True lovers of film are simultaneously born and made, I'd say- born because their personalities contain more artistic curiosity than most, and made because one doesn't leap from Disney to Dreyer overnight. Of the eleven films listed below (roughly in chronological order), many of these are among my all-time favorites, but I've selected them because they represented a key moment in my evolution as a film lover.
FANTASIA- kids, by and large, love movies. It's not so much the movies they're watching as the act of watching them, seeing the figures looming up on the screen, larger than life, acting out stories for your entertainment. I don't remember most of the movies I watched when I was little, but I remember FANTASIA well for one very good reason- it was the first movie I remember disliking. All of a sudden, movies weren't categorically fun anymore, like a trip to the playground or a bowl of ice cream on a summer day. Movies could be good or bad now, and while I didn't like the movie, it was okay for me not to like it. I had an opinion, and I was as entitled to it as anyone else.
BACK TO THE FUTURE- this is the first movie I ever saw that wasn't a so-called "family movie." Still fairly kid-friendly, to be sure, but also a peek into a more grown-up world than I was accustomed to. Needless to say, this was my favorite movie back in the day. Some kids preferred GHOSTBUSTERS or GOONIES, but BACK TO THE FUTURE was the movie for me. I still love it today.
TAXI DRIVER- I fondly remember the HBO preview weekends of my youth, catching old movies with all the bad words you couldn't hear on TV. I snuck out of bed in the middle of the night to watch this one, expecting Louie and Latka- imagine my surprise! If I thought BACK TO THE FUTURE was grown-up, this was another thing entirely. I picked up fairly quickly that this wasn't made for me, but I kept watching, fascinated by the completely alien world of the film and even moved by how different it was from the world I knew. Perhaps it was Jodie Foster's character who really got to me- she was only a few years older in the film than I was when I saw it, yet she wasn't acting like a kid at all. Of course, my parents never found out I watched this...
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN- my dad brought this home one night when I was in middle school, telling me how funny it was. And boy, was he right. I hadn't yet seen Whale's versions of FRANKENSTEIN, but I'd absorbed enough to get most of the jokes, yet what really struck me was that the movie was in black and white. At the time, I still associated black and white with old movies, yet here was a movie that starred people I recognized, only it wasn't in color. Then a realization came to me- it was black and white FOR A REASON. Mel Brooks (who I already knew because of SPACEBALLS) made a conscious decision to shoot the movie that way. That's when I first became conscious of the role of the director as someone who makes decisions as to how a movie is made. And my interest in filmmaking and filmmakers has only grown from there.
JURASSIC PARK- I enjoyed watching movies on video when I was younger, but it wasn't until I got to high school that I went to the theatre regularly. I suppose I have my friend Matt to thank, since we almost always went together. Our first movie was UNFORGIVEN, but the one that really got me hooked on going to the theatre was JURASSIC PARK. We saw it on opening day, and were blown away by the spectacle of the thing. I picked up on the moments of hokeyness, but I didn't care- these were dinosaurs, as big as life, as real as I'd ever seen them. "Again! Again!" we cheered when it was over. We must've watched it a dozen times when it came to the local discount theatre.
PULP FICTION- once again, the right movie at the right time for a developing movie lover. I'd never seen anything like this- wacked-out chronology, riffing dialogue, violent scenes that were also funny, etc. As scruffy and cool as JURASSIC PARK was spectacular, my friends and I got caught up in the PULP phenomenon with a vengeance. Quentin was a hero to us. We even started writing a PULP remake populated completely by idiots. For the first time, the idea of making a movie became an attainable goal to me. And naturally, Tarantino's film-drunk interviews led me off the Hollywood path into independent and even foreign cinema, beginning with...
BETTY BLUE- of course, it's hard for a newcomer to foreign film to know where to begin. So many unfamiliar, hard-to-pronounce names on the shelves. But being a high schooler, BETTY BLUE had something we wanted to see. "Check this out dude," said the guy at the video store. "There's all kinds of sex in this one." The guy wasn't lying, and the rest of the movie was interesting enough that I didn't bother fast-forwarding to the next sex scene despite the occasionally difficulty with subtitles. Eventually, the subtitles got easier, and I found slightly more high-minded reasons to watch foreign films. Once I'd plowed through the filmography of Beatrice Dalle, that is.
ANNIE HALL- all of the films I've listed up until this point took me to new places, but what I loved about ANNIE HALL was how much I saw of myself in it, even when I was sixteen. Most guys I saw in movies were smooth and cool with women, but Alvy was as nervous and uncertain as I was at the time. And Annie made an impression on me too, not some bikini bimbo who attracts men with her body, but a daffy, funny woman who you love for who she is (admittedly, Diane Keaton was still easy on the eyes, but not in a show-offy way). I must've watched this every week in the summer between my junior and senior years and recommended it to all my friends- some of whom gave me odd looks, as this wasn't so long after the Woody/Mia scandal.
BELLE DE JOUR- another foreign film I saw primarily for the T&A factor, I actually made the trip up to Cleveland with some friends to see it in the theatre during the summer after graduation. I mean, a housewife who secretly works as a prostitute- cheesecake city, right? Well, no. But while they grumbled all the way home, I had fallen in love. Not only with Deneuve, not just the most beautiful woman I'd ever seen in a movie but also the most enchanting screen presence, but with the movie itself. In retrospect, what really got to me after that first viewing was the idea that a film didn't simply have to deal with external action or adventure, but could also explore private fantasies and dreams. Even today, BELLE DE JOUR remains my favorite film.
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY- way back when, I tended to trust my initial impression of a film to the extent where if I wasn't especially keen on it I wouldn't watch it again. Such was the case with 2001, which I'd originally caught on video back in high school. But during my first year of college, I saw a review of it in that stated the importance of seeing it on the big screen. I was a bit dubious- watching at home is as good as the theatre, I thought- but I went anyway, to give it a second chance. Sure enough, the review was right- what was weird and silly in the confines of my living room was thrilling, ambitious, and breathtakingly big in the theatre. Since then, I've watched as much as possible on the big screen.
THE NEW WORLD- my most major filmgoing experience in the last decade. Sure, there have been some masterpieces during that time, even some I've been hopelessly obsessed with (AFTER LIFE, WAKING LIFE, 8 WOMEN). But nothing has compared to THE NEW WORLD. For perhaps the first time in my life, I felt like I was bearing witness to the opening of one of the great classics of the cinema. Truly transcendent cinema is rare, and to be valued, and I will always cherish my first experience of THE NEW WORLD.
What about you folks? Any moviegoing experiences that stick out in your minds?
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The Halftime Show
I’m working on the 2005-in-review article, honest. Consider this a warm-up.
1. DAVE CHAPPELLE’S BLOCK PARTY- quite possibly the most joyous chronicle of an Event since WOODSTOCK 36 years ago. Although this film- and this Event for that matter- lacks the logistical and pop-culture magnitude of the Woodstock fest, it fascinates in its own right by introducing all sorts of people whose lives have been touched by the Block Party. Chappelle, a genial and appreciative master of ceremonies, clearly cares for those who love him, and the Block Party is about and for these people- the artists who perform, the fans who made the trip, the locals who live in the neighborhood. Perhaps director Michel Gondry’s greatest achievement, however, is his invigorating use of editing to examine the event from all angles- onstage and backstage, preparation and performance, past and present.
2. THE DEATH OF MR. LAZARESCU- Cristi Puiu’s harrowing odyssey through the Romanian medical establishment is hard to watch at times, but it’s also vital cinema. What makes the film feel like a gut punch is that it doesn’t demonize the doctors who are hesitant to treat Lazarescu- sure, it’s comforting to think that every patient should be treated with empathy, but if medical professionals had an emotional stake in every patient the job would be too difficult to bear. And so Lazarescu is carried from hospital to hospital, growing progressively worse, until the idea of "death with dignity," much less a miracle cure, seems the cruelest joke of all.
3. TRISTRAM SHANDY: A COCK AND BULL STORY- to quote the film, "because it’s funny. Isn’t that enough?" It is for me, at least until I get a chance to see it again. Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon set a new standard for bickering costars in this, Michael Winterbottom’s mockumentary chronicle of his abortive attempts to adapt the notoriously "unadaptable" novel. As light and clever as his previous film, 9 SONGS was turgid and listless.
4. L’ENFANT- not quite first-rate Dardenne brothers, but no matter. The film’s boldest gambit is its focus on Bruno, an opportunist and a nigh-unlikable young man who would sell his newborn child for a sack full of Euros without so much as batting an eye. The Dardennes wisely realize that Bruno has to be a tough nut to crack in order for his redemption to mean anything, so softening him or justifying his actions would drain the film of much of its impact.
5. BRICK- in the year’s best filmmaking debut to date, director Rian Johnson throws together two unlikely bedfellows (the pulpy detective thriller and the high-school drama) and the result is a credit to both genres. In case there was any doubt, this film makes it official- Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the best American actor of his generation.
6. BUBBLE- Steven Soderbergh’s experiment in hi-def filmmaking (and distribution) is a low-key but effective portrait of lives that exist far away even from Hollywood’s conception of "small-town America." Instead of making his characters into rubes worthy of derision, he is generally curious about them and their milieu, in which hard work is a fact of life and role of religion in everyday life goes unquestioned. Even the violent turn the film takes is handled with an understated, plainspoken grace.
7. THE PROPOSITION- it’s the flies I remember most. The film’s Australia is swarming with them, crawling over the faces of natives and recent settlers alike. Director John Hillcoat and writer Nick Cave ambitiously attempt to explode practically every genre convention- moral codes, filial loyalty, the encroachment of civilization- and in doing so creates the Western to end all Westerns, though it’s set Down Under. Because honestly, where can the genre go from here?
8. UNITED 93- Too soon? Hardly. While this film is most effective in its first hour, which re-creates in painstaking detail (mostly from the perspective of various air traffic control stations) how things went wrong on 9/11, the entire film resolutely avoids exploiting the tragedy for cheap drama. Director Paul Greengrass wisely doesn’t politicize the events of September 11, 2001, and he avoids falling into the ELEPHANT trap by creating a sense of immediacy, as if placing us back on that fateful day, aghast at what we see, unsure of what lies ahead.
9. MANDERLAY- yes, it lacks the freshness of DOGVILLE, to say nothing of the previous film’s infinitely rich allegorical universe, but warmed-over Von Trier is still more potent than just about anything else out there.
10. NEIL YOUNG: HEART OF GOLD- Neil Young. Jonathan Demme. Two great tastes that taste great together.
And the worst…
BATTLE IN HEAVEN- thank you, Carlos Reygadas, for demonstrating once and for all the difference between artsy and artful. I could care less that you want your movie- with shots the Mexican flag being raised or lowered and scenes of a hot chick having sex with a fat dude- to take on deeper allegorical meaning. If you can’t make the onscreen action work of its own accord, then any deeper meaning it might have in your mind won’t amount to a damn thing.
1. DAVE CHAPPELLE’S BLOCK PARTY- quite possibly the most joyous chronicle of an Event since WOODSTOCK 36 years ago. Although this film- and this Event for that matter- lacks the logistical and pop-culture magnitude of the Woodstock fest, it fascinates in its own right by introducing all sorts of people whose lives have been touched by the Block Party. Chappelle, a genial and appreciative master of ceremonies, clearly cares for those who love him, and the Block Party is about and for these people- the artists who perform, the fans who made the trip, the locals who live in the neighborhood. Perhaps director Michel Gondry’s greatest achievement, however, is his invigorating use of editing to examine the event from all angles- onstage and backstage, preparation and performance, past and present.
2. THE DEATH OF MR. LAZARESCU- Cristi Puiu’s harrowing odyssey through the Romanian medical establishment is hard to watch at times, but it’s also vital cinema. What makes the film feel like a gut punch is that it doesn’t demonize the doctors who are hesitant to treat Lazarescu- sure, it’s comforting to think that every patient should be treated with empathy, but if medical professionals had an emotional stake in every patient the job would be too difficult to bear. And so Lazarescu is carried from hospital to hospital, growing progressively worse, until the idea of "death with dignity," much less a miracle cure, seems the cruelest joke of all.
3. TRISTRAM SHANDY: A COCK AND BULL STORY- to quote the film, "because it’s funny. Isn’t that enough?" It is for me, at least until I get a chance to see it again. Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon set a new standard for bickering costars in this, Michael Winterbottom’s mockumentary chronicle of his abortive attempts to adapt the notoriously "unadaptable" novel. As light and clever as his previous film, 9 SONGS was turgid and listless.
4. L’ENFANT- not quite first-rate Dardenne brothers, but no matter. The film’s boldest gambit is its focus on Bruno, an opportunist and a nigh-unlikable young man who would sell his newborn child for a sack full of Euros without so much as batting an eye. The Dardennes wisely realize that Bruno has to be a tough nut to crack in order for his redemption to mean anything, so softening him or justifying his actions would drain the film of much of its impact.
5. BRICK- in the year’s best filmmaking debut to date, director Rian Johnson throws together two unlikely bedfellows (the pulpy detective thriller and the high-school drama) and the result is a credit to both genres. In case there was any doubt, this film makes it official- Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the best American actor of his generation.
6. BUBBLE- Steven Soderbergh’s experiment in hi-def filmmaking (and distribution) is a low-key but effective portrait of lives that exist far away even from Hollywood’s conception of "small-town America." Instead of making his characters into rubes worthy of derision, he is generally curious about them and their milieu, in which hard work is a fact of life and role of religion in everyday life goes unquestioned. Even the violent turn the film takes is handled with an understated, plainspoken grace.
7. THE PROPOSITION- it’s the flies I remember most. The film’s Australia is swarming with them, crawling over the faces of natives and recent settlers alike. Director John Hillcoat and writer Nick Cave ambitiously attempt to explode practically every genre convention- moral codes, filial loyalty, the encroachment of civilization- and in doing so creates the Western to end all Westerns, though it’s set Down Under. Because honestly, where can the genre go from here?
8. UNITED 93- Too soon? Hardly. While this film is most effective in its first hour, which re-creates in painstaking detail (mostly from the perspective of various air traffic control stations) how things went wrong on 9/11, the entire film resolutely avoids exploiting the tragedy for cheap drama. Director Paul Greengrass wisely doesn’t politicize the events of September 11, 2001, and he avoids falling into the ELEPHANT trap by creating a sense of immediacy, as if placing us back on that fateful day, aghast at what we see, unsure of what lies ahead.
9. MANDERLAY- yes, it lacks the freshness of DOGVILLE, to say nothing of the previous film’s infinitely rich allegorical universe, but warmed-over Von Trier is still more potent than just about anything else out there.
10. NEIL YOUNG: HEART OF GOLD- Neil Young. Jonathan Demme. Two great tastes that taste great together.
And the worst…
BATTLE IN HEAVEN- thank you, Carlos Reygadas, for demonstrating once and for all the difference between artsy and artful. I could care less that you want your movie- with shots the Mexican flag being raised or lowered and scenes of a hot chick having sex with a fat dude- to take on deeper allegorical meaning. If you can’t make the onscreen action work of its own accord, then any deeper meaning it might have in your mind won’t amount to a damn thing.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Paul puts off posting. Devil throws snowball.
Well, I'm almost out of here. I'm scheduled to move back to Columbus on Monday, July 3, barring any unforseen complications. It'll be nice to live alone again, to say nothing of living within 10 minutes or so of an arthouse instead of an hour. So that's nice. Everything's set to be turned on the morning of the 3rd, so ideally there will be nothing keeping me from posting as soon as I'm all moved in. Although knowing me I'll put it off again.
I don't plan to work at another movie theatre after I move, which is probably for the best, since the nature of the job means I don't have much time for a social life. Having evenings and weekends for myself would certainly make this easier for me, or at least more convenient. And I won't miss the asswipe customers who treat me like crap when the technical shit hits the fan. Yeah, like I deliberately set out to sabotage the projector and ruin your day. Cut me some slack in my opinion.
Moving on...
THREE TIMES (2005, Hou Hsiao-hsien, seen in theatre)-
Dear Hou fanboys,
What exactly am I missing? I have yet to see a film of Hou's that really grabs me. Yes, the dude is obviously really talented, but something about his work has always left me a little cold. I hope it's not the distance Hou assumes from the action onscreen- lord knows I don't have a problem with distance per se (see my #4 movie ever). And that the images are impeccable goes without saying- dude can frame an image, and having Mark-li Ping-bin as your DP is never a bad choice. So what gives? Is Hou one of those either-you-get-it-or-you-don't dudes (like late Godard), or is he simply an acquired taste (like Hong)? And if it's the latter, how do I go about acquiring the taste for Hou? I don't want to feel like I'm out of the loop, guys. Help a fella out. Based on the nature of his work (lush-looking, narratively slow), I'm pretty sure that DVD wouldn't be the right place to catch up on him, but since I couldn't make it to every film in the Wexner Center retrospective five years ago, it seems that's my only option. So where should I start? A TIME TO LIVE AND A TIME TO DIE? THE PUPPET MASTER? Another viewing of FLOWERS OF SHANGHAI?
Sincerely,
Paul
P.S.: It's kind of too bad he's only made the two films with Shu Qi, since I've already seen both of those and wouldn't mind sitting through more considering that she is so hot. Just sayin'.
P.P.S.: Rating: **1/2.
ZATHURA (2005, Jon Favreau, seen on DVD)- with ELF and now this, Favreau demonstrates that the suckiness of MADE was just first-time jitters and proves himself to be great at family-themed fantasy. Like ELF, this is lots of fun without being patronizing to the kids- Favreau doesn't engage in the tech tomfoolery that Rodriguez does in his kiddie pics, taking its cue from the structure of the game (one step at a time) and the trouble that results. There are a few moments of "brothers stick together" speechifying, but mostly the movie is content to be a ride and to let the relationship between the brothers play itself out through action. The role of the Astronaut might have worked better with, say, Nathan Fillion in the role- more square-jawed, yes, but also wittier. Best throwaway line: after her dad expresses his anxiety over her upcoming date, a girl (Kristen Stewart) blurts out, "we should never have rented THIRTEEN!" Not the kind of reference you expect in a movie like this, really. Rating: **1/2.
THE WAR WITHIN (2005, Joseph Castelo, seen on DVD)- I preferred this suicide-bomber story to last year's PARADISE NOW, but even so it's hardly a great movie. I can't help but feel like a lot of stories suffer from studios' insistence that movies run 90 minutes or more- while the final days of a Pakistani suicide bomber in the U.S. hold an inherent dramatic interest, the movie ends up spreading itself too thin, losing a lot of steam by the end of hour #1. The most compelling aspect of the movie ends up being the bomber's relationship with his Americanized friend, illuminating the gulf between the two men's experiences. However, a conversation between several Pakistani immigrants at a picnic feels to thematically on-the-nose, making explicit what was more interesting when it went unsaid. There is no doubt a great movie to be made on the subject of suicide bombing, but either it has yet to be made or I simply have yet to see it. Rating: **.
USHPIZIN [The Guests] (2004, Giddi Dar, seen on DVD)- fairly entertaining, and respectful of the traditions of Orthodox Judaism without rubbing them in the audiences' faces. I liked the sense of place the film displayed, courtesy of Dar as well as co-writer/star Shuli Rand. Feels slight but hardly innocuous, which in itself puts it a cut above most arthouse crowd-pleasers. Rating: **1/2.
UP! (1976, Russ Meyer, seen on DVD)- SPOILERS!!!! UP! is as batshit as I'd been led to believe, and even more awesome. But would one expect any less from Meyer? Consider that the film contains the following: (a) an elderly German named Adolf (with appropriate mustache) paying a young man to whip him, (b) an opening reel in which virtually every crosscut includes an update on what time it currently is, (c) murder by piranha, (d) a lumberjack who carries his axe wherever he goes, (e) a phone booth standing in the middle of an empty field, and (f) Kitten Natividad as a nude Greek chorus frolicking in the woods. Add to that the requisite Meyer assortment of buxom babes, notably Raven De La Croix as Margo Winchester, a mysterious man-eater who delivers her lines in a Mae West-ian purr and who is first introduced jogging in heels and a halter top. Benefits, I think, from brevity- whereas SUPERVIXENS, fun as it was, lagged a bit and began to repeat itself, UP! is leaner and meaner. Top-notch Meyer- neither as Hollywood as BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (a GREAT DVD by the way) or as propulsive as FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL!, but in its own way just as much fun. Rating: ***1/2.
Coming in the sorta-near future: my 2005 wrap-up article. Yes, I know. I don't think June is too soon to do one either.
I don't plan to work at another movie theatre after I move, which is probably for the best, since the nature of the job means I don't have much time for a social life. Having evenings and weekends for myself would certainly make this easier for me, or at least more convenient. And I won't miss the asswipe customers who treat me like crap when the technical shit hits the fan. Yeah, like I deliberately set out to sabotage the projector and ruin your day. Cut me some slack in my opinion.
Moving on...
THREE TIMES (2005, Hou Hsiao-hsien, seen in theatre)-
Dear Hou fanboys,
What exactly am I missing? I have yet to see a film of Hou's that really grabs me. Yes, the dude is obviously really talented, but something about his work has always left me a little cold. I hope it's not the distance Hou assumes from the action onscreen- lord knows I don't have a problem with distance per se (see my #4 movie ever). And that the images are impeccable goes without saying- dude can frame an image, and having Mark-li Ping-bin as your DP is never a bad choice. So what gives? Is Hou one of those either-you-get-it-or-you-don't dudes (like late Godard), or is he simply an acquired taste (like Hong)? And if it's the latter, how do I go about acquiring the taste for Hou? I don't want to feel like I'm out of the loop, guys. Help a fella out. Based on the nature of his work (lush-looking, narratively slow), I'm pretty sure that DVD wouldn't be the right place to catch up on him, but since I couldn't make it to every film in the Wexner Center retrospective five years ago, it seems that's my only option. So where should I start? A TIME TO LIVE AND A TIME TO DIE? THE PUPPET MASTER? Another viewing of FLOWERS OF SHANGHAI?
Sincerely,
Paul
P.S.: It's kind of too bad he's only made the two films with Shu Qi, since I've already seen both of those and wouldn't mind sitting through more considering that she is so hot. Just sayin'.
P.P.S.: Rating: **1/2.
ZATHURA (2005, Jon Favreau, seen on DVD)- with ELF and now this, Favreau demonstrates that the suckiness of MADE was just first-time jitters and proves himself to be great at family-themed fantasy. Like ELF, this is lots of fun without being patronizing to the kids- Favreau doesn't engage in the tech tomfoolery that Rodriguez does in his kiddie pics, taking its cue from the structure of the game (one step at a time) and the trouble that results. There are a few moments of "brothers stick together" speechifying, but mostly the movie is content to be a ride and to let the relationship between the brothers play itself out through action. The role of the Astronaut might have worked better with, say, Nathan Fillion in the role- more square-jawed, yes, but also wittier. Best throwaway line: after her dad expresses his anxiety over her upcoming date, a girl (Kristen Stewart) blurts out, "we should never have rented THIRTEEN!" Not the kind of reference you expect in a movie like this, really. Rating: **1/2.
THE WAR WITHIN (2005, Joseph Castelo, seen on DVD)- I preferred this suicide-bomber story to last year's PARADISE NOW, but even so it's hardly a great movie. I can't help but feel like a lot of stories suffer from studios' insistence that movies run 90 minutes or more- while the final days of a Pakistani suicide bomber in the U.S. hold an inherent dramatic interest, the movie ends up spreading itself too thin, losing a lot of steam by the end of hour #1. The most compelling aspect of the movie ends up being the bomber's relationship with his Americanized friend, illuminating the gulf between the two men's experiences. However, a conversation between several Pakistani immigrants at a picnic feels to thematically on-the-nose, making explicit what was more interesting when it went unsaid. There is no doubt a great movie to be made on the subject of suicide bombing, but either it has yet to be made or I simply have yet to see it. Rating: **.
USHPIZIN [The Guests] (2004, Giddi Dar, seen on DVD)- fairly entertaining, and respectful of the traditions of Orthodox Judaism without rubbing them in the audiences' faces. I liked the sense of place the film displayed, courtesy of Dar as well as co-writer/star Shuli Rand. Feels slight but hardly innocuous, which in itself puts it a cut above most arthouse crowd-pleasers. Rating: **1/2.
UP! (1976, Russ Meyer, seen on DVD)- SPOILERS!!!! UP! is as batshit as I'd been led to believe, and even more awesome. But would one expect any less from Meyer? Consider that the film contains the following: (a) an elderly German named Adolf (with appropriate mustache) paying a young man to whip him, (b) an opening reel in which virtually every crosscut includes an update on what time it currently is, (c) murder by piranha, (d) a lumberjack who carries his axe wherever he goes, (e) a phone booth standing in the middle of an empty field, and (f) Kitten Natividad as a nude Greek chorus frolicking in the woods. Add to that the requisite Meyer assortment of buxom babes, notably Raven De La Croix as Margo Winchester, a mysterious man-eater who delivers her lines in a Mae West-ian purr and who is first introduced jogging in heels and a halter top. Benefits, I think, from brevity- whereas SUPERVIXENS, fun as it was, lagged a bit and began to repeat itself, UP! is leaner and meaner. Top-notch Meyer- neither as Hollywood as BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (a GREAT DVD by the way) or as propulsive as FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL!, but in its own way just as much fun. Rating: ***1/2.
Coming in the sorta-near future: my 2005 wrap-up article. Yes, I know. I don't think June is too soon to do one either.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Lotsa bang bang. Not so much kiss kiss.
L'ENFANT (2005, Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne, seen in theatre)- the Dardennes are not only so consistently awesome but also simply so consistent in their work that it's easy to undervalue how great they are. People like an auteurial stamp, sure, but the Dardennes' work is so of a piece (similar to, say, Ozu's) that the temptation is to scoff at them and say they're simply covering the same old ground. But for me the world they create is a lot like Faulkner's- in the brothers' case, a warts-and-all version of lower-class Belgium, but also one fraught with drama and the possibility of redemption. And so it is here, with the film taking on the Dardennes' most irredeemable protagonist to date, a twentysomething street punk named Bruno (played by Jeremie Renier). Much like Rosetta before him, Bruno is singleminded- in his case, his obsession is with money. "Work is for fuckers," he states, so he steals instead, and will sell damn near anything to make a buck (it's to the film's credit that it doesn't take the sordid route and have Bruno sell his body). When Bruno's girlfriend shows up with a newborn baby- presumably his- he takes the opportunity to sell the kid to a black-market adoption racket, saying "we can always have another one." What follows is Bruno's path toward redemption, and while we see that the film is headed in that direction, it nonetheless manages to surprise us along the way. Interestingly, Bruno is able to get the child back fairly quickly, which is a wise choice dramatically because the film isn't about the baby but rather about Bruno, and too much tot-related peril could have thrown it all out of whack. The film isn't quite at the level of the Dardennes' masterpiece THE SON, but it's still damn potent filmmaking, with numerous moments out of time lingering in my memory (particularly the scene where he sells the baby). Can't wait to see where the Dardennes will take me next. Rating: ***1/2.
A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION (2006, Robert Altman, seen in theatre)- Altman brings Garrison Keillor’s hip-to-be-square radio show to the big screen with his usual skill, although the end result isn’t without its flaws. Much has been made about the film’s focus on death, but I would have preferred the film made the theme of mortality less explicit. To manifest it in Virginia Madsen’s angel character feels too on-the-nose- better she had remained a spectral fringe player in the action, a la Jeff Goldblum in NASHVILLE or Alan Bates in GOSFORD PARK, letting her warm and gentle presence say everything that needed said. For me, the film is more of interest as a study in Americana, with family singing groups, advertising jingles, crooning cowboys, purple-prose-spouting gumshoes, and off-color jokes all represented here in the nostalgic context of an old-school radio show. Given both the narrative framework and Altman at the helm, the film is also a primo performance film, with Keillor’s bowtied folksiness, Streep and Tomlin’s sisterly double act, Harrelson and Reilly’s cowboy routine, and even Lindsay Lohan belting out her twist on "Frankie and Johnny" all making strong impressions. I just wish that the film as a whole felt less slight- as it is, it’s a genial crowd-pleaser, and little more. Rating: **1/2.
DOWN IN THE VALLEY (2005, David Jacobson, seen in theatre)- the first film in Saturday’s ten-gallon double feature didn’t quite work for me, although I had high hopes for it after the first half-hour or so. The problem is partly one of ambition- Jacobson clearly wants to contrast the Western mythos with modern-day Los Angeles, with Edward Norton’s Harlan clashing with messy modern life. However, Jacobson makes the mistake of explaining Harlan’s cowboy persona as a result of both mental illness AND a difficult past (think bad daddy), when there are undoubtedly cowboy types who have made L.A. their home without tragedy ensuing. A shame too, since the film begins so promisingly as a portrait of a few lives in southern California, and the cast (nice to see Norton actually putting forth some effort again) provides able support. Unfortunately, in order to direct the film toward a Western-style finish, Jacobson forces his characters to make numerous stupid decisions just to propel the plot, and when the big showdown happened, I didn’t care nearly as much as I should have. Rating: **.
THE PROPOSITION (2005, John Hillcoat, seen in theatre)- now this is more like it. While the film takes place in Australia, the differences between this and a Western are almost purely geographical. As with many great Westerns, this film deals with the struggle to "civilize" the land, with the civilizing influence personified most sharply by Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone) and his wife (Emily Watson). What they’re up against is a tough land occupied by hard men, including Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce), who Stanley tasks to locate his notorious fugitive brother Arthur Burns (Danny Huston). Hillcoat and screenwriter/score composer Nick Cave make this Australia a brutal and unforgiving place, and nearly every character has leathery skin covered in blood, dirt, and flies. The film is violent and even gruesome, but rarely gratuitous (exploding head scene aside), and the violence is appropriately upsetting, in particular a public beating that includes a shot of the whip-wielder wringing the blood out of his whip. The end result may not be pretty, but it’s nonetheless a vivid portrait of colonialism and its perils, with ample opportunities for the talented cast (which also includes an awesomely over-the-top John Hurt) to really tear up the screen. Rating: ***.
EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED (2005, Liev Schreiber, seen on DVD)- what begins as most premium culture-clash comedy morphs into a meditation on the plight of Jews in the Ukraine. Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, a young man searching for his family’s roots in the Ukraine, but he’s less the film’s protagonist than the catalyst for the story. The real central journey of the film is taken by Alex, memorably played by Eugene Hutz, who through Jonathan discovers his family’s history, which he had never known about before. Schreiber, a quintessential actor, makes an assured directing debut here, resisting most temptations to goose the story stylistically while occasionally injecting bits of magical realism when necessary, most obviously the field of sunflowers. I missed EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED when it played in theatres, and I don’t think I missed much by waiting until DVD to see it- it’s hardly a world-beater, but it’s entertaining and finally poignant, and makes an ideal "sleeper" rental. Rating: **1/2.
THE PRESIDENT’S LAST BANG (2005, Im Sang-soo, seen on DVD)- I can’t help but feel like I missed something in this film, being largely unfamiliar with Korean history- the ad copy for the film labeled it a "dark comedy," but the darkly comic moments were no doubt predicated on familiarity with the story. As it was, the film was fairly interesting from a procedural standpoint, as the killing of Park Chun-hee is created in convincing detail, with some impressive stylistic touches (dig the DePalma-style overhead shot!). Rating: **1/2.
A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION (2006, Robert Altman, seen in theatre)- Altman brings Garrison Keillor’s hip-to-be-square radio show to the big screen with his usual skill, although the end result isn’t without its flaws. Much has been made about the film’s focus on death, but I would have preferred the film made the theme of mortality less explicit. To manifest it in Virginia Madsen’s angel character feels too on-the-nose- better she had remained a spectral fringe player in the action, a la Jeff Goldblum in NASHVILLE or Alan Bates in GOSFORD PARK, letting her warm and gentle presence say everything that needed said. For me, the film is more of interest as a study in Americana, with family singing groups, advertising jingles, crooning cowboys, purple-prose-spouting gumshoes, and off-color jokes all represented here in the nostalgic context of an old-school radio show. Given both the narrative framework and Altman at the helm, the film is also a primo performance film, with Keillor’s bowtied folksiness, Streep and Tomlin’s sisterly double act, Harrelson and Reilly’s cowboy routine, and even Lindsay Lohan belting out her twist on "Frankie and Johnny" all making strong impressions. I just wish that the film as a whole felt less slight- as it is, it’s a genial crowd-pleaser, and little more. Rating: **1/2.
DOWN IN THE VALLEY (2005, David Jacobson, seen in theatre)- the first film in Saturday’s ten-gallon double feature didn’t quite work for me, although I had high hopes for it after the first half-hour or so. The problem is partly one of ambition- Jacobson clearly wants to contrast the Western mythos with modern-day Los Angeles, with Edward Norton’s Harlan clashing with messy modern life. However, Jacobson makes the mistake of explaining Harlan’s cowboy persona as a result of both mental illness AND a difficult past (think bad daddy), when there are undoubtedly cowboy types who have made L.A. their home without tragedy ensuing. A shame too, since the film begins so promisingly as a portrait of a few lives in southern California, and the cast (nice to see Norton actually putting forth some effort again) provides able support. Unfortunately, in order to direct the film toward a Western-style finish, Jacobson forces his characters to make numerous stupid decisions just to propel the plot, and when the big showdown happened, I didn’t care nearly as much as I should have. Rating: **.
THE PROPOSITION (2005, John Hillcoat, seen in theatre)- now this is more like it. While the film takes place in Australia, the differences between this and a Western are almost purely geographical. As with many great Westerns, this film deals with the struggle to "civilize" the land, with the civilizing influence personified most sharply by Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone) and his wife (Emily Watson). What they’re up against is a tough land occupied by hard men, including Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce), who Stanley tasks to locate his notorious fugitive brother Arthur Burns (Danny Huston). Hillcoat and screenwriter/score composer Nick Cave make this Australia a brutal and unforgiving place, and nearly every character has leathery skin covered in blood, dirt, and flies. The film is violent and even gruesome, but rarely gratuitous (exploding head scene aside), and the violence is appropriately upsetting, in particular a public beating that includes a shot of the whip-wielder wringing the blood out of his whip. The end result may not be pretty, but it’s nonetheless a vivid portrait of colonialism and its perils, with ample opportunities for the talented cast (which also includes an awesomely over-the-top John Hurt) to really tear up the screen. Rating: ***.
EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED (2005, Liev Schreiber, seen on DVD)- what begins as most premium culture-clash comedy morphs into a meditation on the plight of Jews in the Ukraine. Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, a young man searching for his family’s roots in the Ukraine, but he’s less the film’s protagonist than the catalyst for the story. The real central journey of the film is taken by Alex, memorably played by Eugene Hutz, who through Jonathan discovers his family’s history, which he had never known about before. Schreiber, a quintessential actor, makes an assured directing debut here, resisting most temptations to goose the story stylistically while occasionally injecting bits of magical realism when necessary, most obviously the field of sunflowers. I missed EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED when it played in theatres, and I don’t think I missed much by waiting until DVD to see it- it’s hardly a world-beater, but it’s entertaining and finally poignant, and makes an ideal "sleeper" rental. Rating: **1/2.
THE PRESIDENT’S LAST BANG (2005, Im Sang-soo, seen on DVD)- I can’t help but feel like I missed something in this film, being largely unfamiliar with Korean history- the ad copy for the film labeled it a "dark comedy," but the darkly comic moments were no doubt predicated on familiarity with the story. As it was, the film was fairly interesting from a procedural standpoint, as the killing of Park Chun-hee is created in convincing detail, with some impressive stylistic touches (dig the DePalma-style overhead shot!). Rating: **1/2.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
More?!?!?!?
GILLES’ WIFE (2004, Frederic Fonteyne, seen in theatre)- what struck me about this film from the get-go was how completely Fonteyne places us in the time and place in which the story is set-a provincial village in the 1930s- not only in terms of how it looks but also the actions and mindsets of his characters. This is key to how the film plays out, because given that the crux of the story is Elisa (Emmanuelle Devos) discovering that her husband is having an affair with her free-willed sister, it would certainly have played out much differently today. But during that time period, what was a good wife to do? According to the social mores, she had chosen her man, and was expected to stand by him regardless of his actions. Divorce was out of the question, and even if she could leave him she had no discernible source of income, having devoted all of her energies to being a devoted wife and mother. The only place she can go to even talk about her problem is church, where the priest advises her to wait it out (and cluelessly assigns her 10 rosaries). The film is unimaginable without Emmanuelle Devos. That she is one of the great actresses in world cinema aside, the film simply could not have worked with a more conventionally pretty leading lady. Devos is certainly beautiful, but in a sweet and off-kilter way- her high brow, upside-down mouth, and heavy-lidded eyes that never appear to look straight ahead give her a look that a man might grow accustomed to, not one that might lead men astray. It’s a face made for cinema, and what she does with it here is simply extraordinary. Even more so than his evocation of the period, Fonteyne’s greatest achievement here is utilizing Devos to her utmost potential, registering every small emotion and fluctuation that plays over her face (I even noticed a pair of beauty marks at the corner of her right eye resembling a tear, quite serendipitous in context). GILLES’ WIFE is a remarkable achievement, both a tragedy of a woman hemmed in by her time and a vehicle for one of the cinema’s great talents. Rating: ***1/2.
X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2006, Brett Ratner, seen in theatre)- now more than ever do I believe that the X-Men comics are better suited for a television series than a movie franchise- sure, the action is big-screen material, but the real draw of the comics seems to be the characters and the ways they work together. With so many important figures, it’s tough to delve too deeply into most of them, and so beloved mutants like Cyclops and Storm, among others, get lost in the shuffle. Nowhere in the series is this more apparent than in its third and allegedly final installment- with a heap of new mutants and nearly all the returning favorites from the previous films (I for one missed Alan Cumming’s Nightcrawler), there just isn’t enough time to give everyone his or her due while building up to the big action setpiece at the end and resolving everything plot-wise. The result isn’t a disaster (like, say, THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS), but it doesn’t quite live up to what has come before either. None of the actors really make much of an impact either, although that has as much to do with the compressed running time of the movie as it does with anything else. The best thing I can say about Ratner’s direction is that he’s not really to blame for how the film turned out- it’s adequately directed (of course, Bryan Singer is hardly Hitchcock)- but in the end the film is too bland and reeking of studio commodification to be all that interesting. Rating: **.
THE DA VINCI CODE (2006, Ron Howard, seen in theatre)- I wasn’t really interested in seeing this, but I took my grandmother for her birthday (her choice). I stayed awake through the whole movie, but that could also be attributed to seeing a 12:30 PM show, so I was pretty well-rested. The film itself was too lukewarm to justify all the controversy that has arisen, although I suppose that’s what you get when you turn a story with hot-button elements into a blockbuster, directed by a workmanlike but hardly inspired filmmaker. What the film needed was someone more extreme- either a paranoiac like, say, Oliver Stone, who might have goosed up the conspiracy elements, or someone who might have taken a more spiritual tack with it. Anything to liven up the proceedings, really- Hanks gives his most vanilla performance since, well, ever, Tautou is as opaque as ever (at least Amelie had mischievous eyes), and the movie only springs to life when McKellen and/or Bettany are onscreen. Rating: *1/2.
And now, some short DVD reviews:
OLIVER TWIST (2005, Roman Polanski)- a serviceable Dickens adaptation but rarely more, although certainly of interest as a peek into the director’s own hardscrabble childhood. Wisely Polanski doesn’t attempt to make Oliver an active protagonist, which leaves the real heavy lifting to the supporting cast- particularly Ben Kingsley as Fagin, Jamie Forman as Sykes, and Leanne Rowe as the tart-with-a-heart Nancy. As in THE PIANIST, Allan Starski’s production design is impeccable, managing to work as a place where people live rather than simply a well-designed set. Rating: **1/2.
IN YOUR HANDS (2004, Annette K. Oleson)- (SPOILER WARNING) this Dogma 95 offering feels like a spiritual cousin to BREAKING THE WAVES, with both films focusing on protagonists who are forced to fend off tragedy through unorthodox expressions of faith. Pretty fascinating (and heavy) for most of the running time- I liked the film’s portrayal of the prison in general and the tentative, clandestine relationship between guard and convict in particular- but the final twenty minutes feels oddly truncated, as though Oleson and her co-writers left out some scenes between a key confrontation and a resulting tragedy. Dug the chilly finality of the ending, however. Rating: **1/2.
DOMINO (2005, Tony Scott)- surprisingly, this was even better the second time, with the endless plot twists taking on greater context when I knew where the movie was headed. Aside from the sheer kitchen-sink feel of the movie, the film was most successful for me as an exploration of the way Americans today define themselves through popular culture (Springer as a forum for working-class minorities, 2 Live Crew played at the Sex Addicts meeting, the concept of "Celebrity Hostages," etc.). Naturally, Scott’s hallucinatory style has elicited a lot of hate for the movie, but even if the direction doesn’t work for you there’s too much here to dismiss out of hand. One of the best, and certainly the most misunderstood, Hollywood release of 2005. Rating: ***1/2.
MATCH POINT (2005, Woody Allen)- this on the other hand suffered on second viewing, as the novelty of Allen working in a British setting has worn off. At its best, the film works as a sort of Ripley movie, with all the amorality that implies. However, this amorality requires Allen to stack the deck in favor of Chris (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), and as a result the other characters are only seen in relation to him. The most obvious example is Scarlett Johansson’s Nola, who morphs from a femme fatale to a shrieking jilted lover almost overnight. By the time the film reaches its final half-hour she has become such an unpleasant character that the film almost seems to welcome her eventually fate. However, even more unfortunate is Allen’s treatment of Chris’ new wife Chloe (Emily Mortimer), who has the potential to be a classic Allen neurotic female but eventually becomes a one-note character, prattling on about wanting to get pregnant. The film is still of interest, but I can’t shake the feeling that the hype had a little something to do with the collective surprise that Allen had a film like this still in him after years of fogeyish Manhattan comedies. Rating: **1/2.
X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2006, Brett Ratner, seen in theatre)- now more than ever do I believe that the X-Men comics are better suited for a television series than a movie franchise- sure, the action is big-screen material, but the real draw of the comics seems to be the characters and the ways they work together. With so many important figures, it’s tough to delve too deeply into most of them, and so beloved mutants like Cyclops and Storm, among others, get lost in the shuffle. Nowhere in the series is this more apparent than in its third and allegedly final installment- with a heap of new mutants and nearly all the returning favorites from the previous films (I for one missed Alan Cumming’s Nightcrawler), there just isn’t enough time to give everyone his or her due while building up to the big action setpiece at the end and resolving everything plot-wise. The result isn’t a disaster (like, say, THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS), but it doesn’t quite live up to what has come before either. None of the actors really make much of an impact either, although that has as much to do with the compressed running time of the movie as it does with anything else. The best thing I can say about Ratner’s direction is that he’s not really to blame for how the film turned out- it’s adequately directed (of course, Bryan Singer is hardly Hitchcock)- but in the end the film is too bland and reeking of studio commodification to be all that interesting. Rating: **.
THE DA VINCI CODE (2006, Ron Howard, seen in theatre)- I wasn’t really interested in seeing this, but I took my grandmother for her birthday (her choice). I stayed awake through the whole movie, but that could also be attributed to seeing a 12:30 PM show, so I was pretty well-rested. The film itself was too lukewarm to justify all the controversy that has arisen, although I suppose that’s what you get when you turn a story with hot-button elements into a blockbuster, directed by a workmanlike but hardly inspired filmmaker. What the film needed was someone more extreme- either a paranoiac like, say, Oliver Stone, who might have goosed up the conspiracy elements, or someone who might have taken a more spiritual tack with it. Anything to liven up the proceedings, really- Hanks gives his most vanilla performance since, well, ever, Tautou is as opaque as ever (at least Amelie had mischievous eyes), and the movie only springs to life when McKellen and/or Bettany are onscreen. Rating: *1/2.
And now, some short DVD reviews:
OLIVER TWIST (2005, Roman Polanski)- a serviceable Dickens adaptation but rarely more, although certainly of interest as a peek into the director’s own hardscrabble childhood. Wisely Polanski doesn’t attempt to make Oliver an active protagonist, which leaves the real heavy lifting to the supporting cast- particularly Ben Kingsley as Fagin, Jamie Forman as Sykes, and Leanne Rowe as the tart-with-a-heart Nancy. As in THE PIANIST, Allan Starski’s production design is impeccable, managing to work as a place where people live rather than simply a well-designed set. Rating: **1/2.
IN YOUR HANDS (2004, Annette K. Oleson)- (SPOILER WARNING) this Dogma 95 offering feels like a spiritual cousin to BREAKING THE WAVES, with both films focusing on protagonists who are forced to fend off tragedy through unorthodox expressions of faith. Pretty fascinating (and heavy) for most of the running time- I liked the film’s portrayal of the prison in general and the tentative, clandestine relationship between guard and convict in particular- but the final twenty minutes feels oddly truncated, as though Oleson and her co-writers left out some scenes between a key confrontation and a resulting tragedy. Dug the chilly finality of the ending, however. Rating: **1/2.
DOMINO (2005, Tony Scott)- surprisingly, this was even better the second time, with the endless plot twists taking on greater context when I knew where the movie was headed. Aside from the sheer kitchen-sink feel of the movie, the film was most successful for me as an exploration of the way Americans today define themselves through popular culture (Springer as a forum for working-class minorities, 2 Live Crew played at the Sex Addicts meeting, the concept of "Celebrity Hostages," etc.). Naturally, Scott’s hallucinatory style has elicited a lot of hate for the movie, but even if the direction doesn’t work for you there’s too much here to dismiss out of hand. One of the best, and certainly the most misunderstood, Hollywood release of 2005. Rating: ***1/2.
MATCH POINT (2005, Woody Allen)- this on the other hand suffered on second viewing, as the novelty of Allen working in a British setting has worn off. At its best, the film works as a sort of Ripley movie, with all the amorality that implies. However, this amorality requires Allen to stack the deck in favor of Chris (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), and as a result the other characters are only seen in relation to him. The most obvious example is Scarlett Johansson’s Nola, who morphs from a femme fatale to a shrieking jilted lover almost overnight. By the time the film reaches its final half-hour she has become such an unpleasant character that the film almost seems to welcome her eventually fate. However, even more unfortunate is Allen’s treatment of Chris’ new wife Chloe (Emily Mortimer), who has the potential to be a classic Allen neurotic female but eventually becomes a one-note character, prattling on about wanting to get pregnant. The film is still of interest, but I can’t shake the feeling that the hype had a little something to do with the collective surprise that Allen had a film like this still in him after years of fogeyish Manhattan comedies. Rating: **1/2.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Tomorrow We Move
(2004, Chantal Akerman, seen on DVD)- Akerman's latest feels like a more comedic companion piece to her 1975 masterpiece JEANNE DIELMAN, 23 QUAI DE COMMERCE, 1080 BRUXELLES. In both films, the protagonists thrive on routine, and both films observe the effects that breaks in routine can have on them. Happily, Charlotte (TOMORROW's principle character, played by the adorable Sylvie Testud) is better able to negotiate the chaos than Jeanne- rather than DIELMAN's climactic act, Charlotte merely becomes frazzled and tries to find ways to escape, with varying degrees of success. Charlotte is a writer trying to hammer out a commissioned erotic story, but she is impeded by her life- her flighty mother (Aurore Clement) who has moved in after her husband's recent death, the jam-packed apartment in which they live, her lack of contact with the outside world, and her relative lack of experience in love. So, craving order, she decides to find a new, quieter apartment (hence the title). Much of the film's second half is devoted to Charlotte showing the apartment to various people, and Akerman turns this sequence into a mini-masterpiece of farce, with viewers showing up one right after the other and Charlotte and her mother doing their best to put them at ease, field questions, and show them around. The viewers of the apartment include characters played by Lucas Belvaux (a gruff, slightly obtuse man on the outs with his wife) and Natacha Regnier (a cheerful pregnant woman who feels like an earlier version of Amy Adams' character in JUNEBUG). By the end of the film, Akerman has redefined the film's realities, with touches of magic realism (the childbirth scene) and a musical finale that positions the apartment as a haven of femininity. In short, a delight from beginning to end. Rating: ***1/2.
And speaking of moving, I'm currently looking to move back to Columbus. I was apartment- and job-hunting last week, and I plan on checking out a few more of each in the next couple of weeks, so my days with mom and dad are numbered. Much to everyone's relief, I'm sure.
Also, good DVD-related news. The big recent announcement for nerdy types is Abkco Films' upcoming release of three of Alejandro Jodorowsky's best-known works on DVD- FANDO Y LIS, THE HOLY MOUNTAIN, and EL TOPO. No set date yet, but there's a promo reel on their site (not work-safe). I've never seen any of these, but I've always wanted to, and now I'll finally get the chance.
In addition, good news for people who are mental midgets (that's me) and like giggling (hey, that's me too). One of the greatest prematurely-cancelled but now-classic series of all time is getting released on DVD in October. I refer of course to POLICE SQUAD! In Color! So while there may be more snob-friendly releases in the pipeline (Criterion's YI YI, for example), you can be sure I'll be shelling out my twenty-some dollars come October to grin like an idiot.
And speaking of moving, I'm currently looking to move back to Columbus. I was apartment- and job-hunting last week, and I plan on checking out a few more of each in the next couple of weeks, so my days with mom and dad are numbered. Much to everyone's relief, I'm sure.
Also, good DVD-related news. The big recent announcement for nerdy types is Abkco Films' upcoming release of three of Alejandro Jodorowsky's best-known works on DVD- FANDO Y LIS, THE HOLY MOUNTAIN, and EL TOPO. No set date yet, but there's a promo reel on their site (not work-safe). I've never seen any of these, but I've always wanted to, and now I'll finally get the chance.
In addition, good news for people who are mental midgets (that's me) and like giggling (hey, that's me too). One of the greatest prematurely-cancelled but now-classic series of all time is getting released on DVD in October. I refer of course to POLICE SQUAD! In Color! So while there may be more snob-friendly releases in the pipeline (Criterion's YI YI, for example), you can be sure I'll be shelling out my twenty-some dollars come October to grin like an idiot.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
A: Because The Ringer hurled a Brick at Natalie... that's Why We Fight.
Brick (2005, Rian Johnson, seen in theatre)- I'm happy to report that this film has more going for it than a hook- hard-boiled detective noir in high school. In fact, what makes this really work is that Johnson (making his feature directing debut) isn't content to riff on the genre, but finds a way to fuse the noir sensibility with a transplanted setting. In other words, he takes noir seriously and respects the tone as well as the style. And to me, that makes all the difference. Between this film and MYSTERIOUS SKIN, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has completely left his 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN past in the dust, revealing himself to be a singularly compelling performer, and he's darn near perfect here as Brendan, a role that requires him to essay a sullen, lovelorn loner who seems just inconsequential enough that most people underestimate him. The film's story owes more than a little to Chandler and Hammett, in particular the latter's RED HARVEST, especially in the film's second half, when Brendan finds himself in the middle of a crime war. The movie's also a lot of fun to listen to, with the characters volleying elaborate dialogue that might have made Chandler (or the Coen brothers) cackle with glee. And any movie that ends with "Sister Ray" is OK by me. Rating: ***1/2.
Why We Fight (2005, Eugene Jarecki, seen in theatre)- yet another in a seemingly endless string of left-leaning political docs, this one dealing with the "military-industrial complex," a phrase coined by Pres. Eisenhower, case you hadn't heard. Problem is, there's little here that doesn't feel like secondhand info- yeah, so Cheney and friends were planning Iraq in the early 90s, and the veep's relationship with his former employer Halliburton may have enabled them to play a major role in the current war effort. Really, we've heard it all before, to the point where the few bits that don't feel recycled, like the father of the 9/11 victim who later became disillusioned with the Iraq War, don't mesh all that well with the rest. And the Philip Glass-ripoff score was annoying as hell. If you've watched any political docs lately, you've probably already seen better and learned everything this proports to teach you. Rating: *1/2.
The Ringer (2005, Barry Blaustein, seen on DVD)- this film has a late-period Farelly brothers feel to it (duh, they produced), with comedy scenes interspersed with a serious message, with THE RINGER making the case that the mentally handicapped are real people with engaging personalities. Problem is, the film just isn't as funny as it wants to be- there are a few good laughs, but it ends up being more good-natured than hilarious. The story is dragged down by a romantic subplot involving Johnny Knoxville, pretending to be mentally challeneged, falling in love with a pretty Special Olympics volunteer (Katherine Heigl), who must be fairly dense, since Knoxville's act isn't remotely convincing (nor, admittedly, is it meant to be, this being a comedy and all). Thankfully, Knoxville's fellow contestants aren't fooled, and the film's best scenes involve Knoxville bonding with these guys and learning the aforementioned lesson. I also sorta liked how the film acknowledges how convoluted its setup is, referring back to it later when Knoxville has trouble explaining it all to his new friends. In short, diverting enough, but neither as refreshingly un-P.C. or as funny as it should have been. Rating: **.
Nathalie... (2003, Anne Fontaine, seen on DVD)- it's been a week since I saw this and I barely remember anything- rarely a good sign. It's never boring, and any movie with Emmanuelle Beart in tramp mode (she's one of the few actresses who can pull it off successfully and still be hot) is worth a look, but the result is unassuming to a fault and contains a climactic twist that I saw coming a mile away. Rating: **.
Why We Fight (2005, Eugene Jarecki, seen in theatre)- yet another in a seemingly endless string of left-leaning political docs, this one dealing with the "military-industrial complex," a phrase coined by Pres. Eisenhower, case you hadn't heard. Problem is, there's little here that doesn't feel like secondhand info- yeah, so Cheney and friends were planning Iraq in the early 90s, and the veep's relationship with his former employer Halliburton may have enabled them to play a major role in the current war effort. Really, we've heard it all before, to the point where the few bits that don't feel recycled, like the father of the 9/11 victim who later became disillusioned with the Iraq War, don't mesh all that well with the rest. And the Philip Glass-ripoff score was annoying as hell. If you've watched any political docs lately, you've probably already seen better and learned everything this proports to teach you. Rating: *1/2.
The Ringer (2005, Barry Blaustein, seen on DVD)- this film has a late-period Farelly brothers feel to it (duh, they produced), with comedy scenes interspersed with a serious message, with THE RINGER making the case that the mentally handicapped are real people with engaging personalities. Problem is, the film just isn't as funny as it wants to be- there are a few good laughs, but it ends up being more good-natured than hilarious. The story is dragged down by a romantic subplot involving Johnny Knoxville, pretending to be mentally challeneged, falling in love with a pretty Special Olympics volunteer (Katherine Heigl), who must be fairly dense, since Knoxville's act isn't remotely convincing (nor, admittedly, is it meant to be, this being a comedy and all). Thankfully, Knoxville's fellow contestants aren't fooled, and the film's best scenes involve Knoxville bonding with these guys and learning the aforementioned lesson. I also sorta liked how the film acknowledges how convoluted its setup is, referring back to it later when Knoxville has trouble explaining it all to his new friends. In short, diverting enough, but neither as refreshingly un-P.C. or as funny as it should have been. Rating: **.
Nathalie... (2003, Anne Fontaine, seen on DVD)- it's been a week since I saw this and I barely remember anything- rarely a good sign. It's never boring, and any movie with Emmanuelle Beart in tramp mode (she's one of the few actresses who can pull it off successfully and still be hot) is worth a look, but the result is unassuming to a fault and contains a climactic twist that I saw coming a mile away. Rating: **.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Some links for now...
I wrote an honest-to-goodness long review! Can you believe it? I don't know how often this will happen now, given that it required a movie as amazing as THE NEW WORLD to motivate me, but we'll just have to see...
And speaking of THE NEW WORLD, it's so awesome that it actually cracked my top 100. Scroll down and see how high it placed.
Oh, I also finally posted my 2005 Coveted Opal Award nominations. Let the second-guessing commence!
And speaking of THE NEW WORLD, it's so awesome that it actually cracked my top 100. Scroll down and see how high it placed.
Oh, I also finally posted my 2005 Coveted Opal Award nominations. Let the second-guessing commence!
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Fantastical Newness
Hard Candy (2005, David Slade, seen in theatre)- intense as all hell, and disturbing too, not least because it leaves one unsure of who to root for. The film is structured as a two-hander, with almost all the action unfolding in a locked house, in which we find Jeff (Patrick Wilson), a photographer with an eye for underage girls, and Hayley (Ellen Page), a 14-year-old who hooked up with Jeff over the Web. Jeff thinks he's in control, but after Hayley drugs his drink it's clear that she has something more sinister in mind. Hayley runs the risk of feeling more like a construct of the screenplay than an actual person, but Page's performance is so spot-on that she's never less than convincing, injecting occasional bouts of uncertainty into her carefully-considered plan and sometimes having to wing it to get it back on track. Director Slade takes an interesting directorial tack with this film- rather than seeing the action primarily through the eyes of (a) the vicious girl, or (b) the pedophile she holds hostage, he stands back, recording the action from a third perspective, turning the audience into voyeurs. This may not seem to be a new idea, but (SPOILER!) given the true nature of Jeff's involvement in a certain incident in question, it makes perfect sense in retrospect. Rating: **1/2.
The Notorious Bettie Page (2005, Mary Harron, seen in theatre)- fairly entertaining but wafer-thin, Harron's film coasts mostly on the surprisingly awesome lead performance from Gretchen Mol, who provides pretty much any emotional pull the film has to offer. The film has little to offer in regards to perspective about Page's life- it's a glossy rags-to-riches-to-rags story spiced up by Page's cult status and the requisite vintage erotica. What I lacked was a reason to really care about the people onscreen- I never got the impression that the people I saw were living lives, but rather were re-enacting them for the cameras, which of course they were, but this feeling shoots the whole suspension of disbelief idea right in the ass. That the film doesn't really seem to take the time period too seriously doesn't help- most of the incidental characters are seen ironically, such as the "respectable lawyer"/bondage freak who reveals himself to be a mama's boy. As I said before, Mol's performance is top-notch, which is almost enough reason to see this. Almost. Rating: **.
Don't Come Knocking (2005, Wim Wenders)- part of the problem with Wenders' recent work is that he gets too caught up in incidental goings-on that he gives short shrift to his ostensible plots. Which is not to say that plot is the be-and-and-end-all of filmmaking- consider Howard Hawks' late period, in which he made the same movie three times- but when the film deals with a father connecting with a son he's never met, some engagement is required. Still, there's some good stuff interspersed throughout- a scene of Sam Shepard resting on a couch in the middle of the street, the sensory onslaught of a casino, a short conversation between waitress Jessica Lange and bond company stooge Tim Roth about different varieties of breakfast potatoes- but not enough to make me forget that my attentions ought to have been elsewhere. Alas, the film goes downhill once Eva Marie Saint (as Shepard's mother) exits the scene- Saint commits 100% to the story, creating a deeply felt character that holds much more interest than anyone else in the film. Rating: **.
Mirrormask (2005, Dave McKean, seen on DVD)- more fun than I had expected from a movie that looked like a distaff version of the SPY KIDS movies. Perhaps it's the Britishness of the film that makes it so enjoyable- the sense of class structure even in the fantasy world, the way this world traffics in riddles that sometimes double as clues, and the very un-video-game nature of the visual flights of fancy all contribute to the uniqueness of its vision. In the end, it's still fairly slight, but it's also entertaining enough to make that forgivable. Kinda wish I could've caught this on the big screen, however. Rating: **1/2.
A Perfect Couple (1979, Robert Altman, seen on DVD)- "minor Altman," as Professor Berkman might say, but Altman's still Altman, and his cockeyed vision of the world informs every frame of this. The bits with Paul Dooley's staunchly conservative Greek family feel almost cliché, but Dooley himself is sort of marvelous here, making for a capable, albeit unconventional, romantic lead (his female counterpart is Marta Heflin, an ideal Altman camera subject, who depending on the camera angle can become hard or soft, pretty or homely). I also dug the stuff with the band with which Heflin sings, "Keepin' 'Em Off the Streets" (lead singer: Ted Neeley), with Altman's knack for capturing musical performances as peerless as ever. This is hardly canonical Altman, but for a second-rank piece it'll do quite nicely. Rating: ***.
The Notorious Bettie Page (2005, Mary Harron, seen in theatre)- fairly entertaining but wafer-thin, Harron's film coasts mostly on the surprisingly awesome lead performance from Gretchen Mol, who provides pretty much any emotional pull the film has to offer. The film has little to offer in regards to perspective about Page's life- it's a glossy rags-to-riches-to-rags story spiced up by Page's cult status and the requisite vintage erotica. What I lacked was a reason to really care about the people onscreen- I never got the impression that the people I saw were living lives, but rather were re-enacting them for the cameras, which of course they were, but this feeling shoots the whole suspension of disbelief idea right in the ass. That the film doesn't really seem to take the time period too seriously doesn't help- most of the incidental characters are seen ironically, such as the "respectable lawyer"/bondage freak who reveals himself to be a mama's boy. As I said before, Mol's performance is top-notch, which is almost enough reason to see this. Almost. Rating: **.
Don't Come Knocking (2005, Wim Wenders)- part of the problem with Wenders' recent work is that he gets too caught up in incidental goings-on that he gives short shrift to his ostensible plots. Which is not to say that plot is the be-and-and-end-all of filmmaking- consider Howard Hawks' late period, in which he made the same movie three times- but when the film deals with a father connecting with a son he's never met, some engagement is required. Still, there's some good stuff interspersed throughout- a scene of Sam Shepard resting on a couch in the middle of the street, the sensory onslaught of a casino, a short conversation between waitress Jessica Lange and bond company stooge Tim Roth about different varieties of breakfast potatoes- but not enough to make me forget that my attentions ought to have been elsewhere. Alas, the film goes downhill once Eva Marie Saint (as Shepard's mother) exits the scene- Saint commits 100% to the story, creating a deeply felt character that holds much more interest than anyone else in the film. Rating: **.
Mirrormask (2005, Dave McKean, seen on DVD)- more fun than I had expected from a movie that looked like a distaff version of the SPY KIDS movies. Perhaps it's the Britishness of the film that makes it so enjoyable- the sense of class structure even in the fantasy world, the way this world traffics in riddles that sometimes double as clues, and the very un-video-game nature of the visual flights of fancy all contribute to the uniqueness of its vision. In the end, it's still fairly slight, but it's also entertaining enough to make that forgivable. Kinda wish I could've caught this on the big screen, however. Rating: **1/2.
A Perfect Couple (1979, Robert Altman, seen on DVD)- "minor Altman," as Professor Berkman might say, but Altman's still Altman, and his cockeyed vision of the world informs every frame of this. The bits with Paul Dooley's staunchly conservative Greek family feel almost cliché, but Dooley himself is sort of marvelous here, making for a capable, albeit unconventional, romantic lead (his female counterpart is Marta Heflin, an ideal Altman camera subject, who depending on the camera angle can become hard or soft, pretty or homely). I also dug the stuff with the band with which Heflin sings, "Keepin' 'Em Off the Streets" (lead singer: Ted Neeley), with Altman's knack for capturing musical performances as peerless as ever. This is hardly canonical Altman, but for a second-rank piece it'll do quite nicely. Rating: ***.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Have you ever hated a movie enough that you wanted to punch the director in the face?
Battle in Heaven (2005, Carlos Reygadas, seen in theatre)- Yes, the title of the post applies to this movie. I'm normally pretty lenient on movies that are ambitious and are clearly aiming to be original. However, this feels like a parody of Serious World Cinema. Consider that the film contains (a) unsimulated and unerotic sex between people who make the subjects of Francis Bacon paintings look like supermodels, (b) copious religious imagery, (c) overly mannered camera work, and (d) a random act of violence. Now, a good film could be made that uses some of these elements- for example, Bruno Dumont's TWENTYNINE PALMS. But Dumont not only has a gift for framing vivid images but also actually views his characters as people rather than the loaded symbols we see in Reygadas' work. Reygadas suffuses his work with such a sense of suffocating self-importance that it's blatantly obvious that nothing (or no one) is meant to be taken simply at face value. Both in his first film, JAPON, and now here, it's clear that the guy is out to portray the culture clash that takes place in Mexico- one of the most heavyhanded moments in JAPON found his philosophical protagonist drunkenly beating the shit of a cantina boom box for playing popular music, fer chrissakes- and from the first shots of BATTLE IN HEAVEN he's up to his old tricks. The film opens with the middle-aged, corpulent, dark-skinned Marcos being fellated by young light-skinned hottie Ana, and the camera pans down to her face to reveal that she's crying. Um, yeah. This is echoed by the film's final scene, which is either a dying fantasy or a vision of the afterlife in which Marcos and Ana declare their love for each other. I'm not sure which option I hate more. I'm not even sure we can take the idea of love at face value in the final scene, since after all she's still giving him head, hardly a position of equality. Of course, I don't think he's talking about equality after all, but rather the fall of the bourgeoisie and the rise of the underclass. But talk of class warfare seems hollow when it's clear you don't give a shit about either class. This is made abundantly clear by the film's third act, in which Marcos responds to the aforementioned act of violence by embarking on a religious pilgrimage, crawling toward his destination while a fanatic yells out "No more drugs! No more titties!" Was it really Reygadas' goal to portray the Mexican proletariat as a bunch of sheep who are religious zealots at heart? Or wasn't I supposed to take this seriously? I can almost believe this was meant to be a comedy, but Reygadas has a funny way of showing it. Either way, I'm done with this dude. Rating: *.
When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (1960, Mikio Naruse, seen in theatre)- my first exposure to Naruse, and quite as pleasant one at that. I was surprised twofold at the outset- not only was the film in black and white 'Scope (one of my cinematic fetishes) but it was a lot more modern in style than I had anticipated for a film about a woman's limited roles in Japanese society. I found the character arc of Keiko (Hideko Takamine), aka Mama-san, an aging bar hostess who is becoming discontented with her station in life, to be fairly compelling, although to my mind she's befallen by at least one too many personal setbacks, which makes the film feel a touch too long. No matter- I'm curious to see more Naruse, although since I missed the rest of the retrospective who knows when that'll happen. Rating: ***.
The Syrian Bride (2004, Eran Riklis, seen in theatre)- a diverting film in two parts- the first half deals with the preparations for a wedding between a woman living in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and a Syrian soap star she's never met, and the second details her difficulties at the border. Political implications aside, the first half is fairly conventional wedding-movie stuff, with the family's conflicts and resentments bubbling to the surface- the son who has been cast out for marrying a Russian, the onetime-revolutionary father who may not be able to attend the wedding for legal reasons, the strong-willed sister whose husband is uneasy about her independence, and so on. I prefer the second half, which reminded me a bit of (the admittedly superior) NO MAN'S LAND, in which the characters were trapped by international diplomacy and politics. Of the cast, Hiam Abbass effortlessly places first as the bride's sister, caring and supportive of everyone in her life but also yearning to break out of her traditional woman's role. Not a great film, but watching it on the same day as BATTLE IN HEAVEN certainly made me appreciate its modest pleasures all the more. Rating: **1/2.
When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (1960, Mikio Naruse, seen in theatre)- my first exposure to Naruse, and quite as pleasant one at that. I was surprised twofold at the outset- not only was the film in black and white 'Scope (one of my cinematic fetishes) but it was a lot more modern in style than I had anticipated for a film about a woman's limited roles in Japanese society. I found the character arc of Keiko (Hideko Takamine), aka Mama-san, an aging bar hostess who is becoming discontented with her station in life, to be fairly compelling, although to my mind she's befallen by at least one too many personal setbacks, which makes the film feel a touch too long. No matter- I'm curious to see more Naruse, although since I missed the rest of the retrospective who knows when that'll happen. Rating: ***.
The Syrian Bride (2004, Eran Riklis, seen in theatre)- a diverting film in two parts- the first half deals with the preparations for a wedding between a woman living in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and a Syrian soap star she's never met, and the second details her difficulties at the border. Political implications aside, the first half is fairly conventional wedding-movie stuff, with the family's conflicts and resentments bubbling to the surface- the son who has been cast out for marrying a Russian, the onetime-revolutionary father who may not be able to attend the wedding for legal reasons, the strong-willed sister whose husband is uneasy about her independence, and so on. I prefer the second half, which reminded me a bit of (the admittedly superior) NO MAN'S LAND, in which the characters were trapped by international diplomacy and politics. Of the cast, Hiam Abbass effortlessly places first as the bride's sister, caring and supportive of everyone in her life but also yearning to break out of her traditional woman's role. Not a great film, but watching it on the same day as BATTLE IN HEAVEN certainly made me appreciate its modest pleasures all the more. Rating: **1/2.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Sometimes I don't know why I bother with this when I only have time to update once a week and by the time I update I have a huge backlog and this is a
test to see how long a title I can use. Guess I have my answer. Anyway...
- The Sci-Fi Marathon was awesome. I even almost managed to stay up the whole time (I nodded off for twenty minutes or so during BATMAN, which since I've seen it dozens of time was no big whoop). But aside from the asswipe behind me who thought was making with the less-than-witty snide remarks almost the entire 24 hours I had a blast. Can't expect perfection in a theatre full of nerds, I guess.
Moving on, the movies themselves. Highlights were, as expected, FORBIDDEN PLANET and THE CRAZIES, neither of which I'd seen previously. FORBIDDEN PLANET is pretty widely acknowledged as a classic of its kind, and the rep is justified. It lacks the cheesiness common to most sci-fi films of the period, in large part because genre trappings aside it's a psychological drama (that the monster is largely unseen helps). As a result, the subtext- that no matter how advanced man becomes, he's still a slave to his primal nature- is taken much more seriously than in most old-school Hollywood sci-fi movies, as well as being seen with much more complexity. And while the human performers are uniformly good without being show-offy, the real star is of course Robby the Robot, who also turned up at the marathon in the old TWILIGHT ZONE episode "Uncle Simon" and in a villainous role in the dopey, forgettable THE INVISIBLE BOY.
On the basis of George A. Romero's best work, I'd say that his pet theme is the ease with which the human race is thrown into chaos and turmoil, be it as a result of zombies or, in the case of THE CRAZIES, an outbreak of a disease in a small town. While the Army swiftly tries to impose order and various government departments bicker over ways to fight the disease, social order collapses and the townspeople are basically left to fend for themselves against not only the army who would round them up but also the disease itself, which they know little about. There are moments of human feeling in the film, but Romero is less interested in baiting the audience's emotions than examining the messiness emotions can cause when confronted by an unflinching terror. The film's final reel is at least as bleak as the climax of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, with a deliberately hollow happy ending following a much more troubling one. THE CRAZIES definitely deserves to be ranked alongside Romero's best work.
Alas, I'd already seen quite a few films at the marathon, and of the ones that were new to me, not all of the films were good. One of the area premieres, the Russian mockumentary FIRST ON THE MOON, was pretty disastrous. An account of an abortive, apocryphal Soviet space mission back in the 30s, the film is ugly to look at and narratively incoherent. Not to mention un-funny- I wouldn't have pegged it for a comedy but for the presence of a little person on the flight crew, with resulting failed sight gags. I don't think this went over well with the crowd at all, and I gotta say I was with them.
Another unpopular choice was the inclusion of half a dozen entries from the 1943 serial THE BATMAN. The politically incorrect portrayal of the Japanese supervillain was good for a few chuckles, as well as the endless scenes of Batman and Robin getting the shit beat out of them, but the Batman here bears little to no resemblance to the modern incarnation, and I even found myself missing the campiness of the Adam West series.
And what Sci-Fi Marathon would be complete without a Japanese monster movie? This year's selection was GODZILLA: FINAL WARS, which was about half an awesome Godzilla movie. The problem is that director Ryuhei Kitamura, who previously dropped VERSUS on us, doesn't really care all that much about making the kickass Godzilla-movie-to-end-all-Godzilla-movies that this really ought to have been. In other words, he concentrates wayyyyyyyyyy too much on the damn PEOPLE. Come on dude, it's Godzilla. People don't come to see choppily edited kung fu or interplanetary warfare. They want guys in monster suits clumsily knocking each other around. And while the early scenes of this nature have a disappointing highlight-reel vibe (Big G is missing for the entire first half of the movie), once Godzilla joins the fray it's pretty fun. Glad to see Godzuki on the scene too, keeping his childlike sense of wonder even after (SPOILER) he grows to formidable size.
For ratings, see my screening log.
Other stuff of note:
- United 93 (2006, Paul Greengrass, seen in theatre)- this is pretty much a textbook definition of onscreen immediacy, as Greengrass places the audience squarely on 9/11, telling the story almost as though 9/12 has yet to arrive. Occasional lingering on grief aside the film is hardly exploitative, but this is nonetheless a horror film, and quite an effective one at that, and like most of the best it starts off fairly quietly, setting the scene and observing as the horror gradually unfolds. As the day transpires, we alternate between the military and civilian controls trying to make sense of the escalating chaos and the fateful flight itself. The scenes on the ground hold a certain fascination, as each of the control rooms operates professionally and to the best of their ability, but due to various factors- government red tape, procedures, lack of information, perhaps an offscreen reading of "My Pet Goat" in a Florida classroom- they find themselves powerless to stop the situation (so pervasive is the film's immediacy that it took me almost an hour to recognize DePalma stalwart Gregg Henry). But the film's final hour confines itself to the last minutes on United 93, as the passengers on the hijacked plane use the airphones to discover what has happened on the ground and eventually formulate a plan to take back the plane, less out of the need for survival than a fight-or-flight response to the knowledge that they'll die like the others regardless of their actions. To be honest I would need to see this again to properly rate it, mostly because I don't entirely trust my feelings when it comes to a film this visceral- it's hard to discount my immediate reaction, but it's this reaction that hampers my ability to distance myself from the film enough to judge it objectively. All the same, this is a work that demands to be seen, and more importantly, a very good film. Rating: ***.
- Friends With Money (2006, Nicole Holofcener, seen in theatres)- meh. Might have worked a little better with a lead actress other than Jennifer Aniston- yeah, her looks are distracting, but this is only really damaging because she's not a deep enough actress to convince us she's a single L.A. woman with a low-paying job and few prospects who would subject herself to multiple demeaning dates with a jerk who takes her money, as well as saying yes to a date with a schlubby slob without a job. Of course, I'm sure people like her exist in the world, but she didn't make me believe it. And the actresses around her do little except playing their usual types- McDormand and Keener have a veritable sass-and-smartass showdown throughout the movie, and Cusack gets so little screen time that she doesn't get much chance to be anything but quirky. It's entertaining enough in the moment, but as I said before I didn't buy what the film was selling. Rating: **.
- I compiled a top 10 Best Picture Winners list for Edward Copeland's poll tonight, with the intent of adding commentary sometime in the future. Okay guys, stop laughing. Anyhoo, the list.
1. Annie Hall
2. Lawrence of Arabia
3. Casablanca
4. West Side Story
5. On the Waterfront
6. The Apartment
7. The Godfather
8. It Happened One Night
9. Unforgiven
10. Rebecca
Comments to come, perhaps. The top 5 are in my top 100, so maybe I'll just do links with abbreviated remarks.
- I went to the doctor's office yesterday for some blood tests. I was pretty proud of myself, as for the first time I actually watch the blood being taken instead of closing my eyes like a wussy. But my tough-guy act was short lived, as I still had to deal with taking off the bandage last night before I showered. Sensitive skin plus copious arm hair plus adhesive bandage equals bad combination, folks. The mark from the needle had all but disappeared, but now I have two painful scars from the bandage. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't bandages supposed to help wounds heal, not create new ones?
- The Sci-Fi Marathon was awesome. I even almost managed to stay up the whole time (I nodded off for twenty minutes or so during BATMAN, which since I've seen it dozens of time was no big whoop). But aside from the asswipe behind me who thought was making with the less-than-witty snide remarks almost the entire 24 hours I had a blast. Can't expect perfection in a theatre full of nerds, I guess.
Moving on, the movies themselves. Highlights were, as expected, FORBIDDEN PLANET and THE CRAZIES, neither of which I'd seen previously. FORBIDDEN PLANET is pretty widely acknowledged as a classic of its kind, and the rep is justified. It lacks the cheesiness common to most sci-fi films of the period, in large part because genre trappings aside it's a psychological drama (that the monster is largely unseen helps). As a result, the subtext- that no matter how advanced man becomes, he's still a slave to his primal nature- is taken much more seriously than in most old-school Hollywood sci-fi movies, as well as being seen with much more complexity. And while the human performers are uniformly good without being show-offy, the real star is of course Robby the Robot, who also turned up at the marathon in the old TWILIGHT ZONE episode "Uncle Simon" and in a villainous role in the dopey, forgettable THE INVISIBLE BOY.
On the basis of George A. Romero's best work, I'd say that his pet theme is the ease with which the human race is thrown into chaos and turmoil, be it as a result of zombies or, in the case of THE CRAZIES, an outbreak of a disease in a small town. While the Army swiftly tries to impose order and various government departments bicker over ways to fight the disease, social order collapses and the townspeople are basically left to fend for themselves against not only the army who would round them up but also the disease itself, which they know little about. There are moments of human feeling in the film, but Romero is less interested in baiting the audience's emotions than examining the messiness emotions can cause when confronted by an unflinching terror. The film's final reel is at least as bleak as the climax of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, with a deliberately hollow happy ending following a much more troubling one. THE CRAZIES definitely deserves to be ranked alongside Romero's best work.
Alas, I'd already seen quite a few films at the marathon, and of the ones that were new to me, not all of the films were good. One of the area premieres, the Russian mockumentary FIRST ON THE MOON, was pretty disastrous. An account of an abortive, apocryphal Soviet space mission back in the 30s, the film is ugly to look at and narratively incoherent. Not to mention un-funny- I wouldn't have pegged it for a comedy but for the presence of a little person on the flight crew, with resulting failed sight gags. I don't think this went over well with the crowd at all, and I gotta say I was with them.
Another unpopular choice was the inclusion of half a dozen entries from the 1943 serial THE BATMAN. The politically incorrect portrayal of the Japanese supervillain was good for a few chuckles, as well as the endless scenes of Batman and Robin getting the shit beat out of them, but the Batman here bears little to no resemblance to the modern incarnation, and I even found myself missing the campiness of the Adam West series.
And what Sci-Fi Marathon would be complete without a Japanese monster movie? This year's selection was GODZILLA: FINAL WARS, which was about half an awesome Godzilla movie. The problem is that director Ryuhei Kitamura, who previously dropped VERSUS on us, doesn't really care all that much about making the kickass Godzilla-movie-to-end-all-Godzilla-movies that this really ought to have been. In other words, he concentrates wayyyyyyyyyy too much on the damn PEOPLE. Come on dude, it's Godzilla. People don't come to see choppily edited kung fu or interplanetary warfare. They want guys in monster suits clumsily knocking each other around. And while the early scenes of this nature have a disappointing highlight-reel vibe (Big G is missing for the entire first half of the movie), once Godzilla joins the fray it's pretty fun. Glad to see Godzuki on the scene too, keeping his childlike sense of wonder even after (SPOILER) he grows to formidable size.
For ratings, see my screening log.
Other stuff of note:
- United 93 (2006, Paul Greengrass, seen in theatre)- this is pretty much a textbook definition of onscreen immediacy, as Greengrass places the audience squarely on 9/11, telling the story almost as though 9/12 has yet to arrive. Occasional lingering on grief aside the film is hardly exploitative, but this is nonetheless a horror film, and quite an effective one at that, and like most of the best it starts off fairly quietly, setting the scene and observing as the horror gradually unfolds. As the day transpires, we alternate between the military and civilian controls trying to make sense of the escalating chaos and the fateful flight itself. The scenes on the ground hold a certain fascination, as each of the control rooms operates professionally and to the best of their ability, but due to various factors- government red tape, procedures, lack of information, perhaps an offscreen reading of "My Pet Goat" in a Florida classroom- they find themselves powerless to stop the situation (so pervasive is the film's immediacy that it took me almost an hour to recognize DePalma stalwart Gregg Henry). But the film's final hour confines itself to the last minutes on United 93, as the passengers on the hijacked plane use the airphones to discover what has happened on the ground and eventually formulate a plan to take back the plane, less out of the need for survival than a fight-or-flight response to the knowledge that they'll die like the others regardless of their actions. To be honest I would need to see this again to properly rate it, mostly because I don't entirely trust my feelings when it comes to a film this visceral- it's hard to discount my immediate reaction, but it's this reaction that hampers my ability to distance myself from the film enough to judge it objectively. All the same, this is a work that demands to be seen, and more importantly, a very good film. Rating: ***.
- Friends With Money (2006, Nicole Holofcener, seen in theatres)- meh. Might have worked a little better with a lead actress other than Jennifer Aniston- yeah, her looks are distracting, but this is only really damaging because she's not a deep enough actress to convince us she's a single L.A. woman with a low-paying job and few prospects who would subject herself to multiple demeaning dates with a jerk who takes her money, as well as saying yes to a date with a schlubby slob without a job. Of course, I'm sure people like her exist in the world, but she didn't make me believe it. And the actresses around her do little except playing their usual types- McDormand and Keener have a veritable sass-and-smartass showdown throughout the movie, and Cusack gets so little screen time that she doesn't get much chance to be anything but quirky. It's entertaining enough in the moment, but as I said before I didn't buy what the film was selling. Rating: **.
- I compiled a top 10 Best Picture Winners list for Edward Copeland's poll tonight, with the intent of adding commentary sometime in the future. Okay guys, stop laughing. Anyhoo, the list.
1. Annie Hall
2. Lawrence of Arabia
3. Casablanca
4. West Side Story
5. On the Waterfront
6. The Apartment
7. The Godfather
8. It Happened One Night
9. Unforgiven
10. Rebecca
Comments to come, perhaps. The top 5 are in my top 100, so maybe I'll just do links with abbreviated remarks.
- I went to the doctor's office yesterday for some blood tests. I was pretty proud of myself, as for the first time I actually watch the blood being taken instead of closing my eyes like a wussy. But my tough-guy act was short lived, as I still had to deal with taking off the bandage last night before I showered. Sensitive skin plus copious arm hair plus adhesive bandage equals bad combination, folks. The mark from the needle had all but disappeared, but now I have two painful scars from the bandage. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't bandages supposed to help wounds heal, not create new ones?
Friday, April 21, 2006
Been a while, I know. (some spoilers)
- I know I haven't posted it almost two weeks, but I have a good reason. Namely, my boss has been away at a conference so I have to work pretty much every day to hold down the fort until he comes back. If you read my screening log you may notice that I've watched exactly 5 (five) movies since April 9, the date of my last update. When I don't have time to watch movies, much less write about them, you know I'm busy.
- I'm sure you've all seen the Cannes competition slate, but here it is again (note: some translations are taken from articles I've read; others are mine and mine alone):
Pedro ALMODOVAR - Volver
Andrea ARNOLD - Red Road
Lucas BELVAUX - The Weakest Is Always Right
Rachid BOUCHAREB - Days of Glory
Nuri Bilge CEYLAN- Climates
Sofia COPPOLA - Marie-Antoinette
Pedro COSTA - Juventude Em Marcha
Guillermo DEL TORO - Pan’s Labyrinth
Bruno DUMONT - Flanders
Nicole GARCIA - Selon Charlie
Xavier GIANNOLI - When I Become a Singer
Alejandro GONZALEZ INARRITU - Babel
Aki KAURISMAKI - Lights in the Dusk
Richard KELLY - Southland Tales
Richard LINKLATER - Fast Food Nation
Ken LOACH - The Wind That Shakes the Barley
LOU Ye - Summer Palace
Nanni MORETTI - The Caiman
Paolo SORRENTINO - My Family’s Friend
Who will prez Wong Kar-Wai's jury award this year? Right now, sight unseen, I'm predicting Almodovar, whose romantic fatalism seems to be in Wong's wheelhouse. Although I wouldn't rule out someone like Coppola, whose approach to period material is unconventional and pop enough to get attention, provided the film doesn't blow, which I think it very well could (I'm not a LOST IN TRANSLATION fan either, so don't mind me).
With no Lynch or DePalma in competition, I'm rooting for Kaurismaki, who I don't think has much chance to win, as well as Dumont, who given Cannes' recent efforts to mainstream is a bit of surprise here, although this could mean that the movie is awesome. Also nice to see Linklater there, making a belated first appearance in the main event, although barring a strong second presence on the jury a la Tilda Swinton in '04 I don't see this year going too political (sorry Linklater, Loach and Moretti).
I'm hoping that SOUTHLAND TALES turns out awesome, although honestly it could go either way (I should have more faith in Kelly, given DONNIE DARKO and his work on the DOMINO screenplay). And it would be nice to see PAN'S LABYRINTH be a success, so that Del Toro can break out of the "pretty good" rut he's been in since MIMIC.
I wouldn't rule out any of the unknown (for me) quantities- Giannoli, Costa, Bouchareb, Arnold, Sorrentino- being a big contender. In short, there's really no world-beater here, which always makes for an interesting fest.
- Tomorrow I'm driving down to Columbus for the Sci-Fi Marathon. Should be a blast, as always. I actually haven't been down there since I moved last summer, so it'll be nice to be back, if only for a few days.
And now, some short short reviews:
Slither (2006, James Gunn, seen in theatre)- some kind of grossout classic, with Gunn clearly enjoying his chance to obliterate the envelope of good taste in the name of both ickyness and laughs (I almost typed "yucks and yuks" but decided against it lest I sound like a reject from Variety). Nathan Fillion, after this and SERENITY, has a knack for the playing an antihero who's quick with quips, but Michael Rooker (under layer after layer of creature makeup) and Gregg Henry (under nothing but street clothes and a heavy sheen of sleaze) rule every scene in which they appear. It's not respectable- heck, it's not even TREMORS- but fun while it lasts. Rating: **1/2.
The Edukators (2004, Hans Weingartner, seen on DVD)- a movie about so-called revolutionaries shouldn't go down this easy, should it? When one character bemoans the way the hippie culture was eventually co-opted by the commercial and fashion mainstreams, I couldn't help but think the same of our heroes here- a group of "pure" revolutionaries who are so un-alarming that they may as well be the inoffensive "edgy" hosts of a kids' talk show. Once they take a hostage- how lucky are they that they got THAT hostage, by the way?- the movie grinds to a standstill as they talk about the idea of revolution. Really, that's what this movie's philosophy of revolution is anyway- all talk. The film's final reel leans heavily on Jeff Buckley's recording of "Hallelujah"- how slow on the uptake does a film have to be to get scooped by the likes of SHREK? Rating: *1/2.
Vixen! (1968, Russ Meyer) and SuperVixens! (1975, Russ Meyer) (both seen on DVD)- I'm working my way through Meyer's catalog, and judging by these two films I'm gonna have lots of fun. Not much to say about Vixen!, a film that's almost review-proof. The sex in the film is pretty tame (hard to believe this once got an X), but Meyer's skill with the genre and his sick sense of humor ("we haven't done this since we were twelve" springs to mind) distinguishes this film from its imitators. Erica Gavin wasn't a great actress or anything, but as a found object she's perfect for the film, which succeeds largely due to her considerable charms. SuperVixens!, on the other hand, is pretty batshit, in the best of ways. More than any other director I can think of, Meyer wore his obsessions on his filmmaking sleeve, and SuperVixens! is chock full of Meyer goodness- over-the-top violence, lurid melodrama, back-roads Americana, and above all brassy, sex-crazed, hyper-endowed "voluptua". This is a film that must be taken in the right spirit to be enjoyed- most people of taste will check out during a graphic trampling-and-electrocution scene early on- but if you survive to the "third act" the film turns almost into Meyer's version of VERTIGO, as the film's hero meets the doppelganger of his lost love and is then forced to defend himself against, and save her from, a psychopathic cop who intends to kill them both. Charles Napier is pretty great as the cop, snarling vividly through his perma-sneer throughout the film until his final curtain call, when he momentarily breaks the fourth wall with a brilliant pantomimed aside into the camera. Also, tits, and lots of of 'em, if you like that sort of thing. Ratings- Vixen!: **1/2. SuperVixens: ***.
- I'm sure you've all seen the Cannes competition slate, but here it is again (note: some translations are taken from articles I've read; others are mine and mine alone):
Pedro ALMODOVAR - Volver
Andrea ARNOLD - Red Road
Lucas BELVAUX - The Weakest Is Always Right
Rachid BOUCHAREB - Days of Glory
Nuri Bilge CEYLAN- Climates
Sofia COPPOLA - Marie-Antoinette
Pedro COSTA - Juventude Em Marcha
Guillermo DEL TORO - Pan’s Labyrinth
Bruno DUMONT - Flanders
Nicole GARCIA - Selon Charlie
Xavier GIANNOLI - When I Become a Singer
Alejandro GONZALEZ INARRITU - Babel
Aki KAURISMAKI - Lights in the Dusk
Richard KELLY - Southland Tales
Richard LINKLATER - Fast Food Nation
Ken LOACH - The Wind That Shakes the Barley
LOU Ye - Summer Palace
Nanni MORETTI - The Caiman
Paolo SORRENTINO - My Family’s Friend
Who will prez Wong Kar-Wai's jury award this year? Right now, sight unseen, I'm predicting Almodovar, whose romantic fatalism seems to be in Wong's wheelhouse. Although I wouldn't rule out someone like Coppola, whose approach to period material is unconventional and pop enough to get attention, provided the film doesn't blow, which I think it very well could (I'm not a LOST IN TRANSLATION fan either, so don't mind me).
With no Lynch or DePalma in competition, I'm rooting for Kaurismaki, who I don't think has much chance to win, as well as Dumont, who given Cannes' recent efforts to mainstream is a bit of surprise here, although this could mean that the movie is awesome. Also nice to see Linklater there, making a belated first appearance in the main event, although barring a strong second presence on the jury a la Tilda Swinton in '04 I don't see this year going too political (sorry Linklater, Loach and Moretti).
I'm hoping that SOUTHLAND TALES turns out awesome, although honestly it could go either way (I should have more faith in Kelly, given DONNIE DARKO and his work on the DOMINO screenplay). And it would be nice to see PAN'S LABYRINTH be a success, so that Del Toro can break out of the "pretty good" rut he's been in since MIMIC.
I wouldn't rule out any of the unknown (for me) quantities- Giannoli, Costa, Bouchareb, Arnold, Sorrentino- being a big contender. In short, there's really no world-beater here, which always makes for an interesting fest.
- Tomorrow I'm driving down to Columbus for the Sci-Fi Marathon. Should be a blast, as always. I actually haven't been down there since I moved last summer, so it'll be nice to be back, if only for a few days.
And now, some short short reviews:
Slither (2006, James Gunn, seen in theatre)- some kind of grossout classic, with Gunn clearly enjoying his chance to obliterate the envelope of good taste in the name of both ickyness and laughs (I almost typed "yucks and yuks" but decided against it lest I sound like a reject from Variety). Nathan Fillion, after this and SERENITY, has a knack for the playing an antihero who's quick with quips, but Michael Rooker (under layer after layer of creature makeup) and Gregg Henry (under nothing but street clothes and a heavy sheen of sleaze) rule every scene in which they appear. It's not respectable- heck, it's not even TREMORS- but fun while it lasts. Rating: **1/2.
The Edukators (2004, Hans Weingartner, seen on DVD)- a movie about so-called revolutionaries shouldn't go down this easy, should it? When one character bemoans the way the hippie culture was eventually co-opted by the commercial and fashion mainstreams, I couldn't help but think the same of our heroes here- a group of "pure" revolutionaries who are so un-alarming that they may as well be the inoffensive "edgy" hosts of a kids' talk show. Once they take a hostage- how lucky are they that they got THAT hostage, by the way?- the movie grinds to a standstill as they talk about the idea of revolution. Really, that's what this movie's philosophy of revolution is anyway- all talk. The film's final reel leans heavily on Jeff Buckley's recording of "Hallelujah"- how slow on the uptake does a film have to be to get scooped by the likes of SHREK? Rating: *1/2.
Vixen! (1968, Russ Meyer) and SuperVixens! (1975, Russ Meyer) (both seen on DVD)- I'm working my way through Meyer's catalog, and judging by these two films I'm gonna have lots of fun. Not much to say about Vixen!, a film that's almost review-proof. The sex in the film is pretty tame (hard to believe this once got an X), but Meyer's skill with the genre and his sick sense of humor ("we haven't done this since we were twelve" springs to mind) distinguishes this film from its imitators. Erica Gavin wasn't a great actress or anything, but as a found object she's perfect for the film, which succeeds largely due to her considerable charms. SuperVixens!, on the other hand, is pretty batshit, in the best of ways. More than any other director I can think of, Meyer wore his obsessions on his filmmaking sleeve, and SuperVixens! is chock full of Meyer goodness- over-the-top violence, lurid melodrama, back-roads Americana, and above all brassy, sex-crazed, hyper-endowed "voluptua". This is a film that must be taken in the right spirit to be enjoyed- most people of taste will check out during a graphic trampling-and-electrocution scene early on- but if you survive to the "third act" the film turns almost into Meyer's version of VERTIGO, as the film's hero meets the doppelganger of his lost love and is then forced to defend himself against, and save her from, a psychopathic cop who intends to kill them both. Charles Napier is pretty great as the cop, snarling vividly through his perma-sneer throughout the film until his final curtain call, when he momentarily breaks the fourth wall with a brilliant pantomimed aside into the camera. Also, tits, and lots of of 'em, if you like that sort of thing. Ratings- Vixen!: **1/2. SuperVixens: ***.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
When oh when will the Fundie movement jump the shark? Also, reviews.
Some reviews to come, but first a link...
Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!! They're being intolerant of my intolerance!!
See, I always thought that part of living in a civilized society was learning to accommodate people with different beliefs. I guess not. Do I think diversity and sensitivity courses should be 100% mandatory? Not really- you can't force your beliefs on people, even if you're right. But "I'll say whatever the hell I want and if you feel oppressed, tough shit" isn't a sensible policy either. OK, let me get this straight- you've known since you were little that everyone in the world isn't like you, you've had all this time to get used to it, and you still can't handle that not everyone believes as you do or acts as you would? Talk about your whiny babies. Maybe you could build a cute little Shyamalanesque Village and let the rest of us live in the 21st century.
Wait a sec, that sounded pretty intolerant. Sorry about that.
Having been raised in the Catholic faith, I have a good deal of respect for religion, despite not currently being a practicing member. As such, I can't help but feel like the Fundies are ruining it for everyone else. And that goes for all fundamentalist religions- just as not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians are rabid Bible-thumpers. Many find a place for God and his teachings in their lives without allowing their beliefs to impede on the peaceful lives of others. So when a certain subset of Christians feels the need to spread their bigotry in the guise of religious teaching, while it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, I refuse to extrapolate this relatively small group into the whole of Christian America.
What level-headed believers in a loving God need to do is to stand up to this vocal minority who pretends to speak for everyone. Call it the "Not In His Name" movement- a forceful reaction to those who would voice their hatred and closed-mindedness through the faith. I know there are plenty of faithful who don't feel the need to oppress others, but they don't seem to be heard above the shouts of the Fundies. Because as I've said before, when it comes to getting attention, it isn't about how much you're hurt, but how loudly you cry.
Wow, that was a lot longer than I'd originally planned. Wonder what I think of fundamentalists...
THANK YOU FOR SMOKING (2005, Jason Reitman, seen in theatre)- while often very funny, the comedy here feels too easy in spots (Nick's visit to Hollywood, complete with a nattering Adam Brody and Rob Lowe's Asian fetish, seems most guilty of this) before setting into a kind of twisted-Capra groove which extols the virtues of thinking for oneself. Director Reitman, son of Ivan, works in his own daddy stuff through the storyline involving Nick and his kid, which goes down surprisingly well under the circumstances. I think it helps that the kid makes a good sounding board for Nick as well as an audience surrogate- we're with Nick when he is, but his objections by and large follow those of the audience. And of course the role of Nick fits star Aaron Eckhart like a glove- a smooth-talker with only the vaguest hint of smarm, which distracts from how intelligent and quick-thinking he really is. Everyone who sees this seems to have a favorite scene- mine's the one with Sam Elliott as the cancer-afflicted ex-Marlboro Man, in which Nick brilliantly levels with him and applies reverse psychology to convince him to accept a payoff from a tobacco company. Rating: **1/2.
THE BAXTER (2005, Michael Showalter, seen on DVD)- a film as unassuming and forgettable as the person described by the title (he's the safe alternative to the dashing romantic hero, not to be confused with a helper guy). Problem is, it can't quite navigate the thin line it attempts to walk- it wants to be clever and perceptive about the guy's predicament, to be funny, to be a stylish comment on the convention, and to get romantic at the end when the Baxter musters up the sand to take a chance on the girl he really loves (SPOILER!). And it wants to all all this without breaking a sweat. Sadly, as a filmmaker Showalter has neither the experience nor the chops to pull it off, although short of Lubitsch or maybe Cukor it's hard to imagine who might've been able to (Wes Anderson? Whit Stillman?). As for Showalter the actor, he's not quite deep enough to carry the film- he's convincing enough in the role, but he lacks the emotional specificity to play up the character's better points rather than just simply the ones that support the film's thesis. Showalter is a longtime sketch comedy star (The State, Stella, etc.), and this film bears this out, since it feels more like a series of scenes than a cohesive whole. Consider the seemingly endless array of single-scene performers- some of whom are funny (especially Peter Dinklage's flamboyantly gay wedding planner), but who feel like narrative detours. All the same, the film has a certain charm, and it's hard not to root for a movie about the underdog at least a little. And is it me or is Michelle Williams at least as good here as she was in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN? Maybe it's just my blind spot for long-suffering wives or reactive characters in general... Rating: **.
KEANE (2004, Lodge Kerrigan, seen on DVD)- I've seen this before, but since I didn't review it last time I felt I should at least say something. Watching the alternate "Soderbergh cut" (an extra on the DVD) as well as the director's cut only underline what made Kerrigan's version so effective- while Soderbergh had the idea to show the symptoms of Keane's psychological afflictions before moving on to his major tragedy, Kerrigan wisely puts the tragedy front and center. It's the disappearance of his daughter that drives him, and whether he was a drunk, a cokehead, or a schizophrenic before she disappeared, it's clear that one she was gone, he was left without a center, and that his search for her makes a poor substitute. Another element Soderbergh elides is the family drama of Lynn and Kyra- Kerrigan paints their relationship in brief but effective strokes, turning them into realistic people rather than the plot devices they might have been (in Soderbergh's cut, for example, after meeting Keane just once, Lynn entrusts him with their daughter- hardly realistic in my opinion). And of course Damian Lewis is so awesome in this movie- hard to believe this was the same overacting horrorshow in DREAMCATCHER. Although admittedly there wasn't much room there for GOOD acting... Rating: ***1/2.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!! They're being intolerant of my intolerance!!
See, I always thought that part of living in a civilized society was learning to accommodate people with different beliefs. I guess not. Do I think diversity and sensitivity courses should be 100% mandatory? Not really- you can't force your beliefs on people, even if you're right. But "I'll say whatever the hell I want and if you feel oppressed, tough shit" isn't a sensible policy either. OK, let me get this straight- you've known since you were little that everyone in the world isn't like you, you've had all this time to get used to it, and you still can't handle that not everyone believes as you do or acts as you would? Talk about your whiny babies. Maybe you could build a cute little Shyamalanesque Village and let the rest of us live in the 21st century.
Wait a sec, that sounded pretty intolerant. Sorry about that.
Having been raised in the Catholic faith, I have a good deal of respect for religion, despite not currently being a practicing member. As such, I can't help but feel like the Fundies are ruining it for everyone else. And that goes for all fundamentalist religions- just as not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians are rabid Bible-thumpers. Many find a place for God and his teachings in their lives without allowing their beliefs to impede on the peaceful lives of others. So when a certain subset of Christians feels the need to spread their bigotry in the guise of religious teaching, while it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, I refuse to extrapolate this relatively small group into the whole of Christian America.
What level-headed believers in a loving God need to do is to stand up to this vocal minority who pretends to speak for everyone. Call it the "Not In His Name" movement- a forceful reaction to those who would voice their hatred and closed-mindedness through the faith. I know there are plenty of faithful who don't feel the need to oppress others, but they don't seem to be heard above the shouts of the Fundies. Because as I've said before, when it comes to getting attention, it isn't about how much you're hurt, but how loudly you cry.
Wow, that was a lot longer than I'd originally planned. Wonder what I think of fundamentalists...
THANK YOU FOR SMOKING (2005, Jason Reitman, seen in theatre)- while often very funny, the comedy here feels too easy in spots (Nick's visit to Hollywood, complete with a nattering Adam Brody and Rob Lowe's Asian fetish, seems most guilty of this) before setting into a kind of twisted-Capra groove which extols the virtues of thinking for oneself. Director Reitman, son of Ivan, works in his own daddy stuff through the storyline involving Nick and his kid, which goes down surprisingly well under the circumstances. I think it helps that the kid makes a good sounding board for Nick as well as an audience surrogate- we're with Nick when he is, but his objections by and large follow those of the audience. And of course the role of Nick fits star Aaron Eckhart like a glove- a smooth-talker with only the vaguest hint of smarm, which distracts from how intelligent and quick-thinking he really is. Everyone who sees this seems to have a favorite scene- mine's the one with Sam Elliott as the cancer-afflicted ex-Marlboro Man, in which Nick brilliantly levels with him and applies reverse psychology to convince him to accept a payoff from a tobacco company. Rating: **1/2.
THE BAXTER (2005, Michael Showalter, seen on DVD)- a film as unassuming and forgettable as the person described by the title (he's the safe alternative to the dashing romantic hero, not to be confused with a helper guy). Problem is, it can't quite navigate the thin line it attempts to walk- it wants to be clever and perceptive about the guy's predicament, to be funny, to be a stylish comment on the convention, and to get romantic at the end when the Baxter musters up the sand to take a chance on the girl he really loves (SPOILER!). And it wants to all all this without breaking a sweat. Sadly, as a filmmaker Showalter has neither the experience nor the chops to pull it off, although short of Lubitsch or maybe Cukor it's hard to imagine who might've been able to (Wes Anderson? Whit Stillman?). As for Showalter the actor, he's not quite deep enough to carry the film- he's convincing enough in the role, but he lacks the emotional specificity to play up the character's better points rather than just simply the ones that support the film's thesis. Showalter is a longtime sketch comedy star (The State, Stella, etc.), and this film bears this out, since it feels more like a series of scenes than a cohesive whole. Consider the seemingly endless array of single-scene performers- some of whom are funny (especially Peter Dinklage's flamboyantly gay wedding planner), but who feel like narrative detours. All the same, the film has a certain charm, and it's hard not to root for a movie about the underdog at least a little. And is it me or is Michelle Williams at least as good here as she was in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN? Maybe it's just my blind spot for long-suffering wives or reactive characters in general... Rating: **.
KEANE (2004, Lodge Kerrigan, seen on DVD)- I've seen this before, but since I didn't review it last time I felt I should at least say something. Watching the alternate "Soderbergh cut" (an extra on the DVD) as well as the director's cut only underline what made Kerrigan's version so effective- while Soderbergh had the idea to show the symptoms of Keane's psychological afflictions before moving on to his major tragedy, Kerrigan wisely puts the tragedy front and center. It's the disappearance of his daughter that drives him, and whether he was a drunk, a cokehead, or a schizophrenic before she disappeared, it's clear that one she was gone, he was left without a center, and that his search for her makes a poor substitute. Another element Soderbergh elides is the family drama of Lynn and Kyra- Kerrigan paints their relationship in brief but effective strokes, turning them into realistic people rather than the plot devices they might have been (in Soderbergh's cut, for example, after meeting Keane just once, Lynn entrusts him with their daughter- hardly realistic in my opinion). And of course Damian Lewis is so awesome in this movie- hard to believe this was the same overacting horrorshow in DREAMCATCHER. Although admittedly there wasn't much room there for GOOD acting... Rating: ***1/2.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Sweeten, enhance, beautify!
THE INTRUDER (2004, Claire Denis, seen in theatre)- in a way, the film Denis has been building toward for years, in which her tendency elliptical narration becomes borderline incoherent, and the filmmaking is so rapturous that it hardly matters. THE INTRUDER is on the surface a globe-spanning odyssey of an elderly loner (Michel Subor), who journeys to Korea to receive a black-market heart transplant, then to the South Pacific to search for a long-lost son. However, it is also a study of a series of different sorts of intruders- e.g. the new heart "intrudes" on Subor’s body, he’s constantly tailed by an enigmatic figure (played by Katia Golubeva) who intrudes on his life, and he himself is out of place after taking up residence in Tahiti. Denis’ tendency toward narrative digression borders on maddening (what exactly is going on with Beatrice Dalle as "The Queen of the Northern Hemisphere"?), but this seems to be Denis’ desired reaction, resulting from her lack of a desire to distinguish the film’s "literal" aspects from the flights of fancy. As always, Denis is peerless at tapping into the physical possibilities of her actors- Subor’s weathered old-school masculinity (reminiscent of a Gallic, alternate-universe Hemingway), Golubeva’s enigmatic Slavic-ness, Dalle’s feral nature, Gregoire Colin’s poker-faced boyishness, and so on. And of course Agnes Godard’s cinematography is peerless- the seemingly a-propos-of-nothing christening of a ship becomes a kind of holy moment here, and Denis and Godard lavish the same attention on the South Pacific scenes as they did on Djibouti in BEAU TRAVAIL, turning it from a picture-postcard paradise into a real, tangible place. I doubt I’ll be able to tap into the film’s mysteries without at least a few more viewings, but even on the first viewing, THE INTRUDER’s power as a cinematic experience is undeniable. Rating: ***1/2.
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA (2005, Rob Marshall, seen on DVD)- as it turns out, casting non-Japanese actresses in many of the key roles was the right choice for this movie, since it makes almost no effort to illuminate Japanese culture. The film is nothing if not visually handsome, but instead of making beauty integral to the style and tone of the film (a la Terrence Malick), MEMOIRS comes of as nothing so much as a fashion spread, showcasing exotic "Oriental" clothes and accessories, like a vintage magazine piece geared to the woman "with a taste for the exotic." As a result, the film's idea of what a geisha is feels muddled, and none of its contradictions are explored. For example, why insist throughout the story that geisha aren't sexual playthings and then show men bidding to take the virginity of young Sayuri (Zhang Ziyi)? Conundrums like this might support a more in-depth look at the geisha lifestyle, but are unremarked upon by the film. The decision to make the film in English proves disastrous for the actors as well, since of the principal performers only the ever-awesome Koji Yakusho seems to be fully aware of what his dialogue means. It also helps that he’s the only one who speaks in straightforward language, while those around him seem to be reading fortune cookies ("savor this moment; tonight the lights all burn for you"). Above all, the film is predicated on the idea that Zhang Ziyi’s Sayuri is the most desirable and sought-after beauty around, but frankly I didn’t buy it- not only does she lack the presence to carry the story, but has always struck me as being rather vanilla, particularly when she’s playing a scene with the incomparably more incandescent and talented Gong Li, who essays the role of the conniving Hatsumono. Given the production values, this would make a good DVD for electronics stores to demonstrate the color and picture quality of their new HD TV models, but as a movie it’s a snooze. To quote an old college instructor of mine, "Asians are people. Rugs and interior decorating is Oriental." As the characters in MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA feel less like people than furniture and mannequins, I have no problem calling the film Oriental. Rating: *.
FIND ME GUILTY (2006, Sidney Lumet, seen in theatre)- unlike fellow TV-director-turned-filmmaker John Frankenheimer, Lumet never came into a style of his own, and many of his films are so indifferently directed that the best one can say about him is that he stayed out of the way of the story. Thankfully, that’s the case here as well- I say "thankfully" because the story is good enough that it doesn’t need tricked up. Vin Diesel finally makes good on his hype from half a dozen years ago, turning in a loose and funny performance as Jackie DiNorscio, a mob functionary who defends himself in court. The trial portrayed in the film was the longest in U.S. history, and out of necessity the script glosses over most of it, largely boiling it down to Jackie’s big moments, making it feel like Jackie was primarily responsible for the outcome. However, there is still plenty of room for some rich supporting character work, especially from the great Peter Dinklage as another defense attorney. I especially liked how Dinklage (and the film) turn the unavoidable issue of his height into part of the character’s mystique- he’s not just the lawyer who has to stand on a podium to address the court, he’s the lawyer who has a guy working for him whose job it is to set up his podium. Not great filmmaking but pretty entertaining, as well as providing a fascinating examination of how a film can build audience sympathies with seemingly unsympathetic characters. Rating **1/2.
Well, I’m running a little short on time now, so I’ll breeze through the rest…
DUMA (2005, Carroll Ballard, seen in theatre)- Ballad is certainly in his element directing films about animals, and this story of a boy and his cheetah is no exception. There’s too much talking about the importance of finding a home (I would have preferred if the parallels between the boy’s coming of age and the cheetah adjusting to the wild had been keep subtextual), but the nature photography is as good as expected, and Eamonn Walker once again proves himself an estimable character actor. Rating: **1/2.
ELLIE PARKER (2005, Scott Coffey, seen in theatre)- Naomi Watts is the show here in the title role, an aspiring actress whose life is an endless string of auditions, parties, and above all driving around L.A. between auditions and parties. The film itself is deliberately slight, and the DIY style (how odd to see DV that doesn’t attempt to look like film these days) is right for it, taking the tarnish off the Hollywood lifestyle to follow a person for whom that dream has long since lost its lustre. Some of the film’s attempts at oddball humor fall flat (like the director as a man who sleeps with Ellie to test whether he’s gay), but there are also spot-on scenes as well (the horror-show audition with "the new producers," the meeting with an agent played by Chevy Chase), and an out-of-nowhere scene of beauty in which Ellie discovers a tree-lined street where the lilacs are abloom. Full disclosure department: I recently got rejected by every single film school I applied to, so it’s hard for me to be objective about this film since I empathized too much with the protagonist’s plight. I’m not sure that this is much of a movie, but I certainly felt Ellie’s pain. Ask me how I feel about this film in a few years. (Provisional) Rating: **1/2.
YOUR STUDIO AND YOU (1995, Trey Parker, , short film downloaded off the Internet)- hilarious. See for yourself (warning: LONG download). Stallone has never been better!
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA (2005, Rob Marshall, seen on DVD)- as it turns out, casting non-Japanese actresses in many of the key roles was the right choice for this movie, since it makes almost no effort to illuminate Japanese culture. The film is nothing if not visually handsome, but instead of making beauty integral to the style and tone of the film (a la Terrence Malick), MEMOIRS comes of as nothing so much as a fashion spread, showcasing exotic "Oriental" clothes and accessories, like a vintage magazine piece geared to the woman "with a taste for the exotic." As a result, the film's idea of what a geisha is feels muddled, and none of its contradictions are explored. For example, why insist throughout the story that geisha aren't sexual playthings and then show men bidding to take the virginity of young Sayuri (Zhang Ziyi)? Conundrums like this might support a more in-depth look at the geisha lifestyle, but are unremarked upon by the film. The decision to make the film in English proves disastrous for the actors as well, since of the principal performers only the ever-awesome Koji Yakusho seems to be fully aware of what his dialogue means. It also helps that he’s the only one who speaks in straightforward language, while those around him seem to be reading fortune cookies ("savor this moment; tonight the lights all burn for you"). Above all, the film is predicated on the idea that Zhang Ziyi’s Sayuri is the most desirable and sought-after beauty around, but frankly I didn’t buy it- not only does she lack the presence to carry the story, but has always struck me as being rather vanilla, particularly when she’s playing a scene with the incomparably more incandescent and talented Gong Li, who essays the role of the conniving Hatsumono. Given the production values, this would make a good DVD for electronics stores to demonstrate the color and picture quality of their new HD TV models, but as a movie it’s a snooze. To quote an old college instructor of mine, "Asians are people. Rugs and interior decorating is Oriental." As the characters in MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA feel less like people than furniture and mannequins, I have no problem calling the film Oriental. Rating: *.
FIND ME GUILTY (2006, Sidney Lumet, seen in theatre)- unlike fellow TV-director-turned-filmmaker John Frankenheimer, Lumet never came into a style of his own, and many of his films are so indifferently directed that the best one can say about him is that he stayed out of the way of the story. Thankfully, that’s the case here as well- I say "thankfully" because the story is good enough that it doesn’t need tricked up. Vin Diesel finally makes good on his hype from half a dozen years ago, turning in a loose and funny performance as Jackie DiNorscio, a mob functionary who defends himself in court. The trial portrayed in the film was the longest in U.S. history, and out of necessity the script glosses over most of it, largely boiling it down to Jackie’s big moments, making it feel like Jackie was primarily responsible for the outcome. However, there is still plenty of room for some rich supporting character work, especially from the great Peter Dinklage as another defense attorney. I especially liked how Dinklage (and the film) turn the unavoidable issue of his height into part of the character’s mystique- he’s not just the lawyer who has to stand on a podium to address the court, he’s the lawyer who has a guy working for him whose job it is to set up his podium. Not great filmmaking but pretty entertaining, as well as providing a fascinating examination of how a film can build audience sympathies with seemingly unsympathetic characters. Rating **1/2.
Well, I’m running a little short on time now, so I’ll breeze through the rest…
DUMA (2005, Carroll Ballard, seen in theatre)- Ballad is certainly in his element directing films about animals, and this story of a boy and his cheetah is no exception. There’s too much talking about the importance of finding a home (I would have preferred if the parallels between the boy’s coming of age and the cheetah adjusting to the wild had been keep subtextual), but the nature photography is as good as expected, and Eamonn Walker once again proves himself an estimable character actor. Rating: **1/2.
ELLIE PARKER (2005, Scott Coffey, seen in theatre)- Naomi Watts is the show here in the title role, an aspiring actress whose life is an endless string of auditions, parties, and above all driving around L.A. between auditions and parties. The film itself is deliberately slight, and the DIY style (how odd to see DV that doesn’t attempt to look like film these days) is right for it, taking the tarnish off the Hollywood lifestyle to follow a person for whom that dream has long since lost its lustre. Some of the film’s attempts at oddball humor fall flat (like the director as a man who sleeps with Ellie to test whether he’s gay), but there are also spot-on scenes as well (the horror-show audition with "the new producers," the meeting with an agent played by Chevy Chase), and an out-of-nowhere scene of beauty in which Ellie discovers a tree-lined street where the lilacs are abloom. Full disclosure department: I recently got rejected by every single film school I applied to, so it’s hard for me to be objective about this film since I empathized too much with the protagonist’s plight. I’m not sure that this is much of a movie, but I certainly felt Ellie’s pain. Ask me how I feel about this film in a few years. (Provisional) Rating: **1/2.
YOUR STUDIO AND YOU (1995, Trey Parker, , short film downloaded off the Internet)- hilarious. See for yourself (warning: LONG download). Stallone has never been better!
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Wolf Man in Paradise, and more!
INSIDE MAN (2006, Spike Lee, seen in theatre)- this heist movie finds Spike at his most playful in years, clearly enjoying manipulating the genre mechanism for his own enjoyment, and it's infectious. Despite the fact that it's about a bank robbery-turned-hostage situation, the film makes no bones about the fact that there's something else afoot- flash-forward scenes of NYPD detectives/verbal sparring partners Frazier (Denzel Washington) and Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) interrogating suspects and former hostages are interwoven throughout, dispelling any suspense as to their fates- but somehow the gambit works, mostly because it clues us in to the idea that we're supposed to be concerned more with the underlying reasons behind the robbery rather than the outcome. Also, rare for a film of this sort, the cops are more engaging than the crooks- Clive Owen's thief spends most of the film with a mask over his face, and generally plays his usual cool customer, while Washington, Ejiofor and company get to engage in fun, loose banter while sifting through the clues and sorting out the problems. Questions abound in retrospect- the age of the Christopher Plummer character seems something of a stretch, and there's the matter of some documents which for some reason weren't disposed of years ago- but in the moment it's a good time. Also, Bollywood music rules, especially when you don't expect to hear it. Rating: **1/2.
PARADISE NOW (2005, Hany Abu-Assad, seen on DVD)- pretty much the most middle-of-the-road movie one could expect about suicide bombers, and that's the problem- an issue this heated shouldn't go down as easily as it does here. For one thing, it's extremely polished filmmaking, with handsome widescreen photography and smooth camerawork that's often all too noticeable (particularly the PT Anderson-style gliding dolly shots)- I'm not asking for scruffy, grim'n'gritty handheld all the time, but a less conventional style might have made the film more impactful. Limiting the time frame to the final days before the central friends/bombers were set to strike was a nice touch, although surprisingly little comes from this- like a more expository ELEPHANT, PARADISE NOW doesn't really explore its characters in depth, aside from relating a formative incident in the family life of Said that led to his militance. There are a few good moments in the film, mostly involving the temporary disappearance of Said during an aborted mission, but surprisingly little insight into the situation. In the end, not so much a botch as a missed opportunity to really say something about an important contemporary issue. Rating: *1/2.
WOLF CREEK (2004, Greg McLean, seen on DVD) [SPOILERS!!!!]- one of the best horror films of recent years, largely because it drops nearly all the bullshit trappings of the genre in favor of more primal scares. As in the original TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, the protagonists of WOLF CREEK find themselves in the middle of nowhere, although unlike that film they do encounter someone who seems friendly and helpful. They more or less make smart decisions throughout- sticking together when they're lost, making conversation with and volunteering to pay the genial guy who inspects their broken-down car- but unlike most horror films, which punish the characters for being stupid, boorish, mean, or promiscuous, the evil here is inescapable. Mick is a truly nasty piece of work, and his cruelty is all the more frightening for coming seemingly out of nowhere- one minute he's shooting the bull with you by the campfire, the next you awaken in a garage, bound and gagged. It's this bleak worldview that really distinguishes the film from others of its ilk. Charges of misogyny are probably warranted- the film lingers much more on the fates of the girls than it does on the lone guy, for one thing- but the impact of the film is undeniable. This is hardly your garden-variety splatter-film escapism, and I'm guessing that the nihilism had as much to do with, say, Ebert's zero-star review of the film as anything else. To which I say, yeah, it's bleak and unpleasant, but what did you expect? That's what it was going for, and it did its job. Whether that's a worthy goal is up to you, I suppose. Rating: ***.
Also...
- Happy Birthday Elton John. I don't usually cover celeb birthdays, but since I've been listening to his stuff a lot lately I felt compelled to chime in next time. Before his Disney/Broadway/"Candle in the Wind '97" phase, he was a damn fine performer, with half a dozen great albums under his belt. My favorite? Hard to say, although I've probably listened to CAPTAIN FANTASTIC AND THE BROWN DIRT COWBOY most frequently (that's probably the one with the best listen-through potential, although MADMAN ACROSS THE WATER is damn good too). So what about you guys? Any favorites?
- New Pet Peeve dept.: credit card companies make millions of dollars from people per year, if not more. Don't you think they could afford to pay for postage on their envelopes? Come on, it's not like you're a nonprofit organization. That's just cheap, guys.
- I'm not longer in last place in my NCAA tourney bracket! Woohoo! I don't follow sports in general, but I like to enter contests like this, and this year I flipped a coin to pick winners (aside from the highest seeds, which I predicted automatically in the first few rounds). I've got Villanova winning, and they're still in the tourney, so that's something, right?
- I'm already ready to be let down by SNAKES ON A PLANE. I mean, there's no way it could be as awesome as it sounds. That said, the hype is getting a tad out of hand.
PARADISE NOW (2005, Hany Abu-Assad, seen on DVD)- pretty much the most middle-of-the-road movie one could expect about suicide bombers, and that's the problem- an issue this heated shouldn't go down as easily as it does here. For one thing, it's extremely polished filmmaking, with handsome widescreen photography and smooth camerawork that's often all too noticeable (particularly the PT Anderson-style gliding dolly shots)- I'm not asking for scruffy, grim'n'gritty handheld all the time, but a less conventional style might have made the film more impactful. Limiting the time frame to the final days before the central friends/bombers were set to strike was a nice touch, although surprisingly little comes from this- like a more expository ELEPHANT, PARADISE NOW doesn't really explore its characters in depth, aside from relating a formative incident in the family life of Said that led to his militance. There are a few good moments in the film, mostly involving the temporary disappearance of Said during an aborted mission, but surprisingly little insight into the situation. In the end, not so much a botch as a missed opportunity to really say something about an important contemporary issue. Rating: *1/2.
WOLF CREEK (2004, Greg McLean, seen on DVD) [SPOILERS!!!!]- one of the best horror films of recent years, largely because it drops nearly all the bullshit trappings of the genre in favor of more primal scares. As in the original TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, the protagonists of WOLF CREEK find themselves in the middle of nowhere, although unlike that film they do encounter someone who seems friendly and helpful. They more or less make smart decisions throughout- sticking together when they're lost, making conversation with and volunteering to pay the genial guy who inspects their broken-down car- but unlike most horror films, which punish the characters for being stupid, boorish, mean, or promiscuous, the evil here is inescapable. Mick is a truly nasty piece of work, and his cruelty is all the more frightening for coming seemingly out of nowhere- one minute he's shooting the bull with you by the campfire, the next you awaken in a garage, bound and gagged. It's this bleak worldview that really distinguishes the film from others of its ilk. Charges of misogyny are probably warranted- the film lingers much more on the fates of the girls than it does on the lone guy, for one thing- but the impact of the film is undeniable. This is hardly your garden-variety splatter-film escapism, and I'm guessing that the nihilism had as much to do with, say, Ebert's zero-star review of the film as anything else. To which I say, yeah, it's bleak and unpleasant, but what did you expect? That's what it was going for, and it did its job. Whether that's a worthy goal is up to you, I suppose. Rating: ***.
Also...
- Happy Birthday Elton John. I don't usually cover celeb birthdays, but since I've been listening to his stuff a lot lately I felt compelled to chime in next time. Before his Disney/Broadway/"Candle in the Wind '97" phase, he was a damn fine performer, with half a dozen great albums under his belt. My favorite? Hard to say, although I've probably listened to CAPTAIN FANTASTIC AND THE BROWN DIRT COWBOY most frequently (that's probably the one with the best listen-through potential, although MADMAN ACROSS THE WATER is damn good too). So what about you guys? Any favorites?
- New Pet Peeve dept.: credit card companies make millions of dollars from people per year, if not more. Don't you think they could afford to pay for postage on their envelopes? Come on, it's not like you're a nonprofit organization. That's just cheap, guys.
- I'm not longer in last place in my NCAA tourney bracket! Woohoo! I don't follow sports in general, but I like to enter contests like this, and this year I flipped a coin to pick winners (aside from the highest seeds, which I predicted automatically in the first few rounds). I've got Villanova winning, and they're still in the tourney, so that's something, right?
- I'm already ready to be let down by SNAKES ON A PLANE. I mean, there's no way it could be as awesome as it sounds. That said, the hype is getting a tad out of hand.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
"You put your head through the arm hole."
V FOR VENDETTA (2005, James McTeigue, seen in theatre)- while McTeigue is credited as director, writer/producers the Wachowski Brothers have their fingerprints all over this- self-important speeches, androgynous women, and a message of rebellion against a repressive regime all speak to this. The end result is somewhat better than the last two MATRIX movies, but it suffers from many of those films' flaws, most of all an inability to present the brothers' ideas through action (the first had its share of soliloquies too, but the Big Ideas somehow went down easier when Morpheus expounded upon them in the middle of a martial arts demonstration). Portman is OK (she still lacks the star presence necessary to carry a movie), and Weaving does well considering his face is hidden throughout, but it's all so Heavy, due less to the ideas than the seriousness with which the film takes itself in order to sell the ridiculousness. There are a few welcome lighter bits for the audience- namely, the Stephen Fry scenes- and the flashback interlude featuring Natasha Wightman as a now-dead prisoner connect emotionally in a way the rest of the story can't manage. Rating: **.
TURTLES CAN FLY (2004, Bahman Ghobadi, seen on DVD)- had a bad feeling about this from the pre-credits sequence, in which a sullen young girl stands on the edge of a cliff as wailing tribal music plays in the background, but surprisingly this movie turned out to be half-awesome. The awesome half involves one of the more engaging characters to grace the screen of late- a Kurdish teenager called Satellite, who has carved out a fairly comfortable existence in his small village through ingenuity and a strong capitalist instinct (he marshals a team of kids to disarm a bunch of land mines then sells or trades them in town). Satellite's character arc could have supported a movie on its own, which is why it's a shame that the girl on the cliff plays a fairly major role in the movie, as Ghobadi follows her, her armless brother, and a small boy whose identity is only revealed later. When the American troops arrive, I wasn't much interested in the TV-friendly plight of the girl and her family- I wanted to see how Satellite dealt with the change. Too bad Ghobadi didn't trust the Western audience to care without wallowing in miserablism. Rating: **1/2.
THREE... EXTREMES (2005, Fruit Chan/Chan-wook Park/Takashi Miike, seen on DVD)- if I'm not mistaken, the American cut of the film shifts around the order of the shorts, with Miike's "Box" moved to the end, and I've gotta say that this was a wise choice. First off, Chan's "Dumplings," a "Monkey's Paw"-style horror story with a pretty gross twist. This short's a one-trick pony, the whole point being that we're supposed to be repulsed by what the heroine eats in order to stay young, and frankly that repulsion doesn't make for a very interesting movie. On to Park's "Cut," which finds him working again in the elegant, convoluted violence mode of LADY VENGEANCE- the film looks great, but it tries much too hard to shock. The same could not be said of the Miike, easily the best of the lot. The first twenty minutes are as tightly controlled as the opening reels of AUDITION, and when the story takes a macabre turn, it's shocking without feeling exploitative, and the dreamlike imagery in the film is fascinating. Also, the female lead is pretty smokin'. I think part of the problem with these omnibus films is that the producers largely hire directors who make features, so that when they have to scale back the running time, the stories are either gimmicky (Chan) or play like rejected feature ideas (Park). Only Miike, who is as prolific as anyone in the world nowadays, makes a film that feels like it's supposed to be as long as it is. Rating: ** (Chan: *; Park: *1/2; Miike: ***).
A NEW LEAF (1971, Elaine May, seen on *ugh* video)- hadn't seen this since college, and the viewing was of course occasioned by the May article in this month's FILM COMMENT. I'm happy to say that this film is as hilarious as I'd remembered, if not more so. The direction of the film is endearingly rough-edged as most of the best 70s comedies were, and I appreciated that May eases us into the hilarious Henry-Henrietta relationship, taking almost half an hour to establish Henry the aging cad spendthrift before putting Henrietta in his path. Walter Matthau should be the worst possible choice to play Henry, but he somehow sells it, and May is priceless as Henrietta, hilariously inept but so guileless she's completely endearing from the first dropped teacup. Plenty of great comic bits (the title of this post somehow makes for a classic one, somehow sustained over also two minutes), but also warm without ever becoming cutesy or soppily sentimental. Someone put this out on DVD in my opinion. Rating: ***1/2.
TURTLES CAN FLY (2004, Bahman Ghobadi, seen on DVD)- had a bad feeling about this from the pre-credits sequence, in which a sullen young girl stands on the edge of a cliff as wailing tribal music plays in the background, but surprisingly this movie turned out to be half-awesome. The awesome half involves one of the more engaging characters to grace the screen of late- a Kurdish teenager called Satellite, who has carved out a fairly comfortable existence in his small village through ingenuity and a strong capitalist instinct (he marshals a team of kids to disarm a bunch of land mines then sells or trades them in town). Satellite's character arc could have supported a movie on its own, which is why it's a shame that the girl on the cliff plays a fairly major role in the movie, as Ghobadi follows her, her armless brother, and a small boy whose identity is only revealed later. When the American troops arrive, I wasn't much interested in the TV-friendly plight of the girl and her family- I wanted to see how Satellite dealt with the change. Too bad Ghobadi didn't trust the Western audience to care without wallowing in miserablism. Rating: **1/2.
THREE... EXTREMES (2005, Fruit Chan/Chan-wook Park/Takashi Miike, seen on DVD)- if I'm not mistaken, the American cut of the film shifts around the order of the shorts, with Miike's "Box" moved to the end, and I've gotta say that this was a wise choice. First off, Chan's "Dumplings," a "Monkey's Paw"-style horror story with a pretty gross twist. This short's a one-trick pony, the whole point being that we're supposed to be repulsed by what the heroine eats in order to stay young, and frankly that repulsion doesn't make for a very interesting movie. On to Park's "Cut," which finds him working again in the elegant, convoluted violence mode of LADY VENGEANCE- the film looks great, but it tries much too hard to shock. The same could not be said of the Miike, easily the best of the lot. The first twenty minutes are as tightly controlled as the opening reels of AUDITION, and when the story takes a macabre turn, it's shocking without feeling exploitative, and the dreamlike imagery in the film is fascinating. Also, the female lead is pretty smokin'. I think part of the problem with these omnibus films is that the producers largely hire directors who make features, so that when they have to scale back the running time, the stories are either gimmicky (Chan) or play like rejected feature ideas (Park). Only Miike, who is as prolific as anyone in the world nowadays, makes a film that feels like it's supposed to be as long as it is. Rating: ** (Chan: *; Park: *1/2; Miike: ***).
A NEW LEAF (1971, Elaine May, seen on *ugh* video)- hadn't seen this since college, and the viewing was of course occasioned by the May article in this month's FILM COMMENT. I'm happy to say that this film is as hilarious as I'd remembered, if not more so. The direction of the film is endearingly rough-edged as most of the best 70s comedies were, and I appreciated that May eases us into the hilarious Henry-Henrietta relationship, taking almost half an hour to establish Henry the aging cad spendthrift before putting Henrietta in his path. Walter Matthau should be the worst possible choice to play Henry, but he somehow sells it, and May is priceless as Henrietta, hilariously inept but so guileless she's completely endearing from the first dropped teacup. Plenty of great comic bits (the title of this post somehow makes for a classic one, somehow sustained over also two minutes), but also warm without ever becoming cutesy or soppily sentimental. Someone put this out on DVD in my opinion. Rating: ***1/2.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Funeral tango
Last week my aunt Nancy passed away. I've been lucky in my life not to have had to attend too many funerals, but ever since we found out that Nancy had cancer a year or so ago, we knew this day would come. Yet it didn't affect me the way it did others, mainly because I never knew her all that well. When I was little, I'd see her at Christmas and Thanksgiving, and at the grandparents' birthdays, but that was about it. And when I did see her, she was always very quiet, listening intently to others but rarely saying much. So it came as a surprise today during the memorial service to hear that those who were closest to her remember her as being lively and passionate, especially about politics. And I thought, somewhat annoyed, "where was this Aunt Nancy? I would've liked to have known her."
Nancy was my aunt on my dad's side, through marriage to my uncle Tom. This side of the family has never been all the close-knit, perhaps because there are so many of them (my dad's one of seven, and there are a whole mess of grandkids too) and they're fairly dispersed. So while my parents and I keep in contact with everyone on that side, we only see a few of them with any regularity, and Nancy and Tom weren't one of these few. By the time I went off to college, I rarely attended family functions, mostly due to other commitments and the feeling I got that missing them wouldn't be that big a deal (plus my grandmother has a whole mess of cats, and I'm allergic). But now I wonder if maybe I should have made more time for this side of the family- whereas some people relate better to kids (my grandpa is great with kids, but has a harder time with adults), others are more interesting when you've grown up. I think that Nancy fit into the latter group, and now it's too late for me to get to know her.
I attended today's service and expressed my condolences to her loved ones. They were taking it pretty well under the circumstances, and I'm grateful I haven't yet had to deal with a loss like this. Still, the whole occasion gave me pause, since as I hardly knew Nancy, I hardly felt a sense of loss. And this seemed wrong to me. I realize that we can't go around mourning everyone who passes away, but she was family, and she was never enough a part of my life for me to miss her now that she's gone. I felt a little out of place, truth be told. I suppose I'm lucky, that I'm far enough removed from the loss that I can be philosophical about it, and that my thoughts may yet spur me to connect on a more significant level with my family before I lose them too. I do know this- if I ever lose someone who's truly close, I fear that it will hit me hard.
Nancy was my aunt on my dad's side, through marriage to my uncle Tom. This side of the family has never been all the close-knit, perhaps because there are so many of them (my dad's one of seven, and there are a whole mess of grandkids too) and they're fairly dispersed. So while my parents and I keep in contact with everyone on that side, we only see a few of them with any regularity, and Nancy and Tom weren't one of these few. By the time I went off to college, I rarely attended family functions, mostly due to other commitments and the feeling I got that missing them wouldn't be that big a deal (plus my grandmother has a whole mess of cats, and I'm allergic). But now I wonder if maybe I should have made more time for this side of the family- whereas some people relate better to kids (my grandpa is great with kids, but has a harder time with adults), others are more interesting when you've grown up. I think that Nancy fit into the latter group, and now it's too late for me to get to know her.
I attended today's service and expressed my condolences to her loved ones. They were taking it pretty well under the circumstances, and I'm grateful I haven't yet had to deal with a loss like this. Still, the whole occasion gave me pause, since as I hardly knew Nancy, I hardly felt a sense of loss. And this seemed wrong to me. I realize that we can't go around mourning everyone who passes away, but she was family, and she was never enough a part of my life for me to miss her now that she's gone. I felt a little out of place, truth be told. I suppose I'm lucky, that I'm far enough removed from the loss that I can be philosophical about it, and that my thoughts may yet spur me to connect on a more significant level with my family before I lose them too. I do know this- if I ever lose someone who's truly close, I fear that it will hit me hard.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
A Double Dose of Documentary
DAVE CHAPPELLE'S BLOCK PARTY (2005, Michel Gondry)- How many times can a critic, even a nonpro like me, get away with saying "this movie is awesome because I was smiling/laughing/tingling with delight from beginning to end"? I guess I ought to come up with better reasoning than this, especially so soon after TRISTRAM SHANDY. So... ah, OK. This actually deals with the idea of community more uniquely than any film (documentary or otherwise) since WOODSTOCK. There are many different communities represented here- the Bed-Stuy neighborhood, Chappelle's hometown, "the black community", and so on. But just as important is the artists who are spotlighted by the show- these guys (and ladies) have known each other for years, as Aamir "?uestlove" Thompson points out when he relates stories of open-mike nights years ago where the Roots would be the backup band for Mos Def, Common, Erykah Badu, and other artists who are playing the Block Party. And Chappelle, putting on his dream concert, makes a genial master of ceremonies for the film as well- he's a fan of the acts as well as a friend, and he also cares deeply for his fans and wants to do right by them (one senses that his uneasiness with the Comedy Central deal was rooted in this). Despite his status as a comedy superstar, he comes off as generous as well, not just with the musical acts, but also in his interaction with regular folks on the street- he gives them the spotlight, as when "Mr. T" comes up onstage for a "battle", or when a waiter shares his "N**** on the Side" rap with him. Most of all, BLOCK PARTY is a film about an event, a "happening" (as they used to say), and while most filmmakers would have been content to put it all in chronological order, Gondry and his editors cut between the show and the preparations for it, to excellent effect. Sometimes it's something so simple as cutting from Chappelle telling a joke to the crowd to him rehearsing the joke with the musicians; other times it's more complicated, like when he sits down and playing Thelonius Monk's "Round About Midnight" on a thrift-store piano (a surprising moment), and then the music continues under footage of the Central State (Ohio! Woohoo!) marching band boarding the buses up to New York for the show. In short, I expected great music, I expected to laugh. But I didn't expect the film to be this warm, and on top of all the rest, that's an achievement. Besides, with all the other preparations and performances that must've taken place, this will make for an awesome DVD. Rating: ***1/2.
THE WILD PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL (2003, Judy Irving)- On the other hand, I was expecting this to be genial, but the truth is that even at 83 minutes it feels padded out. In truth, Mark Bittner's not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long, and aside from the wild parrots he's all it's got. The parrots are pretty cool, I guess- Mingus certainly is a feisty little fella- and watching them climb and flying and preen and peck at each other is cool up to a point, but I couldn't shake the feeling that while this could have made a pretty good half-hour special on Animal Planet, it's just not enough to be a movie. Rating: *1/2.
THE WILD PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL (2003, Judy Irving)- On the other hand, I was expecting this to be genial, but the truth is that even at 83 minutes it feels padded out. In truth, Mark Bittner's not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long, and aside from the wild parrots he's all it's got. The parrots are pretty cool, I guess- Mingus certainly is a feisty little fella- and watching them climb and flying and preen and peck at each other is cool up to a point, but I couldn't shake the feeling that while this could have made a pretty good half-hour special on Animal Planet, it's just not enough to be a movie. Rating: *1/2.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Six movie pileup
TRISTRAM SHANDY: A COCK AND BULL STORY (2005, Michael Winterbottom, seen in theatre)- I can't really go into too much detail about why this movie was as awesome as it was, other than I was laughing pretty much the entire duration. It's less ADAPTATION than DAY FOR NIGHT, albeit much more overtly comedic, as it dissects the perils of making a film by taking its cue from an impossible project- an adaptation of an acclaimed, nearly impossible-to-adapt book that almost no one involved seems to have actually read. The result is meta as all getout- a film-within-a-film, Jeremy Northam and Ian Hart as "Mark" Winterbottom and a Frank Cottrell Boyce surrogate, lots of clever allusions that are well-deployed (lest the film come off as SHREK for the arthouse set). Also, more priceless bits than you can shake the proverbial stick at- "Tuscan sunset", men in wigs futzing around while a woman gives birth, "a womb with a view", LANCELOT DU LAC, the Gillian Anderson bits (has it really been six years since THE HOUSE OF MIRTH?), watching the dailies, the black page, and everything involving Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon's actorly bickering and jockeying, up to and including the final credits. Rating: ***1/2 ("Because it's funny. Isn't that enough?").
THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA (2005, Tommy Lee Jones, seen in theatre)- feels more like late John Huston than Peckinpah, actually- the story of a man who goes on a seemingly mad quest to honor another's memory. Would be better, methinks, without the screenplay's chronological noodling (can Guillermo Arriaga even write in chronological order?), which distracts from the simplicity of the narrative. However, much of this is cleared up by the second half, which concentrates almost entirely on Jones' mission, with only a handful of cutaways to his pursuers. Moment out of time: Jones sitting alone in a bar in Mexico, waiting for a telephone call, while a girl plays an out of tune piano in the background and everyone goes about their business- not sure why this scene in particular affected me, but it did. Rating: **1/2.
NEIL YOUNG: HEART OF GOLD (2006, Jonathan Demme, seen in theatre)- half the battle is that I like Neil Young, and since this is the gentle, country-inflected solo Young rather than the more acidic Crazy Horse-backed Young, this is obviously a Movie For Me. And Demme, to his credit, stays out of the way- after all the musicians get a little introduction, it's all about the concert footage. As in STOP MAKING SENSE, the audience is largely incidental to the film, not seen and only heard while applauding. Demme gets a lot of mileage from closeups of various band members, and especially Young himself, whose facial expressions are at times heartrending. Young being Young, there's none of the bombast typical in most stage performances, leaving us with the man, the band, and the music. And sometimes not even the band, as when he stands alone in a spotlight and sings "The Needle and the Damage Done" or in the final number, which is filmed with Young on a bare stage, sitting down, wearing a pair of dorky-looking specs and playing to an empty Ryman Auditorium. Rating: ***.
NINE LIVES (2005, Rodrigo Garcia, seen on DVD)- much better than I was expecting, to be honest, since so often films like this come off as acting exercises, but here Garcia foregrounds the stories, a set of small-scale character vignettes. With a cast like this (Holly Hunter, Sissy Spacek, Glenn Close, etc.), you expect solid acting, but none of the performances are showoff-y, which works in the film's favor. One of the big surprises was that, despite the usually hit-and-miss nature of the stories in films of this sort, there are no real letdowns in the bunch, and a few of the scenes are excellent ("Diana," starring Robin Wright Penn and Jason Isaacs, has justifiably gotten most of the press, but I also have a soft spot for "Samantha," with Amanda Seyfried as a girl who resists the idea of going away to school because she wants to care for her dying dad). In the final segment, the film takes a surprising narrative leap away from the more grounded stories that preceded it, and in my opinion it works, although I can see why some might believe otherwise. Certainly worth your time. Rating: ***.
THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC (1962, Robert Bresson, seen on Turner Classic Movies)- I don't usually watch television, but I felt like I could make an exception for one of Bresson's rarest, showing in a one-time engagement on TCM. And oh man, was it worth it- pretty much what you'd expect from a Bresson Jeanne d'Arc story, but in a good way- his trademark austerity actually helps to underline the dehuminizing nature of Joan's trials and incarceration. Surprising, how much character complexity comes through despite the fact that Bresson stuck to trial transcripts- we see a young woman who is strong but frightened, illuminated by faith and steadfast and unquestioning of it, tempted though she may be with the thought of saving her life. The only other Joan of Arc film with this much depth is Rivette's, and that is nearly four times as long and covers most of her adult life- Dreyer's, towering achievement though it may be, isn't a character study, as character complexity wasn't silent cinema's strong point. I have no idea when I'll get to see this again, but this certainly deserves mention as an important part of Bresson's filmography. As for me, the only "canonical" Bresson I have yet to see is FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER- anybody know where I can find it? Rating: ***1/2.
THE LADY OF MUSASHINO (1951, Kenji Mizoguchi, seen on DVD)- this starts fairly leisurely for such a short film (84 minutes), but as the film transpires it begins to build in power. The theme of the film is the limitations of women in Japanese society, and that the story is set immediately after World War II is crucial, since at that time Japan was struggling to catch up with the rest of the world. The protagonist, however, insists on living as a traditional woman- remaining devoted to an unworthy husband, rebuffing the advances of a cousin who loves her, and living beyond reproach. Meanwhile, others take advantage- another cousin asks her to mortgage her property so that he may take out a loan, her husband cheats and eventually runs off with her mooching cousin's wife, and so on- but she can't bring herself to abandon her old ways, denying herself love and happiness and eventually poisoning herself to save her family legacy. The idea of the old town of Musashino as a metaphor for the dying traditions comes off less heavyhanded that it would in less assured hands, and sets up a beautiful final shot- a pan across rural Musashino to reveal a modern city just over the hill. Rating: ***1/2.
THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA (2005, Tommy Lee Jones, seen in theatre)- feels more like late John Huston than Peckinpah, actually- the story of a man who goes on a seemingly mad quest to honor another's memory. Would be better, methinks, without the screenplay's chronological noodling (can Guillermo Arriaga even write in chronological order?), which distracts from the simplicity of the narrative. However, much of this is cleared up by the second half, which concentrates almost entirely on Jones' mission, with only a handful of cutaways to his pursuers. Moment out of time: Jones sitting alone in a bar in Mexico, waiting for a telephone call, while a girl plays an out of tune piano in the background and everyone goes about their business- not sure why this scene in particular affected me, but it did. Rating: **1/2.
NEIL YOUNG: HEART OF GOLD (2006, Jonathan Demme, seen in theatre)- half the battle is that I like Neil Young, and since this is the gentle, country-inflected solo Young rather than the more acidic Crazy Horse-backed Young, this is obviously a Movie For Me. And Demme, to his credit, stays out of the way- after all the musicians get a little introduction, it's all about the concert footage. As in STOP MAKING SENSE, the audience is largely incidental to the film, not seen and only heard while applauding. Demme gets a lot of mileage from closeups of various band members, and especially Young himself, whose facial expressions are at times heartrending. Young being Young, there's none of the bombast typical in most stage performances, leaving us with the man, the band, and the music. And sometimes not even the band, as when he stands alone in a spotlight and sings "The Needle and the Damage Done" or in the final number, which is filmed with Young on a bare stage, sitting down, wearing a pair of dorky-looking specs and playing to an empty Ryman Auditorium. Rating: ***.
NINE LIVES (2005, Rodrigo Garcia, seen on DVD)- much better than I was expecting, to be honest, since so often films like this come off as acting exercises, but here Garcia foregrounds the stories, a set of small-scale character vignettes. With a cast like this (Holly Hunter, Sissy Spacek, Glenn Close, etc.), you expect solid acting, but none of the performances are showoff-y, which works in the film's favor. One of the big surprises was that, despite the usually hit-and-miss nature of the stories in films of this sort, there are no real letdowns in the bunch, and a few of the scenes are excellent ("Diana," starring Robin Wright Penn and Jason Isaacs, has justifiably gotten most of the press, but I also have a soft spot for "Samantha," with Amanda Seyfried as a girl who resists the idea of going away to school because she wants to care for her dying dad). In the final segment, the film takes a surprising narrative leap away from the more grounded stories that preceded it, and in my opinion it works, although I can see why some might believe otherwise. Certainly worth your time. Rating: ***.
THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC (1962, Robert Bresson, seen on Turner Classic Movies)- I don't usually watch television, but I felt like I could make an exception for one of Bresson's rarest, showing in a one-time engagement on TCM. And oh man, was it worth it- pretty much what you'd expect from a Bresson Jeanne d'Arc story, but in a good way- his trademark austerity actually helps to underline the dehuminizing nature of Joan's trials and incarceration. Surprising, how much character complexity comes through despite the fact that Bresson stuck to trial transcripts- we see a young woman who is strong but frightened, illuminated by faith and steadfast and unquestioning of it, tempted though she may be with the thought of saving her life. The only other Joan of Arc film with this much depth is Rivette's, and that is nearly four times as long and covers most of her adult life- Dreyer's, towering achievement though it may be, isn't a character study, as character complexity wasn't silent cinema's strong point. I have no idea when I'll get to see this again, but this certainly deserves mention as an important part of Bresson's filmography. As for me, the only "canonical" Bresson I have yet to see is FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER- anybody know where I can find it? Rating: ***1/2.
THE LADY OF MUSASHINO (1951, Kenji Mizoguchi, seen on DVD)- this starts fairly leisurely for such a short film (84 minutes), but as the film transpires it begins to build in power. The theme of the film is the limitations of women in Japanese society, and that the story is set immediately after World War II is crucial, since at that time Japan was struggling to catch up with the rest of the world. The protagonist, however, insists on living as a traditional woman- remaining devoted to an unworthy husband, rebuffing the advances of a cousin who loves her, and living beyond reproach. Meanwhile, others take advantage- another cousin asks her to mortgage her property so that he may take out a loan, her husband cheats and eventually runs off with her mooching cousin's wife, and so on- but she can't bring herself to abandon her old ways, denying herself love and happiness and eventually poisoning herself to save her family legacy. The idea of the old town of Musashino as a metaphor for the dying traditions comes off less heavyhanded that it would in less assured hands, and sets up a beautiful final shot- a pan across rural Musashino to reveal a modern city just over the hill. Rating: ***1/2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
