House of Sand and Fog (2003)

Better The 2nd Time Around

Both the book and the movie have almost as many detractors as admirers. In my own case, I found that the book packed such an emotional wallop that I was wary of any cinematic effort to tell this seemingly straightforward (but ultimately quite tricky) story. When I finally did see it, it was on a smallish black and white TV at a friend's house. I didn't care much for the film version then. Like so many adaptations, it seemed too rushed, too skimpy on the characters "back stories" and their complex inner lives. The acting was good, but too much of the dialogue seemed expository to me and not as "authentic" as the dialogue in the novel.

Seeing it in color and on a much larger screen, as I did recently, did give me a somewhat different perspective. The sheer beauty of the film was lost on me on the little black and white TV. As someone below noted, it's hard to go wrong with the Pacific Coast as your background. True, but the cinematography is more than just pretty to look at. Here the stunning nature shots serve as a reminder that the human activity--no matter how high the stakes are for those involved--is ultimately petty, perhaps even meaningless, in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not surprised that many viewers (particularly those who have not read the book) find the plot overly schematic on the one hand, and the characters' actions almost inexplicable on the other. The "back stories" really are essential to understanding the characters' motivations. And without resorting to too many flashbacks or hokey "let me tell you my story" dialogue, there's only so much of that you can really insert into a movie.

What flashbacks there are are limited to a few brief shots of Colonel Massoud Behrani (Ben Kingsley) and family's life in the Iran of the time of the Shah. Presumably, the filmmakers felt that an American audience would need a little more information in their case than they might with the American born characters. It doesn't hurt either that writer director Vadim Perelman also threw in a wedding scene (only alluded to in the book) that also gives the audience a flavor of Iranian culture and values.

The general's nemesis in this real estate tug of war is an emotionally fragile, recovering addict named Kathy Nicolo (Jennifer Connolly) whose personal story is perhaps all too common a one, one we've certainly seen before. The details of her previous life are skimpier, but we kind of know where she's coming from.

Less clear, in the context of the film, are the motivation of the renegade police officer who abandons his wife and children to become Kathy's knight in shining (blue) armor. I imagine for those unfamiliar with the novel, his sudden abandonment of his family and (although this was not his intent originally) his career makes little dramatic sense. It is certainly problematic--and a little too rushed--in the context of the film. But Ron Eldard succeeds in giving us some hint of the turbulence going on inside the man. No mean feat since he has comparatively less to work with than either Kingsley or Connolly.

The actors work hard (and succeed, I think) in making their characters actions plausible within the context of the story. Of course, a common criticism of both the film AND the book is that its characters are "unlikeable" and not especially sympathetic, although some are more inclined to empathize with the Colonel and his family, given their plight as refugees and their characteristic dignity and pride. Others seeing him as part of the Shah's brutally repressive regime might find him more reprehensible than the two principle American born characters, whose "crimes" might be viewed as "small timey" by comparison and their victims mainly themselves.

No matter how you slice it, however, the point of great storytelling is not to just evoke sympathy for characters we naturally like anyway. It's considerably MORE difficult to make the reader or viewer feel compassion for characters we might not be drawn to in real life...ones we might even avoid contact with. The film version is not quite as successful as the book in evoking that reaction--and plainly, neither the book OR the film won everyone over. But for those open to it, the story is a strangely compelling one. It reminds us of just how easily lives can spiral out of control. In that, this particular tragedy--with its elements of cross-cultural misunderstanding and class and gender conflict--says a good deal about us all.

June 28, 2008

A well-made film undermined by its own plot

This is a tough one to assess: I can see why people would be inclined to give it both 1-star and 5 star reviews. Personally, I see its strengths and weaknesses canceling each other out, hence my middle-of-the-road ranking. [[I'd actually give it 2-1/2, but I'm in a generous mood this moment, so I'll round up.]]

The performances were solid, and the cinematography/direction/etc. was competent -- since this was Verelman's first time in the big chair, he should be commended for doing well with no prior experience. Sadly, that's about all I can say positively about this film.

My two main dislikes are the plot and the characterizations. Each is a big enough speed bump to enjoying this that they're worth addressing separately.

Central to the film's premise is the chain of events leading to Kathy losing her house in the first place. The audience is required to believe she was taxed for owning a business she never actually had, that the state made just one attempt (by mail) to get the money from her, and then with lightning speed were able to seize her house and auction it off -- with each subsequent step happening before the ink is dry from the previous. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly for me, and when the story's foundation requires an industrial dose of suspension-of-disbelief right from the start, it's not a good sign. There are numerous other inconsistencies to be found in the story, though they could be seen to be of less import, so due to their quantity and comparative triviality I'll skip cataloguing them. Suffice to say, my mental mantra while watching this was "ummm... wait a second..."

If one can get past the highly contrived nature of the story itself, we are left with the characters said plot is affecting. None of the characters are likeable, though I strongly suspect this was intentional. I actually don't have (that much of) a problem with that, but others won't be so forgiving. However, since the story is at heart a tragedy, failing to evoke any positive emotions from the audience towards the characters is a questionable move. Since I don't feel for the characters (except negatively,) their plight is severely dimished and lacks any real impact.

Perhaps we actually are supposed to feel more sympathetically towards each character than what the end-result manages to invoke, but one of the major weaknesses of HOS&F is the lacking of ***ANY*** back-story on the three main characters, except on the most superficial level. This is most noticeable with Kathy. We are supposed to assume that she is in some kind of funk (to the point that she won't even open her mail) yet I am completely at a loss to know what caused this in the first place. This would have been a golden opportunity to help me care for her, yet its absence is painfully noticeable and its lack forces the default of my not liking her all the more. The same applies, thought to a lesser extent, to Behrani and Lester. Remember: this is a tragedy drama, yet it makes no real effort to invoke sympathy on a genuine, human level.

In all likelihood, the book addresses my concerns and fills in the gaps, but the film left me with no desire to read it and see what I'm missing. I also have no motivation to watch it again.

HOS&F had some genuine potential, but for me it just didn't work. As the widely divergent reviews here show, others are more forgiving than I am, but others are even less so. January 27, 2008

Amazing.

I'll keep it short. This movie is wonderfully acted, by everyone, but again I'm reminded of what a good actor Ben Kingsley is. The story is so good. This is the saddest movie I have ever seen in my life. You would have to not have a heart to not get sad watching this. I bawled hysterically. January 26, 2008

Stunning

Amazing acting by Ben Kingsley and Jennifer Connelly. Great performances by the entire cast and very well directed. IMO, that makes this a 5 star movie. October 29, 2007

No winners in this property battle.

I don't know how I let this movie slip past me all this time, but I am glad I finally saw (and purchased) it.
The story is a battle over a house, that, in the beginning belongs to Cathy (Jennifer Connelly's character), and was passed on to her by her Father.

A mistake in the system concerning a "buisness" tax causes her eviction.
She hires a Lawyer, but before she can reclaim her home, The County auctions it to a Colonal Berani(Ben Kingsly) and his Wife and Son.( A very decent and proud Iranian family)

The entire story is about the battle that persists between the woman Cathy, and the new owners.I don't want to give too much of the movie away, but I will say that Connelly's and Kingsly's acting is SUPERB ! - There was one scene with Connelly in her car where she broke down, and her vulernability was heartbreaking.
Kingsleys character also touched me deeply when he so unashamedly laid out his soul in prayer for his Son in the Hospital waiting room.

BOTH characters we see exposed, naked, and bleeding, and we FEEL that..we feel FOR them, and that is GREAT acting.Everyone in the movie did a wonderful and convincing job and really breathed LIFE into these characters.

One thing I found interesting was that it was impossible to take "sides" in this because BOTH parties were right.( although in the beginning I did side with Connelly's character)
I do not understand why this masterpiece did not win any Oscars.
It surely deserved to.
This is one of those movies that will stay with you for a long time.
The ending will shock you, and take your breath away! October 28, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...