The rather sensitive topic of the Romanian gypsies in Europe has long been a topic that has been pushed under the carpet – an issue far out of sight and one that is seemingly passed over or simply ignored in general. Sure, there was the Nazi holocaust…the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…but gypsies? In an intriguing and absorbing story about the clash of distinctly different cultures and the meaning of ‘civilization’, French film director Tony Gatlif has stepped up to put forward a harrowing portrayal of the gypsy life during the turn of World War II in the racially and politically charged film, Korkoro.

It is without a doubt Gatlif’s heritage that has inspired him to produce such a film – he has after all already made more than ten movies focused on the Romanian Gypsy culture, and his resolve to underscore the reality of the gypsies together with his own descent has altogether empowered his filmmaking and motive for exposing the gypsy life and history. His determination to unveil the racial and social prejudice that occurred both in the past and today serves to emphasize the frightening reality Korkoro emanates on screen: it claims to be based on true events, which further highlights the extraordinary conflict the gypsies faced during the war, as well as the contradictions within the government and the people in society at the time. Korkoro really does seem to embody everything the gypsy culture stands for however, from the beat infused background music and the beautiful natural setting down to the actions of the characters and the tragic and often inevitable turn of events in the film.

In a memorable opening scene, barbed wire of a gypsy camp in France moves along to a poignant piano solo, and then cuts to the lively action and travelling of a gypsy clan in a leafy forest. Claude (Mathias La Liberté), an adorable young boy begins following the clan, and soon they take him under their wing and begin calling him Chorchoro (or pauper). They travel into France for the grape harvest, and it is then they realize there are new laws that forbid them to be nomadic.

However, they find some friends with Ms. Lundi (Marie-Josée Croze), the local schoolteacher, and Theodore (Marc Lavoine), the town mayor, in which both attempt to gently persuade the gypsies to assimilate with the rest of the town. This is seemingly made impossible by their way of life though, as is emphasized through their different culture, language and rituals.

Theodore adopts Claude when he realizes he is an orphan, and Miss Lundi tries to get the gypsy children to attend the school (where in a hilarious exchange, is asked to pay for the kids’ education by the adult gypsies). These attempts to bring the gypsies into normal civilization are in vain despite Miss Lundi and Theodore’s efforts, and soon the gypsy clan find themselves imprisoned in a cramped and barbaric gypsy camp.

Theodore signs over his house to them so they can be released, and so they are set “free”, for a while at least. Heritage or culture can never be erased however, and it is only inevitable that the gypsies’ stay in regular society is short lived before they attempt to escape into the wilderness, and back into their nomadic way of life.

Gatlif portrays the different sides of regular civilization and the gypsy culture extremely well in Korkoro, and it is his portrayal of both sides of the issue that significantly emphasizes the plight of the gypsies in that time. The racial prejudice is not only confronting and thought provoking, the treatment of the gypsies is often vicious, and altogether inhumane. The distinctions between the gypsy culture and regular society is also often made, effectively emphasizing how hard it is to persude someone to drop their heritage and start over entirely as a new being in modern society.

While the gypsies are often seen praying to their God and chanting and praying, their way of life infinitely sets them apart from the rest of society. In one scene, one of the gypsies is bitten by a horse, which results in them dressing the wound with cow dung and one egg. In another, a town official visits them where they pull out one sole wooden chair for him to sit on, and bring out one glass in which they pour him some water. The stark contrast between the official and the rest of the gypsies are evident in signifying just how different the two cultures are, and how hard it is to change the gypsies’ way of life when there is so much history and culture behind the people.

The background music makes up an important part in emphasizing the action and embedded culture of the gypsies, with everything beating in tune from the clack of the horses hooves to the patter of running feet, to the banging of pots and pans, to the squeaky movement of the wheels on the carts. The synchronization of the cacophony of their movements really brings together the gypsies and their relationship with the earth and nature, and really highlights their nomadic way of life. The grooves are so infectious in fact that you can almost imagine you’re there with them, tapping your feet along to Taloche’s impressive violin skills.

That said, Taloche (James Thiérrée) completely steals the show as a gypsy desperately attempting to cling on to his way of life and his origin. Every single scene he is in just emphasizes how much of the gypsy culture was ingrained in him, and his persistence at staying true to himself and his heritage is what really set him apart from the rest of his family.

Although there are various implications that comes with persuading the gypsies to ditch their way of life in favour of modern day technology and vocations, the distinct contrasts made in Korkoro resolutely highlight the pros and cons of modernity imposing on the gypsy culture. At times it seems almost impossible for there to ever be a true conciliation between modern society and the gypsies, for their culture is one that is incredibly hard to erase. In a dilemma similar to the plight of the Aboriginals in Australia, it is an issue which raises a series of questions concerning civility and culture, the contradictions of laws, and the meaning of freedom.

While there is certainly room for more character development in Korkoro, especially the relationship between Claude and Taloche, and Miss Lundi and Theodore, the film thoroughly achieves what it sets out to do: that is, to recreate the story of one gypsy family and their various encounters (good and bad) with modernity and war in France. The setting of the gypsy’s pursuits for freedom in a country entangled in war only suggests the trivilaity of it all, and ironically poses the question we have all asked for centuries: can’t we all just get along?

I have to admit, I have a strong penchant for well made psychological thrillers, and the fact that Shutter Island not only fits into that checkbox, but ALSO a variety of others including noir and horror, makes this movie a complete pleasure to watch. Everything about the movie is just quality – acting wise, cinematography-wise, audio-wise, script-wise, directing-wise….I don’t even know where to start in saying how refreshing it is to just sit down and enjoy everything this film offers. Shutter Island is a fairly long movie but like any other Scorsese film, it was so full of clever dialogue, visual aesthetics and gorgeous composition that each and every scene is so significant in foreshadowing the final, climax of the movie. Considering the psychological thriller genre is so full of rehashed ideas and cliché plots in the first place (mental health issues seems to be inversely proportional to how successful a psych-thriller movie is….), the tone and setting of the movie really sets the scene for an unforgettable and thrilling ride.

There seems to be two tiers to Martin Scorsese’s films – his older works, which are often highly underrated….and his more recent works, particularly in the past decade which have been both commercially and critically successful. It really makes you wonder how he’s been nominated 7 times for an Oscar but has only won Best Director for The Departed…which was, dare I say, one of his weakest films to date. Leonardo Di Caprio and Scorsese really seem to have worked out a divine working relationship though – especially since their previous collaborations: Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed have been so well received. The new Tim Burton+Johnny Depp partnership of Hollywood perhaps?

Either way, Shutter Island seems to solidified their collaborational efforts as cinema gold, though it is undoubtedly the impressive acting skills of Leonardo Di Caprio, and vision of Martin Scorsese that really brings the script, and story, alive.

It is incredibly hard to talk about this movie without spoiling the ending, but in a general overview, Teddy (Leonardo Di Caprio) and Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) are two US Marshalls who are sent to Shutter Island, a secure island location which houses an asylum similar to that of Alcatraz, only it contains the criminally insane and mentally unstable.

In their 50’s style detective uniform and (seemingly)endless supply of smokes, their job is to find out about the disappearance of an escaped “patient” (not prisoner!), as Dr. John Cawley (Ben Kingsley) refers to. This patient, Rachel Dolonzo, has seemingly disappeared into thin air – escaping from a room with barred windows and a securely locked door. It is only when Teddy finds a handwritten note – “The law of 4.  Who is number 67?” that the action really kickstarts into a carefully constructed and highly detailed plot centering on government conspiracy, paranoia, insanity and fear.

Scorsese really plays upon the contrasts between reality/dreams and sanity/insanity in Shutter Island, and the use of various horror elements really emphasizes the intense fear and paranoia that permeates the screen. Although there really are no jump-out-of-your seat shocks, the use of fantastically moody background music and setting combines to form an altogether creepy and often unsettling perspective of events from the eyes of Teddy.

Thompson and Thomson from Tintin immediately came to mind when first introduced to Teddy and Chuck, if only because their outfits and actions are so exaggerated and dramatized. The overstated hats, the bulky overcoats…sure Teddy and Chuck may not be the bumbling idiots as in Tintin, but there is something familiar about the entire premise that sets the tone for the discovery of something sinister, and the increasing need for the truth.

The Hitchcock and noir elements also seem to add another dimension to Shutter Island that really sets it apart from other psychological thrillers. While the entire setting of scraggly rocks and deep jungle against a generally stormy, grey sky highlights the moodiness of the film, the elements of smoke and fog are also extremely significant motifs that are used to great effect. Almost every other scene has either one of the two detectives smoking, taking huge, long drags from their cigarettes, which not only highly stylizes the scene and composition, but also relays the intense pressure and fear evoked through the characters. Wispy, thick fog is also utilized almost invisibly in many scenes in this movie to emphasize the complexity and confusion of the situation, which similarly help overstate the noir-ish features of the movie.

Visual elements of the film are also extremely well crafted – in particular the dream sequences Teddy has of his dead wife. Without giving too much away, the use of colour, falling pieces of confetti, paper etc. and slow motion close ups of feet and hands help in exaggerating Teddy’s conflictions and issues within himself as he continues with his job on the island. Whether or not the exaggeration of the elements in his dreams are intentional is contentious, but the intense redness of the blood, and the bright, sunny colour of his wife’s dress contrast greatly to the bleak reality of life on Shutter Island, and these fantasy like hallucinations definitely lend itself to signify something greater in the plot.

The real revelation in Shutter Island is the cinematography and sound however. Any Scorsese fan would know he really knows how to draw viewers into the scenes by using various camera angles and shots, and in this film, everything meshes together so seamlessly its hard to overlook the simplest of conversations between two characters. In fact, the quality of each shot is so interesting and so visually pleasing, it’s hard not to notice how much thought and effort has been placed into putting together a film such as this. Sound wise, this film is also incredibly impressive. One scene that comes to mind is when Teddy and Chuck are caught in a severe rainstorm while at the graveyard on the island. Not only was the camera angles and lighting perfect, the combination of the beating rain, howling wind and crystal clear vocals of Teddy and Chuck seriously makes the scene one of the most memorable.

While not as unpredictable or revelatory as movies such as Memento or The Prestige, Shutter Island makes use of some impressive visuals, sound and cast to enormous effect. Scorsese really has a knack for bringing a script to life, and his use of various cinematic conventions and elements of the cinematic medium are of incredible value – effectively enabling a foreboding sense of dread and unsettling disturbia to creep through the cracks of the plot unfolding. The entire cast really highlights the quality of the screenplay, and in particular, Leonardo Di Caprio and Ben Kingsley really complement each other in giving powerful and convincing portrayals. Mark Ruffalo is also impressive as Chuck – his accent just makes his character! There are so many features of this movie that you could analyze, that almost everything could be considered as a special element that has been closely constructed and directed. The end scene is so poignant and so picture-postcard perfect, that only serves to highlight the thought provoking closing line.

Shutter Island, is without a doubt a fine example of everything a movie should be, and the stellar cast, solid script and excellent vision makes for a refreshing and stimulating movie of the mind and of reality. Definitely recommended to any Scorsese fan, or any fan of quality cinema for that matter!

Coming from a director who has brought us such cinematic classics including Hollow Man, RoboCop and Basic Instinct (take from this statement what you will…), viewing Black Book is like viewing a whole other dimension through Paul Verhoeven’s eyes. Not only is this film entirely in Dutch, the 2 hour long marathon of a film seems to fit so much action into its timeline, it hardly even feels long at all! It does however contain some elements of his trademark, and although there are several unrealistic and eyebrow-raising scenes, the content and entertainment value really sets this apart from other World War II films.

Released in 2006, it was at the time, the most expensive Dutch production and also one of the most praised movies in the public and critics alike. For those who hate viewing movies with subs, beware, for this movie was not dubbed in English! It is not hard to see why this film has been one of the more successful World War II movies though – amongst the thousands of others that have been made, I think it’s safe to say this film really has the right amount of action, romance and plot twists to keep it chugging along nicely through to the end.

With a plot similar to that of Lust, Caution, Black Book begins with a flashback to main character Rachel, who is teaching at a school somewhere in Israel. On a chance occasion, she meets a former acquaintance, Ronnie, who she knew when she was a spy during World War II. The two strike a conversation, and after a brief exchange, Rachel reminisces about how she became an orphan in a German ambush, and how she became a spy for the underground resistance against the Nazis.

Through many often unrealistic and exaggerated turns of events, Rachel discovers others who are in the same position as her and quickly becomes a secret spy for the resistance. Armed with a bottle of peroxide, Rachel becomes Ellis de Vries – a smart and beautiful faux German who eventually infiltrates the local SS office as a secretary. Her mission? To seduce the commander Ludwig Muntze, and to obtain inside information so the resistance can break several members of their clan free from the evil clutches of the SS prison. Rachel has an ulterior motive however – she is determined to find out who tipped off the ambush that killed all of her family, and she wants them DEAD.

Rachel of course, falls in love with Muntze during her secret spy duties, and although he does indicate he knows she is in fact Jewish through her obviously bad dye job, he keeps it on the downlow because it seems he too, has fallen in love with her. Rachel also meets Ronnie through Muntze, who she learns is also an American spy, acting as a complete sex crazed airhead who teases just about every lad in the SS to obtain information!

When Rachel finds out the mole that killed her family and tips off the Germans, members of the resistance kidnap him and in a scuffle accidentally kill him. This sets off a chain of extraordinary events that eventually leads to a death penalty for Muntze, and Ellis in a prison where she is humiliated and tortured. It is not just the tragic separation of the two lovers that is the main crux of the story, but the plot twist at the end that will leave viewers confused and perhaps even slightly shocked.

Black Book may have a considerably convoluted storyline and lots of gratuitous violence and nudity, but it is indeed a film that both entertains and makes several points about World War II in general. Carice Van Houten is simply stunning as Rachel, and Thom Hoffman acts superbly as a sneaky, villainous leader of the resistance.

One of the most notable aspects of this film is just how incredibly unrealistic it actually is though – you do have to just let the film do the talking and suspend your disbelief for ~2 hours! While the ambush at the start was quite extreme and fairly plausible, the plot twists including the killing of the Jew spy in broad daylight and Rachel and Muntze’s break out of prison just adds to the overall over exaggeration of this movie. It does not by any means take itself too seriously, which is perhaps why this film is so enjoyable as a whole.

While its not the most insightful World War II thriller, nor is it the most thought provoking, Black Book does raise some questions as to what is considered right or wrong during times of war. With Rachel’s constant conflictions within herself over her loyalties to her family, the resistance and her love for Muntze, Verhoeven does an impressive job of handling Rachel’s choices and portraying them in a way which emphasizes how hard it is to judge each aspect of the war.

Noted for its big budget, Black Book’s cinematography is also visually stunning: each scene is filled with different elements which really draws you into what is happening, and what each character is saying. In particular, the shot style and lighting of the extravagant gala held by the SS near the end of the film really highlights the tone and foreshadowing of the rest of the movie, as it is the penultimate point where Rachel and Muntze meet up one last time before they separate…forever. The use of long shots is particularly useful in highlighting the beauty of the Dutch countryside, and the ravages of war against the greenery, which I thought was a nice touch in the film especially at the end scene.

The music in this film is also another feature that enables the viewer to fully appreciate the turn of events and constant action. This movie may be a far cry from the likes of Total Recall or Basic Instinct but the rapid car chase that leads to the resistance members being arrested, and the shootout ambush at the start really lends itself to the awesome directing skills of Paul Verhoeven.

Overall, Black Book is one long but entertaining war movie that will not disappoint. It is a complete change from Verhoeven whose other credits may raise a few questions as to how he can be so hit/miss with his ventures, but Black Book really is worth checking out, if not for the charming love story between Rachel and Muntze. People may slam Verhoeven especially for the excess and often unnecessary nudity in the film, but he has two excuses.

One: it’s a foreign language film.

Two:  This film is all about over exaggeration.

Why not go all out and produce something that is not just about the war, but also about a character, and her journey through the war as a spy? Black Book is nowhere near as entertaining as Inglourious Basterds, nor is it as focused on the brutalities of war like Band of Brothers, but it surely is one epic movie that has just the right amount of everything which will keep most viewers in their chair and wondering whatever will happen next!