Thursday, 15 January 2026

On demand: "Labour of Love/Asha Jaoar Majhe"


The question posed by 2014's mesmerising indie Labour of Love/Asha Jaoar Majhe - and it's one which isn't answered until quite late on in proceedings - is what kind of love story the writer/director Aditya Vikram Sengupta is telling. Initially, we're watching two silent Calcutta residents go about their daily business. A woman in a resplendent sari (Basabdatta Chatterjee) takes a tram and then a bus across town to start work in her factory job, packing designer handbags; meanwhile, a somewhat indolent-seeming man (Ritwick Chakraborty) relaxes into his apparently abundant spare time. (No sooner has he got up than it's time for another nap.) The camera, for its part, keeps having its head turned by the faded beauty of recession-hit 21st century Calcutta: the rattling public transport, the paint-chipped, soot-blackened buildings, the messy life of the city's marketplaces, here set against the shirts drying pristinely on its washing lines and the slate-grey, smogged-over skies. What's entering the film's ears, in the absence of any conventional dialogue, is pure sound design: those trams, the birds, the swelling marches protesting the high cost of living, the bells on the necks of the livestock that still have occasion to be shepherded through these streets.

Sengupta has almost certainly been studying the slow cinema: his eye habitually scans these frames for anything that might be of interest, or spark visual pleasure. A striking staircase; a cat lazing in the mid-afternoon heat; an especially roseate sun going down. Evening brings with it constellations of streetlights and power lines. Time seems to pause altogether, maybe even goes into reverse in places. Is this the Calcutta of 2014, or the Calcutta of Ray's day, or something less concrete than conceptual: some eternal Calcutta? One thing's for sure: this is the work of a director keen to pump the brakes on the frantic accelerationism of today's India in favour of drinking it all in, possibly while getting a little drunk on his own intoxicating imagery. A subsequent film of Sengupta's, 2021's Once Upon a Time in Calcutta, staggered around with a murderously bad head, but here, at least, the filmmaker remained clear-eyed in what he could achieve with all this craft: an idea of the rhythms of the working day, some feel for the mysteries of the city, those areas that remain off-limits to more narrative features, and a broader compendium of gestures that speak multitudes. (The most gorgeous of these are food-related: one character refills spice jars and the screen simultaneously, while a meal is prepared in the kind of ravishing close-ups typically deployed in adland.) This is, finally, a labour of love - small tasks carried out with immense care, and in such a way as to mean so much - but it's also a transportation, a great modern city symphony, and one of those films that defies movie physics: it runs 81 minutes, but generates a near-complete, immaculately balanced and weighted picture of what it is to live, work and indeed love in this particular metropolis.

Labour of Love is available to rent via Prime Video and YouTube.

On demand: "Humans in the Loop"


They're teaching more than Satyajit Ray and Raj Kapoor in the film schools of India. The brisk and intriguing indie parable
Humans in the Loop combines elements of Ken Loach and Koyaanisqatsi with something else entirely - and it's that something else that is perhaps the most intriguing element of all. Writer-director Aranya Sahay takes 75 minutes of your time to set up and partially resolve a most complicated situation, namely that of Nehma (Sonal Madhushankar), a working mother from a lower-caste background obliged to take a job so as to secure custody of her children after separating from her husband. This would be a complicated situation in itself, but Sahay goes on to make it more complex still. The job Nehma takes involves data labelling at one of India's nascent AI hubs, a career choice presented as a possible future, but also a curious and uncertain one. Her workplace alone sparks some degree of cognitive dissonance, for this is not some gleaming, billion-dollar, architect-designed tech palace - I'm assuming Sahay didn't have the budget to build one, and would have struggled to secure the permits required to shoot at a pre-existing one - but what looks like a creaky old community centre, hastily refitted with clacky PCs; this makeshift Internet cafe is overseen by a no-nonsense matron (Gita Guha) whom you'd more typically expect to find running a church bridge night. Even before we check in with the boys at head office, you catch an air of desperation, and get a sense Nehma has been enlisted to help give human secrets away on the cheap.

Within this brave new world, our heroine is trying to raise three children at once: an adorable toddler we witness taking his first steps, an older daughter-slash-babysitter who comes to resent her mother's absence from the family home, and the stumbling, demanding, soon to be rampaging beast encoded in the machine, guzzling up human resources and knowledge alike. Like its heroine, it's a film that finds itself occupying two distinct locations simultaneously. Nehma's village offers easy access to symbolic porcupines and elephants; the more driven city fosters virtual escapism by scanning and harvesting the real world. Passing back and forth between the two generates new forms of conflict. On a nature walk, Nehma identifies a leaf-eating worm, useful within nature, which she later learns the technology intends to eradicate; the broad-brush approach to data collation deployed by her employers to get this tech up, running and profitable doesn't allow for nuance or opt-outs, and may yet enable more destruction. Sahay is one of the few contemporary filmmakers who appears entirely comfortable with integrating this tech into their dramas. More so than your correspondent, who firmly believes data centres like these should be bulldozed and salted over, Sahay retains some sympathy for AI as a concept: he has to, to make his drama work, and in return it yields a whole new set of ideas and images for him to play with. Yet he also sees AI's flaws and biases, the many risks it poses, and Humans ultimately extends a far greater sympathy to those of us having to work through and deal with the consequences of all this shiny new kit, aware that people retain a capacity for wonder - and doubt, and fear - which machines really don't. Sahay evidently has those qualities in spades; his film, both eminently timely and naggingly persuasive, does too.

Humans in the Loop is now streaming via Netflix.

Tuesday, 13 January 2026

On demand: "A River Runs Through It"


1992's
 A River Runs Through It stands as a strong contender for the most handsome film of the Nineties, shot by Philippe Rousselot under the eye of director Robert Redford, and blessed with the young Brad Pitt before the camera, cutting a dash in fine period tailoring. The material is unusual, to say the least: Redford and screenwriter Richard Friedenberg here adapt the academic Norman Maclean's memoir of growing up in rural Montana in the first decades of the 20th century, when the author was caught between, on one hand, the traditions of the church (represented onscreen by Presbyterian preacher father Tom Skerritt, typically terrific) and a swelling passion for flyfishing, presented as an Edenic state of innocence, a suspension of time that gets lost as the years roll on. Craig Sheffer - the Josh Brolin of his day - is Maclean; Pitt his younger, more impulsive and distractible brother Paul; and Emily Lloyd, ascending to Hollywood in the wake of Wish You Were Here, flashes her stocking tops as the flapper who catches the brothers' eyes. Redford himself provides the narration as the older, wiser Norman, suggesting a filmmaker who's fallen head over heels in love with an aspect of this world, formalising his affection for and fascination with an America he was personally too young to have known.

With Maclean (who'd died two years earlier) as his guide, Redford undertakes to recreate and thereby describe a particular, all but disappeared way of American life. There's naturally a certain nostalgia in play: long afternoons with nothing to do save read poetry, write love letters and repair to the nearest riverbank, a church social that involves thick jam sandwiches and banjo-picking. Yet Redford also notes the prejudice levelled at those indigenous folk who come into these golden boys' lives, and a sense (not quite Lynchian, but heading down a similar path) of a dead-end darkness lying around the mountains and beyond the endless cornfields. Not everyone here will get out alive. It's the work of Redford the nature boy (the fishing sequences are ravishing, but even the regulation set-ups have a breeziness and light that banishes anything too stuffy) and Redford the liberal, of Redford the sometime Gatsby and the Redford who made Ordinary People: nobody else would have landed on this material, nobody else would have fallen quite this hard for it, and nobody else would have filmed it this doggedly. If it remains fundamentally episodic - a slightly shapeless patchwork of moods and tones, old-man memories that likely cohered better on the page - it still rings very true on brotherhood and the unknowability of those closest to us, and it leaves behind intriguing questions as well as a warm, fuzzy afterglow. There's much to be said for dancing in the river of life - especially if you do it in the magic hour.

A River Runs Through It is now streaming via Prime Video and the BFI Player.

Sunday, 11 January 2026

For what it's worth...




UK box office Top Ten (for the weekend of January 2-4, 2025):

1 (1) Avatar: Fire and Ash (12A) ***
2 (2) The Housemaid (15)
3 (5) Marty Supreme (15) ***
4 (4) Zootropolis 2 (PG)
6 (6) Anaconda (12A)
7 (new) Song Sung Blue (12A)
8 (7Wicked: For Good (PG)
9 (new) Back to the Past (15)
10 (9) Sentimental Value (15) **

(source: BFI)

My top five:
2. Labyrinth [above]
3. Happy Feet
  

DVD/Blu-Ray/Download top ten: 

1 (new) Wicked: For Good (PG)
2 (3) Dracula (15)
4 (8) Wicked: Part 1 (PG) **
5 (6) Jurassic World: Rebirth (12) **
6 (11) Sinners (15) ****
7 (13) A Minecraft Movie (PG)
8 (5) Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale (PG)
9 (16) How To Train Your Dragon (PG)


My top five: 
1. I Swear


Top five films on terrestrial TV this week:
1. A Few Good Men (Saturday, Channel 4, 10.35pm)
2. 12 Years a Slave (Sunday, Channel 4, 1am)
3. Top Gun: Maverick (Saturday, Channel 4, 8pm)
4. The Duke (Tuesday, BBC Two, 11pm)
5. 28 Days Later (Tuesday, BBC One, 11.40pm)

Topsy-turvy: "Hamnet"


Is there anything new to be done with the Bard? We've already seen
Shakespeare in Love and Shakespeare in his dotage (2018's Branagh-driven All is True) and Shakespeare in a perpetual midlife strop (Ben Elton's BBC sitcom Upstart Crow, with David Mitchell in the lead). With Hamnet, her adaptation of Maggie O'Farrell's novel, sometime Oscar winner Chloe Zhao offers us the sight of Shakespeare in grief - and attempting to alchemise his loss into enduring art. He is also, in this telling, a young Shakespeare and a notionally sexy Shakespeare (he's played by Paul Mescal, so individual mileage may vary), and you can't quite shake the suspicion that Zhao, herself trying to recover after the post-Nomadland turbulence of Marvel's The Eternals, must have pitched the project as some kind of Shakespeare origin story, as if the playwright were another Peter Parker. We join this Bard in his twenties, teaching Latin to his neighbours' children so as to pay off his glover father's debts; while there, he bumps into girl-next-door Agnes "Anne" Hathaway (Jessie Buckley). They have it off on a table in the pantry (sexy Shakespeare!), she inspires Romeo and Juliet, they wed, they have several kids, only for several of them to die either in childbirth or infancy, one son lending (a version of) his name to one of the writer's best known plays. Set against the playful, knowing, self-aware Shakespeare of the texts mentioned above, this is plainly serious Shakespeare, sober Shakespeare, sensible Shakespeare, simplified Shakespeare - and here, I'm afraid, is where Hamnet's problems begin.

What O'Farrell and Zhao intend to commemorate here is a period in their august subject's life where the natural order was comprehensively overturned, resulting in a father burying his son. Yet this seems to have been the case creatively, too: in most respects, Hamnet is the image of the dourly po-faced Hollywood history that would normally inspire ribald sending up in shows much like Upstart Crow. Certain scenes border on the ridiculous, many of them rooted in the conception of Agnes as some straggle-haired nature girl. Doubtless O'Farrell did her fair share of research into the limitations of 16th century midwifery in the course of writing the novel, but Zhao has her heroine giving birth alone in the forest with a mighty roar, and then - after a tasteful fade to black - reappearing with babe in arms, nary a tousled forelock out of place on either. Zhao's tendency to prettify everything is, I guess, a contrast to the ugliness of so much shot-on-digital fare, which may be one reason Hamnet has seduced as many awards voters as it has: if you're just in the market for sundappled English woodland, there's plenty of that here. But more often than not the prettification is misapplied, erodes credibility, invites snickering. Hamnet certainly has a Young Star Problem, in that the leads aren't remotely believable as historical figures: they're well-moisturised, gym-hardened young adults who've been invited to dress up on a school awayday to Stratford. The minibus is parked just off-camera throughout. (The one player who seems lived-in to any degree is Joe Alwyn as Buckley's brother, and that may only be because he courted Taylor Swift.)

In the absence of internally generated insights, this script keeps trying to impose 21st century psychology from without. Smacked around by a brutish dad, Will worries what kind of father he's going to be; after Hamnet's death, he starts work on a text about dads and lads (and ghosts). This really is Shakespeare for dummies: aha!, we're meant to go, so that explains that! (Toss all Shakespeare's writings off a cliff, and let's never think of him or his plays again.) Such persistent neatness is in conflict with the complexity and ambiguity that have kept folks coming back to this playwright over the years; worse still, it makes for punishingly flat and prosaic drama. Towards the end of its third series, Upstart Crow itself tackled Hamnet's death in a way that proved unexpectedly affecting, earning its emotion through good writing and playing. Zhao, by contrast, insists on having Buckley wail like a banshee every twenty minutes, recycles well-used Max Richterisms that signify this is A Serious Film, and concludes with a very silly scene in the Globe where Agnes, agog, has the experiences of the previous two hours reflected back to her through the medium of mummery. Aha, so that's what art does! (Toss all art off a cliff.) That Hamnet has occupied the place it has in the awards conversation may be down to slim end-of-year pickings - two consensus choices (One Battle After Another and Sinners) and then whatever you can cobble together - and/or that it's the sort of thing that has traditionally grabbed votes, nods and gongs: keywords Shakespeare, period drama, British craft credits, trauma. It struck this observer as an obligation nomination, phoney art, and - most bizarrely - a tale told far more rigorously in a lowly sitcom, surrounded by knob gags.

Hamnet is now showing in cinemas nationwide.

Thursday, 8 January 2026

"Giant" (Little White Lies Jan/Feb 2026)


It’s nearing a quarter-century since the retirement of “Prince” Naseem Hamed, Sheffield’s world champion boxer of Yemeni heritage. For a while, in the run-up to the new millennium, he was everywhere: transcending the sports section to provide primetime entertainment and front-page news, bolstering his swelling celebrity with both combative talent (career record: 36 wins, only one loss) and a showman swagger that fitted the shameless Nineties to a tee. What the Gallagher brothers were to the festival stage, so Hamed was to the boxing ring. Just as Oasis are back among us, so too is Prince Naz – albeit in the form of the Sly Stallone-produced biopic
Giant, written and directed by Gangs of London’s Rowan Athale, which forces the boxer’s story through the Britfilm cookie cutter and barely stays on its feet.

Athale begins in the early 1980s, where Irish trainer and occasional youth club DJ Brendan Ingle (Pierce Brosnan, introduced gyrating to The Sweet’s “Blockbuster”) takes delivery of the three young Hamed brothers from a mother concerned by the skinheads circling the family’s cornershop. Training montages ensue, as the diminutive, dancing Naseem (played by Ghaith and Ali Saleh as a child, and by Limbo’s Amir El-Masry as a young man) outpunches his siblings and starts to climb the Yorkshire boxing ladder. Shot around Sheffield itself, these scrappy early scenes sketch a haphazard spit-and-sawdust circuit, prompting chuckles from the increasingly exasperated relationship between no-nonsense trainer and a fighter who’d rather hang round the arcade trying to impress girls.

Yet one soon realises this story has been afforded much the same kid-gloves handling as the Eddie the Eagle and Elton John biopics. (Even before Toby Stephens turns up, effing and jeffing as the film’s sitcom idea of promoter Frank Warren.) Prejudice may lurk in these hills – schoolboy P-words, flat-out xenophobia from the man on the Sheffield omnibus – but the nation’s soap operas have had more nuanced and dramatically rewarding things to say about race. That conflict is eventually sublimated into a boxer-trainer squabble over purse money that plays as both contrived and phony. Worse: amid a fumbled final reel, Giant starts to insinuate that it’s really here to promote the Irishman Ingle over his sulky, money-grubbing charge. Initially cartoonish, it ends up deeply compromised and confused.

With the budget depriving Athale of his usual streaming-telly pyrotechnics, the look is forever closer to Mansfield than Madison Square Garden. The leads, at least, give individual scenes a little character. The more we see of him, the more El-Masry resembles Hamed, whether chomping choc ices in training or puffing out his chest on a mock-up TFI Friday. And there are the minor pleasures of watching Brosnan in his new, relaxed late period, letting his accent meander even as he passes the ultimate test of any movie trainer: you’d want someone this amiable in your corner. The material, however, throws in the towel long before the bathetic finale; the inevitable post-fadeout footage of the real Hamed in his dynamic prime is a hundred times more stirring than anything preceding it. 

Anticipation: At least it’s not a musical biopic – and this is a worthy story 3
Enjoyment: Two game leads fight a losing battle with punch-drunk, flyweight writing 2
In retrospect: Never a contender 1

Giant opens in selected cinemas from tomorrow.

In memoriam: Béla Tarr (Telegraph 07/01/26)


Béla Tarr
, who has died aged 70, was a Hungarian writer-director whose immersive, durational oeuvre anticipated the so-called “slow cinema” movement and yielded one of the towering masterworks of late 20th century film.

The film was Sátántangó (1994), a seven-and-a-quarter hour adaptation of László Krasznahorkai’s 1985 novel about a superstitious rural community thrown into turmoil by the arrival of a mystic poet. Shot in monochrome on the Great Plains over the course of two years, it matched Krasznahorkai’s long-running sentences with extended, unbroken takes, starting with an eight-minute prologue observing cattle swarming across a market square and through the muddy backroads of its woebegone setting.

Comprising 150 shots in total, often stalking hunched figures trudging down wind-tossed lanes, the film used the extra time to better define the parameters of a place and the vulnerabilities of a people swayed by the false prophet in their midst. In passing, Tarr’s camera caught microclimates, shifting affections and suspicions, and memorably – often hellishly – boozy nights at the village pub, but these were details within the bigger picture of lives going nowhere, and people marching headlong into existential dead ends.

The effect was strikingly lugubrious, prompting understandable concern for the real-life safety of a cat seen being tortured at one point. (Tarr insisted the scene was performed under veterinary supervision, and wondered why we weren’t more concerned about the two-legged participants.) Yet the engulfing darkness was frequently illuminated by droll flashes of wit, like the fate of the bibulous doctor (played by Peter Berling) who staggers out to replenish his pear brandy reserves in the film’s opening movement.

Upon first release, the consensus was that there had been nothing quite like it – and certainly few book-to-film adaptations that felt so complete. The debate was how a film that looked so conspicuously out of time spoke to the pre-millennial moment. Sátántangó was only funded after the collapse of Communist rule in Hungary, its underpinning narrative speaking to the curious spell fearmongering demagogues can cast on an especially credulous populace.

Some observers embraced the film as an alternative to the then-dominant Hollywood norm; there was a cosmic irony in the fact a film so doggedly pursuing its own path at its own pace should emerge in the same year as Jan de Bont’s relentless thriller Speed (1994). For his part, Tarr insisted the film should speak for itself: “When we are making a movie, we only talk about concrete situations – where the camera is, what will be the first and the last shot. We never talk about art or God."

The critics filled that void, astonished to discover the medium could still produce something so challenging and absorbing at the same time. Susan Sontag famously declared Sátántangó “enthralling for every minute”, adding she “could watch [it] every year for the rest of her life”. Digitally restored and rereleased to mark its 25th anniversary in 2019, it remained a mountain among movies, the K2 of cinema.

The attenuated nature of a Tarr production – the long, exacting shoots and shots – meant that follow-ups were never immediate, and then few and far between. These depended on the firm bonds connecting the director to a handful of fellow travellers, including Krasznahorkai, the composer and accordionist Mihály Víg (who played the poet in Sátántangó), the cinematographer Fred Kelemen, and the editor Ágnes Hranitzky, whom Tarr married in the early 1980s. As Tarr put it: “I was just the conductor, I put them all together.”

There was nothing quite as monumental as the breakthrough film, but several times Tarr came close to matching its impact. Werckmeister Harmonies (2000) – a slip of a film at two hours 25 minutes, composed of just 39 shots – was in the director’s own words “a kind of fairy tale” adapted from Krasznahorkai’s 1989 novel The Melancholy of Resistance. Dreamier and airier than its grounded predecessor, it nevertheless built towards the despairing widescreen image of a rotting whale carcass abandoned on a beach.

The Man from London (2007) signalled Tarr’s growing status within the cinematic and festival ecosystem. A deadpan thriller, adapted from the Georges Simenon novel and fashioned with overseas money, it even featured a recognisable face in the ever-adventurous Tilda Swinton, cast as the railwayman protagonist’s wife.

Tarr bade farewell to cinema with The Turin Horse (2011), composed in just 30 shots running an average of six minutes apiece. A pessimistic riff on the anecdote that sparked Nietzsche’s mental breakdown, the film described the relationship between a father and daughter living a miserly existence in a shack at the end of the world. Here, Tarr pushed his already demanding aesthetic to a new extreme: after some opening narration, no dialogue could be heard for a further 22 minutes.

By now, critics had got a firmer handle on the Tarr approach. In his New York Times review, A.O. Scott wrote: “The movie is too beautiful to be described as an ordeal, but it is sufficiently intense and unyielding that when it is over you may feel, along with awe, a measure of relief.”

Tarr, however, knew that this was exactly what distinguished his cinema from the forgettable pablum passing through the multiplexes: “Most films just tell the story: action, fact, action, fact... For me, this is poisoning the cinema because the art form is pictures written in time. It’s not only a question of length, it’s a question of heaviness. It’s a question of can you shake the people or not?”

Béla Tarr was born on July 21, 1955 in the city of Pécs, but raised in Budapest by parents steeped in theatre: his father designed scenery, while his mother worked as a prompter. He briefly found employment as a child actor after his mother took him to auditions for Hungarian state television; he was cast as the protagonist’s son in a TV adaptation of The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1965).

He had youthful hopes of becoming a philosopher, and initially regarded filmmaking as no more than a hobby, supported by the 8mm camera his parents gifted him for his fourteenth birthday. Plans to attend film school were scuppered after the authorities got wind of his short films, unvarnished non-fiction studies of the country’s poor and working-class. Yet these shorts also drew more sympathetic attention from the administrators of the Béla Balázs Studio, set up in 1959 to assist young artists, and they provided the funding for Tarr to make his feature debut.

Shot in six days, Family Nest (1979) was a claustrophobic example of socialist realism, its narrative enabling a scratchily fictionalised critique of prevailing housing policy. The film shared the Grand Prize at the Mannheim-Heidelberg Film Festival, and also won grudging respect from the authorities, who belatedly removed Tarr from the film-school blacklist. Tarr followed it with The Outsider (1981), set amongst Budapest’s hedonistic youth.

By Tarr’s own admission, these were in many ways reactive works, but they also demonstrated a growing commitment to pressing issues and marginalised contemporaries: “There were a lot of s**t things in the cinema, a lot of lies. We weren’t knocking at the door, we just beat it down. We were coming with some fresh, new, true, real things. We just wanted to show the reality – anti-movies."

His signature style began to coalesce while filming a TV adaptation of Macbeth (1982) that compressed the play’s action into two extended takes – a five-minute prologue, and a second that lasted just over an hour. Thereafter Tarr’s work became more expressively experimental. Almanac of Fall (1984), a rare diversion into colour, was a doomy character piece set within a tumbledown apartment block; Damnation (1988) was a rain-lashed noir entangling a singer and a barfly. (It received a belated UK release in the wake of Sátántangó.)

Tarr’s influence grew exponentially thereafter: by the first years of the new century, Gus van Sant was crediting him as inspiration for his funny-peculiar Matt Damon/Casey Affleck walkabout Gerry (2002). In 2012, he was elected president of the Association of Hungarian Film Artists; the following year, he opened his own guerrilla film school, known as film.factory, in Sarajevo, operating with the motto “no education, just liberation”. (He served as executive producer on Lamb (2021), a fabular horror directed by film.factory graduate Valdimar Jóhannsson.)

He was the subject of the documentary I Used To Be A Filmmaker (2016), and a 2017 retrospective, Till the End of the World, at Amsterdam’s EYE Filmmuseum. He made a comeback in 2019, overseeing the performance piece Missing People for Vienna’s Festwochen festival, made in response to a new Hungarian law that criminalised the homeless. According to Tarr, who elsewhere labelled the populist Orbán regime as “the shame of our country”, the piece reflected “capitalism and the inhuman system that we have. If you’re not productive, you’re out.”

The reissue of Sátántangó that year provided a rallying cause for those who’d long wished the cinema could develop beyond the usual blandishments and platitudes. As Tarr put it, in characteristically irascible fashion: “People just tell a f**ing story and we believe that something is happening with us. But nothing is happening with us. We are not really part of the story. We are just doing our time, and nobody gives a s**t about what time is doing to us. It’s a huge mistake. I just did it a different way.”

He is survived by Ágnes Hranitzky.

Béla Tarr, born July 21, 1955, died January 6, 2026.