_ The Woman in Black is not a particularly memorable film. But that doesn’t mean it is a bad film either. If you walk into the theater expecting something other than what the film is you will be disappointed. If you walk in with no preconceptions and are a fan of old style ghost stories you will be entertained. The film looks good and is paced well, even if it is allowed that it is quite slow, but what really matters is Daniel Radcliffe. He makes the movie work and he does it with very little dialog, with nervous looks and a stiff, Victorian, upper lip (distinct, of course, from a Georgian or Elizabethan upper lip).

It is to be hoped that Radcliffe will take a few more shots at the genre as well. He is a solid actor and he has a certain “gravitas” about him. It is a different sort than when that term is generally used, however. He seems like one of us; he isn’t a giant of a man, he doesn’t come off as a movie star. He seems like a regular person. He is the sort of actor you want tossed into a supernatural maelstrom.

_ One of the problems with a film like this is its marketing; how it is presented in ads and trailers creates an expectation. And marketing nitwits often don’t seem to get that tricking people into a film is less desirable than just telling the truth about it. The truth about Women in Black is that it is a moody, old fashioned, slow moving ghost story. It has more “creeps” than “leaps” in it. But the film’s promotion shows a woman sitting in the theater with patrons as if to say “This movie will scare the crap out of you.”

Not even if you were five.

Again, that doesn’t mean it is bad. It does a solid job of creating a mood and a place—rural Britain in the late Victorian era (more or less). The mood is heavy, dreary and palpable. As noted, the only character that really matters, played by Radcliffe in his first post-Harry Potter role, is well developed. We know who is; he is a grieving man with a small child. His career is in tatters and his last chance is to sort through the papers of a deceased woman in an old, scary-ass house. The locals are leery of him and jittery. No one wants him there but he has no choice.

That is all we need to know. The other actors in the film are fine. They just are given very little to do. We know what is coming; we know who they are without too many details.

Some of the scenes in the house where Radcliffe moves from room to room seeing a parade of creepy scary things (man, Victorian-era parents gave their kids some spooky-ass toys) go on a little longer than they should. But really what ELSE is the movie going to do? The more detail given the sillier it would get. This never gets silly. It never seems overlong but it never quite 100 percent satisfies either.

In the past year two other horror films spring to mind when watching The Woman in Black. One of these is Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark. It features Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes (who does a fine job) and has the Guillermo Del Toro cachet as well. It is nominally better than The Woman in Black.The other is Insidious, the silly, fun, also old fashioned (but from a later period) horror film released in February 2010. While I am sure Daniel Radcliffe was paid more than Insidious’ entire budget, again, I have to say Insidious succeeds SLIGHTLY better in what it intended than The Woman in Black.

Part of the problem, and it can be debated whether this is actually a problem, is that this has been done before. Really what hasn’t? The trick is for a filmmaker to FOOL us into thinking we haven’t seen it before. That is why they make the big money. That is why we remember a film. You will be entertained by The Woman in Black but it is unlikely you will recall much about it—excluding Radcliffe.

_ A Separation is a film that could have been made by John Cassavetes if he had been an Iranian and were still alive. It was, in fact, directed by Asghar Farhadi. He also directed the excellent Fireworks Wednesday which is out on video by IR Films.

Whether the film is a real representation of people’s lives is immaterial; it seems like it is real.  It feels real. It smells real. It almost tastes real. The writing is close to flawless and the acting is so natural you feel that the film is almost a documentary—excepting the fact that people are usually not so natural in documentaries.

Often, “Iranian” films that are seen in the West are never actually screened in Iran.  They are made by brave people bucking the system. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes not so much but people in the West are loathe to attack a film that was so difficult to make. This film, apparently, is an exception to this. I heard it was a hit in Iran (I have some questions as to what that means). But there is at least some indication people in the Islamic Republic connected to it. That is what a “hit” is indicative of a film that somehow connects with people on some level.  This fact sometimes makes me unable to fall asleep at night, I wake up shrieking “No…NO…Rob Schneider,”  then I realize he hasn’t had a hit for years and I fall asleep for a bit until some specter resembling Michael Bay pulls off the covers and rolls me onto the floor.

What is most fascinating about A Separation is how those DASTARDLY Iranians are not ranting mullahs or slick politicians but people very much like Americans. They do stupid things. They lose their tempers. They have to deal with bureaucracy. They love their kids. They worry about if they are doing the right thing. Sometimes they lie.

_ Of course, the film is being currently castigated in Iran as somehow representing Iranians in a bad light. I cannot imagine how. It represents them as humans. Of course all fanatics, be they religious or Stalinist, usually create an image of the perfect human and then try to pretend their belief system creates this perfect human and no one in society who isn’t a traitor deviates from that “norm.”  This isn’t a film they are showing in a Basji barracks. I mean they show a woman’s HAIR. That might ignite a sexual frenzy offensive to God.

But I didn’t start writing this with an aim of castigating fanatics—here or there.  This film shows how similar we are, not how different. We face the exact same things—a rocky marriage, dealing with our kids, parents who get old and sick and trying to fit our religious beliefs into the reality of our everyday lives. The film has a great deal in it about differing levels of belief and the conflict between the educated and uneducated, between the middle class and the poor. Change the religion to Christian and the language to English and most of the film could take place in Omaha.

The biggest difference between “us and them,” in the context of the film is that Iranians at least think about emigrating. Americans, traditionally, do not.  That is a small thing.  There may be better foreign films out there this year. But it is to be hoped that this one wins the Oscar in that category.  The world needs to take a deep breath and see that Iranians are people—regardless of how we view their government.