Ask the Dust (2006)

This film is an intriguing modern-day film noir that catches your interest and holds it from beginning to the end. It takes place in Depression era Los Angeles - the perfect place for lost souls. Arturo and Camilla - beautifully played by Colin Farrell and Salma Hayek - are young and intelligent but victims of clearly outspoken prejudice against their family heritages; his being Italian and hers being Mexican. One of the incredible ironies of the open prejudice of the times is that Arturo and Camilla, even though very much attracted to each other, act in prejudicial ways against each other. It becomes clear early on that these expressions of dislike hide the passion simmering beneath the surface. That passion forms the crux of the story.

In the classic noir style, Arturo is a budding writer who has traveled to California to seek his fortune and there are many scenes showing him beating away at his typewriter in an effort to forge a great American tale. Farrell does an excellent job at showing both the innocent and not-so-innocent, shy and bravado sides of Arturo's personality.

The ever so beautiful Hayek is perfect as the Mexican girl who wants to become "respectable" by marrying an Anglo. Unfortunately, she falls for Arturo - an Italian and definitely not "respectable" in the United States of that time.

Ask the Dust is more than just a delicious love story of two beautiful, passionate people. It is also a well-produced, atmospheric look at an era in which the world was all too quick to condemn because of genetic heritage.

Fmovies: The book is great, the movie is not. Only the beginning is done well. However, I was fairly impressed with Colin Farrell as Arturo Bandini and thought Salma Hayek pulled off a good Camilla. I was also impressed with the depiction of 1930's L.A. I thought that the environment was pulled off quite well. But then about half way through the movie veers away from the book and it becomes a clichéd and sappy love story. The ending is completely changed and loses everything that made the book great. I really am not sure why such a change would be made, this wasn't ever going to be a huge blockbuster film, so why make such a lousy rendition of Fante's work, that is, why try to give it a typical "Hollywood ending?"

This is a portrayal of people living on the downside of society during the Great Depression; a nice period in time for movies, that offers a pleasantly raw and nihilistic ambiance. Both characters- the writer with more aspirations than experiences to actually write about (Colin Farrel) and the beautiful yet grieving Mexican beauty (Salma Hayek) - wander through the sad streets of L.A, fighting each other and mostly themselves. They love each other, but their own low self esteem and prejudices are standing in the way to form a happy couple. At the core this is just a tragic love story about unreachable love. Nothing wrong with that, of course!

I really enjoyed the verbal confrontations between Hayek and Farrel. Their failure to communicate as equals is ''delightfully sad ''. At a certain point, as they start to understand each other better, they start to talk as normal people, and at that point the story didn't quite get to me as it did before. What remains is a somewhat melodramatic and predictable piece of drama. It isn't necessarily bad, just not that exciting anymore. Sometimes I even checked the time on my DVD player just to see if it would be over soon. Not a very good sign...;)

Ah well, I enjoyed it too much to be cynical about it. It has some marvelous scenes in it, with an atmosphere that really brings back the sense of being in LA during the Great Depression. Farrel and Hayek fitted in their roles perfectly, and it is a pleasure to watch these two beautiful people interact with each other. Donald Sutherland steals the show with a short yet highly enjoyable role.

Ask the Dust fmovies. The movie has the hallmark of old American writings, with lots of metaphors and big words for showing what is really everyday life. The script is original, unlike most of the films today, because is based on a book about the depression era in the US. The actors play very well and the images are very well done. I would venture to say the soundtrack was equally flawless, since it didn't bother me one bit (didn't really notice it, either).

So what was wrong about the movie? I don't know. Maybe the pace, since it was two hours long. Or the subject, which was ... smooth. I mean, there were no real bumps in it. Everything just went by itself. In the tradition of "road writers" the character is almost an observer, left to his own emotions, but incapable of acting. I can't say that characters weren't original, but more in the direction of weirdly annoying rather than interesting.

Bottom line: it's a drama. The romance itself is strong, not the diluted stuff you see nowadays, but I wouldn't call this a romantic movie. I suggest watching it when you feel philosophical or want something new, yet slow paced.

As voluntary Cinema Manager at Coalville's Century Theatre, I'm always on the lookout for films of artistic quality which are not necessarily multiplex successes. I must confess I did read a couple of newspaper reviews when this film was first released in the UK, - they weren't particularly favourable but they did highlight the Robert Towne/Chinatown connection, - but I forgot all about it until I visited Italy for a weekend holiday in July. As I was passing a cinema in Verona, I was attracted by a couple of very attractive stills...for Ask The Dust. I decided to find out a bit more about the film when I returned home. After doing this, I felt it would be deserving of a screening at our little venue and I booked the film as soon as it was made available to the non-theatrical circuit. I eventually showed the film last night and I believe this was the first public showing in Leicestershire. I fully endorse the comments of others before me, - the lighting, sets, period sense and cinematography are absolutely marvellous, - just literally lovely to look at. I thought Colin Farrell was fine in the central role and am at a loss why he's come in for criticism from some quarters for this performance. Salma Hayek also scores in her sniping early scenes with Farrell and portrays well her character's fears and insecurities at a time when being Mexican was so obviously looked down upon (a very neat selection by Towne for the film excerpt in the cinema scene). Pity our own Eileen Atkins had such a tiny role. Although certainly not a commercial film, it does feature some memorable scenes such as the Long Beach earthquake and the moonlight swim among the crashing waves. And I really liked the idyllic seaside period enjoyed by the two (eventual!) lovers...with the little dog. A good sharp ending in true old-fashioned Hollywood style with a nod towards Camille, which apparently is not in the book, so I've read. After the film finished, I wasn't sure how my audience would react but comments were generally very favourable...and the fairly overt but well-handled sex scene had caused no offence...in fact I did get a couple of middle aged ladies offering glowing expressions with their references to Mr Farrell's appearance in that scene. A very good, quality film, lovingly made by Robert Towne...but one couldn't help thinking with a little more sharpness early on, it could have been even better. It's a piece that will linger in the memory though, in my opinion, and you can't say that about the majority of the modern day films.

Robert Towne's obvious love affair with John Fante's Depression Era novel, ASK THE DUST, is evident throughout this somewhat over-long film. While the story is a bit clumsy and self-indulgent with so many sidebars that the momentum of the movie gets bogged down in the telling, there are enough fine attributes to make it a recommended evening of reminiscence about Los Angeles, the City of the Angels in the 1930s.

Arturo Bandini (Colin Farrell) narrates the tale of a lad from Colorado with one published story in a magazine edited by H.L. Mencken who moves to Los Angeles' Bunker Hill apartments to write his big novel. The city of LA has never seemed so strange as it seems with Caleb Deschanel's magnificent photography outlining a city filled with dust blown miscreants - people with dreams at varying stages of dissolution. Arturo quickly becomes penniless, is pestered for rent by landlady Mrs. Hargraves (Dame Eileen Atkins) and for handouts by drunkard Hellfrick (Donald Sutherland), and still a virgin he plies his vision as a writer in a local café where he encounters the beautiful Camilla (way too much of a play on the character of Dumas' 'Camille'...). The two play a battle of wits and insults to cover their apparent infatuation with each other: Mexican Camilla is looking for a wealthy 'white man' to raise her out of her illiterate station and Arturo is looking for a sexual encounter to spur his writing.

During their extended 'courting' Arturo is vamped by Vera Rivkin (Idina Menzel), a Jewish housekeeper with grossly deformed legs who dreams of a man who will call her beautiful, and in a touching encounter Arturo displays the kind vulnerability lying under his rather callous and naive exterior.

Arturo and Camilla at last connect, and in a Laguna beach house they fall under the spell of love, a state that ends tragically, like the dust from the desert winds burying all hopes of the people of Southern California.

The story is a bit clunky and the dialogue feels forced at times but it is always a pleasure to see the work of Farrell, Hayek, Atkins, and Sutherland. The true beauty of this truly beautiful film is in the atmosphere and the mood captured by Towne and Deschanel. Their work offers a mood piece that forgives some of the awkwardness of the threadbare story and shows off the actors well. The film may move a bit too slowly for some, but for others, this is a moment of history well captured. Grady Harp