers of shots of De Niro and Weaver are misleading. Actually, neither of their performances would particularly warrant a mention in a review. So why am I talking about them? Because if you are expecting either of them to deliver a memorable performance, you have been mislead.

The supporting cast are not particularly memorable, although some of them really should be based on their credentials. I kept waiting for De Niro to move into his 'Fockers' alter-ego, as some of his lines were delivered with a 'silly' over-played style that I found annoying rather than endearing.

Jackie Weaver's nomination simply makes me continue to wonder what the Academy panel are on, and who pays them. Obviously they either like the film and had to find something for it, or like her. She has delivered a multitude of better performances in her career, and I don't really think that her ability to sustain and American accent well is really enough to warrant a gong.

Other supporting players include Julia Styles (barely seen), Chris Tucker (why?) and Shea Whiggam (again playing the less interesting brother).

Often a film is lifted by the supporting players and the depth to the other stories and people we are meeting. But although the main story is a good one, this could be presented as a two-actor play on stage because there is really no-one else of importance to the film. It is a shame, because I think the performances of Cooper and Lawrence would only be buoyed by depth around them.

3 Orsons.

Ovo - Cirque du Soleil (2013)

This is the third Cirque du Soleil performance I have seen live. One previous one in their own tent and another at the Rod Laver Arena. This one is in the blue and yellow big top, bringing it back into that traditional circus feel that works best for this brilliant French Canadian troupe.

Ovo has a loose theme of insects. I actually found that it made the performances seem more in context and relatable within the theme than previous shows I have seen. The concept of ants spinning small pieces of fruit and vegetables makes so much sense, rather than just the simple act of 6 Chinese acrobats spinning things on their feet. Aerial acts being moths and scarab beetles flying above your heads, spiders climbing and gyrating across a giant spiderweb make it more engaging and intriguing.

The sounds of a crowd seemingly evenly distributed between those who had seen many cirque performances and those there for the first time was just delightful. Children and adults alike in awe of what was going on.

I have seen many cirque videos as well as the live shows, but this performance was particularly breathtaking. As with all of their shows, there is a nice smattering of comedy, and a little audience participation, so if you are sitting in the front row or on the aisle, be warned........

I just want to mention two performances in particular. I have always been a fan of the aerial art of the silks. So to see this performed as the metamorphosis of the silk moth is pure genius. The applause was very sparce after this, because most of us were still sitting with our mouths open.

The other high point is combination of crickets, trampolines and a very high climbing wall. I would like to apologise to the man in front of me for some of the 'fruitier' terms coming out of my mouth as I watched these guys. Absolutely brilliant, breath-taking, spectacular.......... I don't know what else to say. I have never seen anything like it, and would love to see it again.

On at Docklands until March 31st.

I am not understating things when I give this the full 5 Orsons!

I will add the Orsons as soon AS BLOGGER LETS ME!!!!!!!!

Hitchcock (2012)

Alfred Hitchcock is, quite rightly, considered by many to be one of the greatest directors in film history. His invention of so many of what we now consider to be run of the mill suspense techniques kept Hollywood guessing as to his next move on a regular basis.

This biopic opens with a clever reference to Hitchcock's long running television series Alfred Hitchcock Presents, using the theme music and style of speaking to camera to set up what the story is going to be about. I hope this element of the film is not lost on those who do not remember, or at least have encountered the television show.

This film covers the time of Hitchcock creating one of his greatest pieces of cinema Psycho. He was at what many thought was at the peak of his career, and was the 'go-to' director for suspense thrillers. But he wanted to be a maverick again and create something new.

Thus he is lead to the shlock-horror book Psycho, and his battle to make the film begins.

Hitchcock gives a nice insight into the Hollywood studio system at it's tail end. The desperation for the heads of the studio to have complete control over the creative as well as the financial concerns of a film. Everything from the script, to casting to when and where a film will be released was controlled. Alfred Hitchcock was big enough to push these boundaries, and financed the filming of Psycho himself, with his wife Alma Reville. He would have it made at any cost.

However the film is far more about the relationship between Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and Reville (Helen Mirren) than it is about Hitchcock's creative process. He is enamored by his leading ladies, but filled with jealous rage at the thought his wife may have feelings for another. He works himself into the ground, eats and drinks far too much and poorly, and expects everyone around him to work as hard as he does.

Hitchcock is a wonderful representation of a larger than life character who many people have read so much about, and whose body of work is there for all to see. Mirren is magnificent as always, giving the right amount of English stiff upper lip and 1950s take charge attitude. Hopkins has been criticised for working too hard on his physical likeness to the great man, and not enough on the emotional performance, which I agree with. But this must be extremely difficult to do with a real person who is so well remembered. You can't reinvent such an iconic image and expect it to work.

Overall the film is well paced, has some excellent supporting cast, including Toni Collette as Hitchcock's assistant, Peggy, Scarlett Johannson as Janet Leigh and Jessica Biel as Vera Miles. And for eagle-eyed lovers of 80s trivia, watch for Karate Kid Ralph Macchio as a screenwriter.

I give this film 4 polished Italian marble Orsens.

M.I.A.

Hi all

Sorry I have been missing in action, but my other half had a health scare, and despite the fact I thought there may be an audience out there, I felt a review of the Geelong Hospital cardiac department wasn't for a mass audience.

But all the nasty things are ruled out, and home is where we are, so movie watching is back on the agenda.

cheers!

War Horse (Live Stage Play - 2013)

First an admission. Although this is on at the State Theatre, and the Victorian Arts Centre in St Kilda Rd, I saw a preview at the Regent theatre in mid-December. I don't know if there are any changes to the production since I saw it, but as there were no major problems I assume it has gone to performance unchanged.

I have never read the book, and always stop the film about half way through, because I find it quite upsetting. But I am glad that there was no way to get out of this, because the experience was incredibly rewarding.

The story revolves around a boy and his horse, who are together from the time of the horse Joey being a foal. The family are a poor farming family and his father finds out that they can get good money selling a well trained horse to the army for World War I.

We follow Joey's story as he goes through battle, having to establish his territory with other horses in the platoon and capture by the German army. His owner embarks on an equally arduous journey to find him and hopes to find his beloved horse alive and still able to recognise him.

The horses are all presented as the most amazing, high tech puppets. They are made of cane and mesh, and the adult horses are operated by three puppeteers. They are created by the South African puppetry company Handspring, and, along with the staging (sets, lighting and music), make this show worth the time to see. It's really about the resilience of the horses, and to be able to watch these objects that look enough like horses for you to believe, but not like the real thing so you know they are man-made is breath-taking. You forget that the puppet operators are there, and just allow yourself to become emotionally involved in the story.

The handling of the horrors of war is thoughtful, but pulls no punches. This is an excellent show to explain to young people about the realities and horrors or war, rather than what they see in the computer games. Although the fate of the animals may not be really appropriate for very young children. There was one poor woman taken from the theatre who did not cope well with some of the more graphic scenes.

My main concern for this show was the ability to understand what the actors were saying. Only one actor was consistently understandable, and having seen him on television (Nicholas Bell), I know he was using his own English accent. I don't think that the issue was the sound system, I believe that it was more likely the fact that many of the actors were trying accents that they were not used to (mostly Yorkshire, I think) and were swallowing their words. It seemed that many of them were mumbling, which made it very important that you were able to work out what was going on from the action.

I saw the play with a theatre full of teenagers, and I must say I was amazed at the response. They allowed themselves to become fully involved in what was going on. For many it was the first time they had seen a live performance and they were in awe. They also were talking about the show all the way out and all the way home (no I didn't take all of them home, but a bus full............ that was plenty).

If you are not a regular theatre goer, this is a perfect introduction to the world of theatre. If you are, it stands against any of the many productions I have seen in recent years. Definitely worth the time if you can get tickets.

At the Victorian Arts Centre until March 3.

Are Orsons relevant? Yes, he performed on stage!

4 Orsons.

Life of Pi (2012)

I haven't actually read Yann Martel's novel Life of Pi, so I don't know how true this is to the novel. But I must say, I really don't mind, because as a film, this is a magical experience that takes you on a brilliant magical mythical tour.

One warning before I begin. This is not a children's movie, despite being PG rated. There were children in the cinema of 3 and 4 who were not only bored because they couldn't follow the story, but also, several were upset by some of the more full-on scenes of storms, shipwrecks and animals eating other animals. So I wouldn't recommend any children under about 8, and then only if you have discussed some of the themes first.

Ang Lee is not one of the most prolific directors in the world, but that is because he makes films that he really wants to, and that are beautifully crafted. His last major success was Brokeback Mountain, and he averages one film every two to three years. He has taken a novel that is often said to be unfilmable, and made it a fantastically entertaining and emotional experience.

Pi is living in Canada, and is approached by a writer who has been told by a mutual friend that Pi has a fascinating story to tell. The rest of the film is told in flashback, with regular visits back to modern day to break the tension or set what we are seeing in context.

Pi has grown up in India, in an area colonised by the French, in a zoo that was started by his father. His parents want their sons to learn important lessons about life and how the world works. This includes selling the zoo animals when the boys are in their late teens and moving to Canada.

On the journey, the ship comes to a tragic end, and Pi's journey of survival begins. He is cast adrift on the ocean for weeks 'alone', encountering all the terrors and wonders that the ocean can throw at him, storms, sharks, flying fish, searing heat and freezing cold.

The CGI and special effects on this film are breathtaking, and ultimately seamless. You forget that what you are seeing is impossible, and just go. 'Suspension of disbelief' takes over, without you having to wish it. I know he wasn't floating on a see of luminescent jellyfish, but I didn't even think about that fact until after the film.

The story is delightful and gently told. It shows that you can use CGI and other special effects for purposes other than blowing things up, creating what lived in Tolkein's head or to make vampires fly. It takes us to a place where things are hard, but the story is uplifting.

In a way this film is about faith and hope, and is extremely spiritual, without forcing you to pay attention to any one religion. Pi considers himself to be Hindu, Christian and Moslem all at once. It's fascinating, gentle and thoroughly engrossing.

And, as with  most of Ang Lee's work, we can guarantee that there will not be a gratuitous sequel. Hollywood, I NEVER want to see Life of Pi 2: Richard Palmer Returns!

A definite 4 and a half Orsons!