In an attempt to distance myself as far as I can from the stereotypical Australian 'macho' guy, I plan to reveal a movie that is one of my top five favourites of all time that generally wouldn't appear on the 'macho' list. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this movie only appears on the list of well-viewed movie goers, on a more sophisticated favourites lineup and not all that commonly viewed because of this.

Amelie.

There, I said it. And it doesn't seem to make me feel as red-faced as I would have thought. Perhaps because I am so enamored with this film that I don't care if I am judged because I like it. Because I am. This movie I love. I saw only a sliver of it when they played it on S.B.S. earlier on this year or last (my memory fails me), and was so compelled to see the movie in its entirety that I purchased the D.V.D. off the cuff, not knowing anything about it other than it was in French and it had the gorgeous Audrey Tautou in it (which is a selling point of any of her films).

The film, putting on my reviewers pants for a moment, is so simple in its plot, themes and ideas that it caters to all viewers. Yes, this is primarily a romance drama, but the filming techniques, the plot and ways in which it is developed, extrapolated upon and revealed to the audience is so cunning, so smart, that it left I, a traditionalist Hollywood-technique man, who (prior to the discovery of the films Amelie and Donnie Darko) appreciated limited (and now, I see, primitive) lighting, framing, angles and movement techniques that are employed and repeated in traditional American films.

Amelie is not a traditional American film. For starters, as stated, it's French. Enough said? No? Ok, the romance doesn't rely on nudity. Now, look, this is a difficult topic, I know. On one hand, it's nudity; everyone's friend. On the other hand, it is my opinion that nudity generally detracts from a film's worth unless its is done so in an artistic and somewhat 'sensuous' way. A lot of Hollywood films have nudity that neither accentuates love plots, nor does it even play upon the idea of lust that is present in many Indy films that use it in this manor. Hollywood simply throws it in to get the viewers in to see *insert actress's name here*'s tits. And really, let's face it, if you're in the demographic they are targeting at, in a majority of times, you know about this, and may even be guilty of indulging in a mediocre movie just to see said nudity. Do I judge? For the sake of this post, I'm going to say no.

Ok, getting away from talking about movies that include nudity to either eventuate their plot or for no reason at all, Amelie is a film that employs none of this. It has the basic principles of a romantic plot, but is so intricate in it's playing out (which effectively establishes the same kind of intricate love that Amelie and Nino share with one another) that it's like burning the wick of a firework - you know that the wick is going to burn, and at the end, there is going to be an explosion (of released emotions in this case), but how many times you're going to have to re-light the wick, because something has put it out, is up in the air.

With this example in mind, as well as the exclusion of nudity, you may very well ask how are the massive amount of emotions, the quantity of love and the multiple journeys through the story all conveyed to the audience? The answer: a variety of very modern, up-to-date and effective story telling techniques (which, coming to the end of this post, may actually be seen as not so modern). Immediately the audience realises that this film is to be narrated, and, for the opening eight minutes or so, the only dialogue we hear is that of the narrator. After the eleventh minute though, a bridge is formed between the film and the omniscient narrator who gives us an abridged history of this connection. The bridge is, of course, Amelie. Strangely enough though, she begins to interact with the narrator, which break sdown the wall between the audience and the film's characters, and the narrator and the film's characters. Such is the first important role of the narrator: to connect the audience and the film in a relationship that isn't as commonly found in Hollywood, as the idea of using a narrator has slowly fallen out of fashion for some reason.

The second role for the narrator is to foreshadow events in the film and give the audience prior knowledge and information that the characters, in particular Amelie, have no real grasp of. However, this information turns out to be somewhat deceptive and, as a result, the audience comes to realise, at the point where the knowledge becomes relevant and known within the film, that they don't know as much as they thought they did, and begin to question what the narrator says from this point in, but, as a result of the audience questioning themselves, also rely upon him more. This creates another unique relationship in a film filled with them, and it is certainly not the last.

In fact, uniqueness is possibly the defining characteristic of Amelie. From production values, the the script, to the acting, to the themes and plots - the film is unique. If the film isn't employing less-common means, it is using the 'traditional' means in new methods and scenarios. And all this, of course, is emphasised by the fact us English-speaking viewers relying on subtitles. How is this so? Well, firstly, the variety of means we have in the film, and the way they are employed are (no pun intended) foreign to us. They are new, and they are a breath of fresh air (all of which is expanded upon later). Secondly, here is how I have come to view the situation of the acting: because we cannot understand the actor's dialogue, we aren't focusing on what the actors are saying, less, we are always looking at what they are doing instead. So we pick up on what we normally would expect to see, but, because we don't have to devote anything to listening to them, we can focus on the subtleties that the actors bring to their performance. And such are the subtleties of Audrey Tautou's acting abilities that it spears the film into the audience's mind and thoughts, and resides there long after the end.

I would say that Tautou carries this film on the back of her own abilities, however, there isn't much to carry in the end. All of her supporting cast holds their own. I expect it's unlikely that I will see any of them in subsequent films, however, I certainly wouldn't be adverse to watching a film of theirs, as my 'deviation' away from the 'subtitled' genre has been vanquished with this film. Does it mean I am now a compulsory viewer of the foreign films? Far from. I still prefer to watch movies that are in my native language (English, that is, not Australian), and I am hardly going to turn my back on true classics that Hollywood has produced and have found way onto my favourites list. But now I'm not so hesitant to watch a foreign film.

Which leads into my next point: because this is a foreign film, perhaps it is so resounding and so good because it takes a view of the movie-making process, the meaning of film and purpose of the celluloid that isn't common nor seen in the 'Hollywood-world' of movie-making. By bringing these new views to the 'Hollywood-world', it's not impossible that it acts as a breath of fresh air for the done-and-tried audiences. Additionally, it's likely that directors and producers from France (in this case) 'learn things' differently: the methods of production and the means of conveyance. They may 'see' things in a way that a disciple of Hollywood doesn't: whether it's simpler or more complex, that that have learned more or less (overall or in certain topics) - each of these things contribute to the difference.

It's this difference that, I feel, is one of the main contributing factors making Amelie truly fantastic. And the difference works with the techniques, works with the uniqueness, works with the relationships, it works with the influences that a foreign films brings to the screen to make this a modern classic. And because I hold it in such high regard as a great piece of film-making, I also feel that it is extremely neglected among audiences and critics. It does have a borderline basic plot, but it's simplicity is key in developing the simple topics that it deals with: unique relationships, basic love and and true, but modern, romance and courtship. But without the deep character development that is undertaken, very little of this would be achieved. While production values can be off-the-chart in terms of effectiveness, actually wanting to empathise, feel, relate, hate or despise a character in the ways the film wants you to falls squarely on the character development. Needless for me to say, the character development has enough depth for the audience to see these characters live their lives for the moment. If anything, the depth is so much that the minor characters, the ones who are there for single purposes rather than fulfilling a major role in the film, leave the audience with thoughts that they didn't have adequate screen time and were under-appreciated in their use and purpose. What was the last Hollywood blockbuster that left you with those sorts of thoughts? What was the last Hollywood film that you felt had supporting characters developed just as much as the main characters? You might be able to name some, but it would be an underwhelming number.

How the character development is perfected, and we return to him, is through the narrator. In the opening sequences we are let into private, almost intimate, details that, while they seem trivial and unimportant, actually explain a lot of the actions that the characters undertake. It also opens a window into the psychological and emotional state that the characters are living in at the moment of time we are visiting them. Further, after explaining and showing, it forms the relationship between the audience and the characters in such a simple and basic way. But the relationship isn't basic; it is somewhat complex, and certainly unique. The narrator's role of 'introducing' the characters to us, and beginning the relationships, is only developed further and made more concrete through the (strangely) traditional means that you would typically find in pre-80s Hollywood films. Does this film, thus, not only go against modern Hollywood conventions, but evoke long-forgotten traditions from the 'Golden Era' of Hollywood? Possibly, and it might be worth looking into, however I feel that rather than intentionally doing this, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (the director) has chosen the most effective, the most simple, and the most basic techniques of story telling to get his image and idea across, and combined with his native learnings, creates, again, a unique and original film.

So, if you're someone who is easily swayed by a wanna-be reviewer, then hopefully I've done enough of a job to make you go out and see this fine film. Then again, if you hate people who think they can review a film and pass it off as good, and want to try and see how wrong I truly am, here's the answer: go and see the film. Either way, it's a win-win situation: you get to see the film, and when you come back saying just how good Amelie really is, I win. And even if you don't like the premise of the film, or romantic plots and themes, at least you will have been exposed to a masterfully created technical film, and it would be hard to not appreciate, or even acknowledge, this. Although I do find it difficult to believe that someone could possibly find this movie bad at all.

Thomas.