Week Five

Alright, I missed finishing Week 4 by one movie. But I watched the last film first thing in the new week, so all is good. New Queue:

Umberto D (1952) - Check
Y Tu Mama, Tambien (2001) - Check
Nights of Cabiria (1957) - Check
Grapes of Wrath (1940) - Check

Also some may have noticed that I've been changing the queue occasionally throughout the allotted weeks, mainly because sometimes I just don't feel like the movie I set out to watch. Some days I'm just in a different mood.

Buffalo '66

Buffalo '66
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118789]

The Gist:
Vincent Gallo is a man who has just been released from prison. He is presented as highly agitated and eccentric. As the movie progresses, his character delves into the gray ranges of psychosis. Like when he kidnaps a girl, Christina Ricci, to take to his parents to gain their long sought after approval and acknowledgment. While he does so, he is so emotionally abusive to Ricci that we wonder we she doesn't just run away, for he is a truly terrible kidnapper (for instance, leaving her in the car with the keys in the ignition, while he goes to take a leak). As the film goes on we get a lot about his character, the scene with his parents giving insight to his irrational rage and fear of intimacy. However, we don't get a sense of who Ricci is or why she stays with him (besides a strong performance from her that offers at least a little illumination). The film gives a feeling of being disjointed, unbalanced. It's stylistic choices do help ground that impression, offering small moments of odd framing and jump cuts and weird little home movie flashbacks. However, in the end the movie fails. One reason is Ricci's unclear motivations toward the beginning of the film. It becomes a flaw in the narrative logic that is hard to overlook. Another reason is that it's just a hard film to get into. It was odd because the technical aspects of the film are really fascinating, but the film itself felt sort of soulless. As if it were a collection of powerful impressions that Gallo tried to piece together and assumed some cohesive whole would result. It's fragmented and ugly and you spend most of the time disliking his character. But it is interesting filmmaking, for whatever that's worth. Many scenes are filled with meaning that are enhanced by the unique stylistic choices mentioned earlier, and its clear that a great amount of thought went into the project. But if you're going to watch interesting filmmaking, you can do so in films more compelling and enjoyable than this.

On Another Note:
Many who take fault with this director throw around the words "self-indulgent". I do not, mainly because if the movie wasn't so fascinatingly self-indulgent it would have just been some asshole who kidnaps a girl, freaks out about her touching him, hates his parents, goes to kill some old field goal kicker for the Buffalo Bills, and inexplicably falls in love by the end of it. Without indulgence this film is kind of pointless.

City Lights

City Lights (1931)
IMDB #61 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021749/]

The Gist:
This is one of Chaplin's most famous renditions of his "Tramp" character. One aspect of the story is the Tramp saving a drunken millionaire from death. The millionaire builds an instant camaraderie with the Tramp while intoxicated but instantly forgets him the moment he is sober (a comic premise repeated throughout the story). The other more important aspect to the story is the Tramp falling in love with an impoverished, blind flower girl. The Tramp courts her and nobly tries to bring her out of her downtrodden place in life. He attempts to accomplish this through his intermittent friendship with the millionaire and a few odd jobs when the millionaire is too sober to help. This premise picks up the pace when the girl is near being evicted. Chaplin goes through a series of misfortunes from the classic boxing scene to a mistaken accusation of theft, to jail time, and so on. What is odd is that the movie really isn't that funny. Sure it has its moments, the boxing scene is amazing, some of the stuff with the millionaire is great, but mostly its just a clean, sentimental narrative. Surprisingly, that's alright, it still becomes one of his best films. This is because the emotional presence of the Tramp has never been more powerful, his empathy and love for the girl is palpable. Charlie Chaplin has never been as funny as someone like Buster Keaton or Harpo Marx (in my eyes), but here he rivals Keaton in terms of an emotionally charged narrative. This quality gives credence to City Lights being hailed as one of the best silent films of all time (though it still feels a bit overrated, as most Chaplin films do to me).

The Conversation

The Conversation (1974)
IMDB #219 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071360/]

The Gist:
Gene Hackman plays a man who specializes in private surveillance. In fact, he seems to be an early pioneer of the trade, long before wire tapping became a thing of government conspiracy. In the beginning of the film, he is recording a rather ambiguous conversation between a man and a woman who appear to be having an affair. He talks about not caring what the conversation is about, merely that he finishes the job. However, the longer the film goes on, the more weight this conversation carries. There is a suggestion that it may lead to the young couples murder. Hackman becomes obsessed with the tape, their words play over and over throughout the film. Each time the conversation is repeated it gives new shades of meaning. The film is one of the last great efforts from Francis Ford Coppola, and is filled with a dread suspense that plays into the audience's fears perfectly.

The Bicycle Thieves

The Bicycle Thieves (1948)
IMDB #94 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040522/]

The Gist:
This was one of my first forays into Italian Neo-Realism, and it turned out to be one of my favorite films I've seen (at least at first impression). It goes out of its way to create an authentic feeling, and actually borrows a lot of aspects of French Impressionism (ie shooting on location, use of nonactors). However, where the French delved into melodrama, lingering on reaction shots and ignoring plot for angst the Italians take a more subtle approach. The result is a film like The Bicycle Thief, that draws you in to its despair with such a force of empathetic engagement that by the end of the film you feel such anxiety and worry for the characters. I found as the film went on I was leaning further and further out of my seat, and the climax of the film was just...heartbreaking. It left a great impression, the film is near perfect.

Week Four

Well I'm a little late getting the blog entries up but I have watched the films in time which is what counts. Also I'm simplifying my responses some just because I've been busy and I really don't feel like making time to go into that much detail with every film. This way I'll get my priliminary thoughts of the films down and that'll be good enough. Anyway, on to the next list which is already in progress:

The Bicycle Thief (1948) - Check
The Conversation (1974) - Check
City Lights (1931) - Check
Buffalo '66 (1998) - Check

A Fistful of Dollars

Fistful of Dollars - 1964
[ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058461/]

The Gist:
Clint Easwood begins his trilogy of the man with no name, which culminates in Sergei's masterpiece The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Here we find Eastwood emanating Akira Kurosawa's samurai counterpart, as this film is a direct translation of the Japanese Yojimbo (which is amazing in its own right). Ignoring for the moment that Leone pilfered Yojimbo scene for scene without getting rights or giving credit to Kurosawa or the 'so bad its awesome' voice dubbing from everyone save the spot on Eastwood, this film kills. Eastwood excels in the Spaghetti western, chomping on cigars and relishing Mexican standoffs, outwitting his enemies and just generally being a badass. Leone's beautiful, stark backdrops give a sense of isolation and desperation. Meanwhile, the story is just as clever the second time around, a man playing both sides of a power struggle and finding some lost sense of nobility and kindness in midst of the battle for control of a half dead town.

On Another Note:
Kurosawa ended up suing for copyright infringement and made more money from the lawsuit than he ever made from Yojimbo's release.

Shoot the Piano Player

Shoot the Piano Player - 1960
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054389/]

The Gist:
French New Wave does a mob-esque film with satisfying results. Truffaut blends artistic sensibilities into a story of violence and intrigue, where a piano player's family is mixed up in crime and the piano player eventually slips into his brothers' destructive patterns (a la Godfather). Oh and there's a love interest in there too. In fact, the film is more about love than it is about violence, but it makes for potent backdrop. My only gripe is that the film can feel a little uneven. Is it an art-house film or a genre flick? Is it going for cheap laughs or trying to say something profound? When Truffaut tries to do it all he occasionally slips up, veering to far into melodrama or shtick. But these moments are rare. In the end, the film is a modest masterwork with beautiful moments rivaling any of its New Wave contemporaries.

La Strada

La Strada (The Road) - 1954

Director: Federico Fellini
Writers: Federico Fellini, Tullio Pinelli, Ennio Flaiano
Players: Anthony Quinn, Giulietta Masina, Richard Basehart
IMDB #205 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047528/]

The Gist:
Zampano, a traveling vaudeville type buys a side kick/"wife" for 10,000 lire from a poor family. He teaches her his act, knocks her around now and then, forces his sexual advances on her, brazenly sleeps around with other women, and gets drunk a lot. The girl, who is heartbreakingly adorable in this film, suffers his brutish temperament only occasionally working up courage to leave. He finds her, beats her up a little, she comes back to him. Then later she has a chance to leave him for a wonderfully kind, tight knit family of a traveling circus but she stays with Zampano. Then she has a chance to leave with another vaudeville actor who is obviously fond of her and she is obviously fond of him. Somehow through her conversation with him she becomes more committed to stay with Zampano. Then as Zampano tries to steal from a covenant who has kindly put them up she objects and is shaken in her conviction. However, when she leaves with Zampano in distress a nun offers her shelter in the covenant and she declines. Then when she starts going crazy near the end we see some trace of humanity in Zampano which would almost justify her staying with Zampano if he had shown any of this up to this point in the film. But he doesn't. Anyway, for all this film's high brow status it is at least a little of a battered wife story.

Why It's Kind of Cool:
The girl is amazing, absolutely amazing. I have a great crush on her and am a little jealous after finding out that she was Fellini's wife (especially after watching 8 1/2 and realizing how much he probably slept around on her). The parallel even in this film is sort of startling: that her brutish husband whore's around so much, that Fellini was probably not so different. And yet she stays with him up until Fellini's death, and stays with Zampano until she goes crazy and Zampano ditches her on the side of the road during winter (yes, that happens and the film expects you to feel sorry for him at the end). Anyway, the girl keeps the film going because without her insane screen presence it would feel like a pretty conventional art house film, like a watered down Bergman or something. However, with her wonderfully expressive qualities and her vaudeville silent era mannerisms she steals the whole damn movie giving cause to its stature in film. She reminds me of an insanely hot woman version of Harpo Marx. I only wish she ended up with the other vaudeville actor instead of staying in this frustrating cycle of destruction which makes the film hard to watch.

Why It Could Be Better:
I think I've probably already expressed what I don't like about this film. Perhaps some people would "tut" me and say that her suffering is the art of the film. Bah, I say. The psychology behind her choices is certainly interesting but we really are not given enough of Zampano to see him as anything but a two dimensional character. I find this frustrating, because if I'm to be tormented with this woman I want to see what she sees in him and I never do really. Beyond that it really was on the verge of being conventional, I could occasionally feel stiff direction from Fellini when it came to the girl's otherwise great performance. Moments where she was obviously supposed to "show" the audience what she was feeling but felt a little forced. Along with that, both characters change in significant ways but the change is handled strangely. In fact, Zampano's change in particular is a little overwrought and far too late in the film to be very effective. But it is undoubtedly a great movie, if only to consider it as an eccentric performance piece for Giulietta Masina.

Singin' in the Rain

Singin' in the Rain - 1952

Directors: Gene Kelly, Stanley Donen
Writers: Adolph Green, Betty Comden
Players: Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, Debbie Reynolds
IMDB #78 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045152/]

The Gist:
Gene Kelly is a big movie star in the silent era. His character is about to experience the upheaval of sound's influence on film in the 1930s. During this great time of change, many well established stars were forced into a desperate position to translate their screen presence to the "talkies". Some succeeded, some did not. Gene Kelly's character happens to have a wonderful singing voice, great diction, and can also dance. He's pretty much set but it takes him a little while to figure it out. Meanwhile his costar has a horrid nasally accent but we don't like her much anyway so there's not much conflict from her. So where does the conflict come from? Some of it comes from Gene Kelly chasing after his bird, but they're together from the early middle of the film onward. On paper, this film looks as if it has no real great conflict at all (the greatest conflict coming at the end from the suddenly introduced insidious plotting of nasally costar). So if that's the case, why does this movie work so well? ...I'm not sure.

Why This Movie Kills:
One way it accomplishes a sense of conflict and innate watchability is by setting up great subversive commentary on Hollywood. So many people talk about how this film represents the golden age of cinema, but I haven't read much about how keen its eye was of the foolishness in Hollywood. The overly glamorized premieres and the mythologized beginnings of Don's career (Gene Kelly). In the opening he gives this wonderful monologue of how he got into the pictures, complemented with flashbacks showing it for what it is: bullshit. On the surface you can think of it as being funny because he's full of shit, but when you realize that its really that all of the great stars have a lot of pretty lies to better create an image and product you realize it's a pretty impressive thing to comment about in a film of its time. Other examples include the studio feeding the press rumors of the a costar romance to help sell tickets. Or the fumbling of sound projects. The idiotic perception that writing wouldn't matter, that they could sell tickets with the characters just saying anything. This hints at studio patterns today, putting out summer blockbuster movies laden with special effects but without a substantial plot to justify all the pretty bloodshed on screen.

On Another Note:
The romance really is handled very nicely in the film, and there probably is a good deal more conflict with the translation to sound then I'm suggesting. I'm just saying that with many movies like this (from this era of filmmaking up to recent hollywood productions), you get the idea that everything is going to be fine. Which can be good, can be comforting, but often makes it much harder for that film to transcend its modest entertainment qualities to the realm of greatness. This film does. Every scene is incredibly well written (not to mention occasionally very eccentric which I love), all the songs contribute to the plot in some small way, it really is one of the best musicals I've ever seen.

My Nitpicks:
Ironically for one of my favorite musicals I really didn't think it had that great of music. The music was good, and worked well as almost a commentary on the kinds of songs that were sung during the time frame but the film's songs aren't as catchy as some of the later musical masterpieces (Cabernet, Funny Girl, My Fair Lady, Sound of Music, West Side Story). And yet this movie stands toe to toe with them, because everything fits together so fucking well.

Week Three

Week Two was a little more under the wire but successful as well. On to Week Three!

Singin' in the Rain (1952) - check
La Strada (1954) - check
Shoot the Piano Player (1960) - check
Fistful of Dollars (1964) - check

8 1/2

8 1/2 - 1963

Director: Federico Fellini
Writers: Federico Fellini, Ennio Flaiano, Tullio Pinelli, Brunello Rondi
Players: Marcello Mastroianni, Claudia Cardinale, Anouk Aimee, Sandra Milo
IMDB #155 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056801/]

The Gist:
8 1/2 is an odd film to sum up because on the surface not a lot happens. We have our protagonist, Guido, who is going through a severe artistic block. He staggers through the opening moments of a lofty film production which he has lost his inspiration for. He attempts to find his inspiration in women. His wife, his mistress, his friend's mistress, some random woman he occasionally sees at the hotel, a woman named Claudia who I don't actually think is real (an odd distinction in a film like this), and so on. Apparently, his relationship with women and his artistic vision are directly related. You get the impression that his success in the past has been shaped by different muses (something Woody Allen can relate to). While he is going through this sort of crisis, the film weaves in and out of dream sequences, often blurring the lines between the reality of the film and what is in the character's head. As the film climaxes it seems to leave the more concrete world altogether, growing more and more abstract and self-aware. And self-aware is the key word. It's hard to get a beat on this film because of how self-aware it is. When I see something that I think is a little pretentious, but then the film itself calls it pretentious, what am I to think? In the end, the fictional production falls apart and the protagonist comes to a realization that he wants his life to be honest and true. But who knows if this is not another lie for the sake of a beautiful line in a film?

Why This Movie Kills:
Viewing this film, you have to deal with a lot of baggage: the word "meta-film" being tossed around, making the distinction between reality and fiction, and so on. How much of the womanizing is a true depiction of the director, did he and his wife really separate and if so is he trying to come to terms with his shortcomings through this film? I haven't looked into it because I frankly don't want to know. I have a personal philosophy when it comes to film, in that I try to know as little of the artist's life as possible. This is so I can judge the work of art as an individual entity without the artist's experiences or behavior coloring it for me. Of course with a project like this it makes it difficult, because I know the title of the film refers to it being Fellini's 8 1/2 film (he co-directed one with someone thus making the half). I also know that he had "director's block" preceding the film and that the childhood sequences came from his own childhood. This all suggests a deeply autobiographical project. On top of that, there's a moment in the film where the protagonist director is on screen watching screen tests of someone who will be playing a character closely resembling his wife, talking about real problems in their relationship while his actual wife is sitting in the same theater, watching this unfold. The viewer is left wondering if there was a "real" wife watching, viewing those same real problems between her and the actual director. The film almost forces that question on you with its brazen references to the autobiographical quality. This has an oddly abstruse effect, making the viewer question the authenticity of the project. But that depth is what makes the film unique. In the end, the important thing is that you do feel this film is deeply felt. You get the protagonist's desperation, great insecurity, and alienation and find him pitiable and fascinating. Beyond that the film says something greatly personal about the nature of art and how it is poisoned by intellectualism and unfair expectations. In this film, art has become something that can only be given worth by others around Guido. This is the path toward destruction. Art is and always should be a personal venture, something to be given for better or worse to the public without great influence on the artist. There can only be one vision, and a man who is trying to make something that will say something to someone else will never make anything of worth. He will only do so by saying something that has meaning for himself alone. 8 1/2, if nothing else, speaks to this beautifully.

On Another Note:
With a film like this, you can't really get a full appreciation from only one viewing. Likewise, it is a film that is intentionally abstract so I infer meaning which relates more to myself and probably less to the artist's intent. For instance, the ending of the last paragraph ignores the fact that Guido seems to be out of things to say. He is gathering random memories from his childhood and his life and clumping them together, hoping that some meaning will just come from their assemblage. He does this instead of having a meaning, but the process eventually leads to a convoluted mindfuck about the artistic process and his conscious anxiety over realizing this fact. With this comes actual meaning, meaning from the desperate search for meaning. It's actually a beautiful concept. What I take issue with, though, is the idea that he must create great art. That if he fails he will have destroyed himself. For me, I think art should be an exploration. There should be room for failures, failures make things more interesting. Perfection is boring. That's why this film, in and of itself, is fascinating. It's a great experiment in narrative story telling. Unfortunately, you get the feeling that the director's failures were internalized and we can only glimpse them through the greater clarity of the final project. It might make for a better film in most regards, but there's something to seeing more of the raw struggle.

Anyway there's a lot of shit I could talk about with this film and take up a few more pages. I just went with what I found most interesting about it.

The Boondock Saints

The Boondock Saints - 1999

Director: Troy Duffy
Writer: Troy Duffy
Players: Willem Dafoe, Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144117/]

The Gist:
Two delightfully Irish brothers work in a meat factory, horse around at the bar, get shitfaced, go to church and mutter prayers, and generally act quaintly Irish. Then some Russian mobsters fuck with the them in a bar. They end up killing said mobsters later in self-defense and it becomes a formative moment. They contract themselves out to the Italian mob to go and kill bad guys (ie the leaders of the Russian mob syndicate), then end up turning on the Italian mob because, well, they're bad guys too. And sometimes they kill people jacking off in a strip club because they're bad guys too. Oh but they like their one Italian friend even though he's not a very good guy. They let him kill bad guys too. Meanwhile, Willem Dafoe is a oddly characterized gay FBI official hunting them down. He decides that the brothers are pretty righteous and then he starts killing bad guys too. The Italian Mob freaks out about all this killing and hires this scary guy to kill the brothers. He turns out to be their father and ends up killing bad guys too. Then there's a big diatribe at the end about judging all the bad people before they kill the last bad person in a courtroom probably full of police officers though you'd never know it by watching the film. Then the movie ends with hokey mock interviews about the "saints" and their role in society. End of movie.

Why It's Kind of Cool:
This movie is at its best when it is building a mythos around its characters. You have odd religious connotations about the brothers, a general feeling that they may hold some immortal characteristics. They say their "family prayer" before killing their main targets, they stage the slain with their arms folded and pennies on their eyes. Also you have this mysterious scene near the beginning where they reveal that they can pretty much speak all the world languages fluently. There is the feeling that they are "heaven sent", angels of destruction, and so on. Of course this is wonderfully undercut by their general Irish rowdiness and their laissez-faire about who they decide to kill and their attitude to their Italian companion (who accidentally kills cats and seems to enjoy the killing more for killing sake and less for any vigilante idealism). Bill Connolly is also appropriately handled with a great mythic quality, a mysterious assassin only set lose at great times of need. And so on. Also the killing scenes are pretty cool and Willem Dafoe is often quite fascinating as a gay FBI agent who seems rather hostile toward other homosexuals (derisively calling them "fags" on more than one occasion). Also, the scene where a cross dressing Willem Dafoe walks around a house killing off Russian mobsters is worth seeing the movie alone.

Why It Could Be Better:
Despite its lofty intentions to create a myth around its characters, Duffy's movie falls flat by the end. This seems to be because he has made a genuinely hollow, if somewhat enjoyable experience. He then seeks to justify his characters and turns his movie from an enjoyably campy Tarantinoesque production into a trite platitude about vigilantism and moral judgment. If nothing else, Willem Dafoe's drunken slip preceding his shift in moral thinking defies any realistic approach to the film. It is so obviously a narrative device that it, along with other moments, cements the film's status as an uneven B movie undeserving of its cult praise. Why? Because it is indicative of a greater problem of the film: it's very transparent. When Duffy uses a device it is awkward and unruly. To use the Dafoe example, it is simply more convenient to the story that Willem Dafoe switches sides. So he has a drunken night of conscience and talks with a priest in the morning. And then we're good, Willem Dafoe is a crazy mob killing mad man in drag. Another example is that its more convienent for the mysterious hitman to be the boys' father because it ends the conflict so easily. This is likewise inferred without tact or subtlety. Other times you notice bad filmmaking are when you see scenes that serve no purpose at all and should have been cut. All this stands in contrast to what the film does right, create an authentic bond between the two brothers. This bond keeps the film afloat through moderately meaningless, yet fun, bloodshed. But by the end the movie wears thin.

On Another Note:
I watched this movie for the first time last night, and watching through the rather lame credits I noticed something. I am in these credits! I rewound the DVD to make sure, I spent a good hour obsessing over it, going over the same three seconds. That is me. Or the most startling doppleganger ever (who appears to have also broken his nose and talks like me and has my mannerisms and is wearing clothes that I own...though sadly the clothes are rather ambiguous. A blue sweater and a Boston cap is hardly concrete evidence). How could this be though? The film was made in 1999! I was fourteen in 1999 and this is clearly the Jacob who lived in Boston. Ah but I did some research and found that these are new credits shot after the fact of the film, by a different director. This would presumably lead to the conclusion that it was for a re-release of the film or something (somewhat verified by asking people who watched it before 2007 if the credits were there, most seem to think they were not). But when were the credits shot?! I cannot find out and its driving me crazy. I need proof that these credits were shot between August 2007 and May 2008 (my short tenure in Boston). Frankly, this pisses me off for some unknown reason. Probably because I don't ever remember this happening, I never signed any consent form, and I have to doubt my sanity and my own sense of identity because Troy Duffy and company are assholes who don't let me know I'm going to be in an incredibly popular cult film that, unfortunately, helps define my generation (even if only for the duration of around three seconds). What the fuck Troy Duffy?



[I am in at 1:36 saying "I don't want to talk about it" and waving the camera off.]

Menilmontant

Menilmontant - 1926

Director: Dimitri Kirsanoff
Writer: Dimitri Kirsanoff
Players: Nadia Sibirskaia, Yolande Beaulieu, Guy Belmont
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147039/]

The Gist:
This is a French Impressionistic film, which means a few different things. It's not your bourgeoisie Americanized trite sentimentalized schmaltz posing as "cine pur" or pure cinema. No this is something "real", something stark and moody and without such tired conventions like plot. And the suffering, let us not forget the suffering. After all, any moment on film not suffering is a moment wasted. No this film says "We are French, we suffer, we anguish. Look at how pretty we can make all our suffering and anguish. Aren't we hip? Don't you want to go off and hang yourself in some tragically bohemian fashion after watching our dreary little production. Yes? Wonderful."

Why It's Kind of Cool:
I make fun of it, but this is actually a badass little film. For one thing, it rivals Eisenstein in terms of cinematography (though not for Eisenstein's epic stagings). For another, as far as silent film goes, this is some of the better acting I've seen. A large part of the impressionistic movement is for the actors to provide realism in their performances (instead of the exaggeration permeating the craft at the time). These performances (along with authentic locations, et al) are supposed to convey impressions of emotions and mental states. Though there are theatrical moments (such as eyes widening, overemphasizing her shock), the tender moments in this film are bar none to its contemporaries. Also I kind of have a crush on the Nadia girl. I know she's dead and buried at this point, but I wanted to step into the film and usher her and her illegitimate child away from the cold and gloomy streets of Menilmontant and console her about her murdered parents and her lost sister who is now gallivanting around town with the father of her child. Yes, that's the story. And it's much better watching it than talking about it in retrospect and seeing how ridiculous it is.

Why it Could Be Better:
Despite its lofty ambitions to rise above the early set cliches of the medium, it still falls into the pitfalls of mawkishness now and then. This seems inevitable for silent film because there needs to be extreme story elements and emotions in order to convey itself successfully without the aid of sound. However, for a film that is part of a movement stating its purpose to move away from that kind of filmmaking, it makes it particularly odd when we see the filmmaker revert back to it. Another thing is the lack of form in the narrative structure. This is an element of the avant garde French cinema at the time but it fits better with surrealism than this. However, this is a minor complaint because the film is a scant 36 minutes long which feels close to perfect. This causes the annoyance of a lack of form to be minimal at best.

La Haine

La Haine (The Hate) - 1995

Director: Mathieu Kassovitz
Writer: Mathieu Kassovitz
Players: Vincent Cassel, Hubert Kounde, Said Taghmaoui
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113247/]

The Gist:
Here we have three boys from the French slums amidst great turmoil. A recent case of police brutality has hospitalized a friend of theirs (how close of a friend is ambiguous, given that the seem to know everyone in the slums to some extent). In reaction to this act, the slums are stirring with riotous and righteous fury. This sentiment is mirrored in the young men to varying degrees. Vinz has a found a gun (which was likely a gun lost to a police officer during the riots, though it is never explicitly stated as such), and with this gun we have a guarantee as a viewer that he will come to some confrontation with violence. Vinz has stated that if his friend dies he will shoot a cop. Hubert finds this declaration to be an act of stupidity. Said seems to be the middle ground, ambivalent to the greater concerns his friends are coping with. Beyond this setup is an odd road trip to Paris, weird interwoven references to the influence of "violent American culture", many moments of unnecessary contention to show off the influence of our violent American culture, and a beautiful yet pretentious moral ending wrapping everything up.

Why It's Kind of Cool:
By the time Kassovitz made this film, he basically only had one little art house film under his belt. With his sophmore attempt he got into Cannes, got himself a Criterion release on his DVD, and won a fair bit of praise. A lot of that has to do with the technical grace of the film. In fact, some times I found myself annoyed because the camera work was too spot on, too perfect. Like a refined Guy Ritchie film, moving the camera to eliciting a response and less for specific meaning. This could sound like a slight, but it actually compliments the film very well. Upon reflection, the camera seems to mimic the irrationality of hate and the directionless anger of its subjects. The film also has themes of America's cultural influence, and thus the film evokes the fast paced showy style of many contemporary American films (I used Guy Ritchie as an example because, let's face it, his films are Americanized heist films with British accents. His good films anyway). Beyond the pure style of the film, you also have showy little French quirks of cinema that I always love. They break up their scenes with the time of day, and a lot of times come back to the same shot changed subtly. Other beautiful additions include an amazingly random monologue from an old man in the men's restroom talking about his glorious shit and then going into a tangent about a trip to Siberia or some such thing. That part was probably the best in the whole film.

Why it Could Have Been Better:
I may have already hinted at this, but this film is pretty flawed. For most the most part, it's forgivable. However, it has one glaring issue that will probably keep me from ever truly loving the film. This is it: two of its three main characters are just not very likable (Vinz and Said). The only one I really liked was Hubert, who was the voice of reason and yet still cheeky enough to pick some guys pocket in an art exhibit. Vinz however is so contentious, so eager for conflict, that every little provocation turns into him yelling at some elderly woman in the grocery line or brandishing his gun at some half naked guy with nunchucks. Said on the other hand is just kind of annoying and unscrupulous. Even when the film really picks up with the trip out to Paris, I found that my viewing was still spoiled by an unnecessary squabble in the art gallery or the guys being assholes to a perfectly well meaning drunk who actually saves them from going to jail (without reason given their hostility). Beyond this, the characters were never fleshed out enough for me to care why they were so angry, or at the very least be compelled. I'm sure the many provocations can be explained away by some bullshit about the atmosphere of hatred and violence but often it was forced and extraneous.

Week Two

Huzzah, a week successfully completed (one day ahead of schedule). Next week's queue is already set up, so I'll take this opportunity to post it now.

8 1/2 - 1963 (check)
The Boondock Saints - 1999 (check)
La Haine - 1995 (check)
Menilmontant - 1926 (check)

Odd List of the Month

Odd List of the Month - Jacob's Current Top 20 Favorite Films

My top 20 is always changing so this is by no means a constant.


1. Moulin Rouge


2. Vertigo


3. Amelie


4. Spirited Away


5. Happy Together


6. Lord of the Rings


7. Apocalypse Now


8. The Fountain



9. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly


10. Shaolin Soccer


11. The Class


12. Breathless


13. Monty Python and the Holy Grail


14. The Hustler


15. Dead Man


16. The Thin Red Line


17. The Bicycle Thief


18. Star Wars


19. The Signal


20. Hannah and Her Sisters

Magnolia

Magnolia - 1999

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Writer: Paul Thomas Anderson
Players: Tom Cruise, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Julliane Moore, John C. Reiley, William H. Macy, and so on.
IMDB # 242 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0175880/]

The Gist:
Paul Thomas Anderson has created a massively unique project with Magnolia. It stands as giant, whirring monolith of drama possibly overstating its purpose and overstaying its welcome. However, it is hard to say if that is truly the case only watching the film once. You have many intertwining story lines dealing with a wide gamut of human grief and frailty: approaching death (e.g. cancer), suicide, sexual abuse, drug addiction, drug overdose, loneliness, grandiose misogyny covering personal insecurities, lots and lots of daddy issues, and so on. These potent subjects are displayed with great pitch and fervor, almost to the point of stunting their purpose. And yet there is something oddly affecting about this film. It hosts, perhaps, the strangest narrative rhythm I have ever seen. The camera is constantly moving, it tracks subjects, wip pans to other subjects, and creates a visual thread showing the connection between all of the characters. And this is generally the point, that all these characters are connected, and that presumably we are all connected. It suggests a greater plan at work, suggests that coincidences are in fact just indications of that greater plan. And somewhere in there PTA decides that it's going to rain frogs.

Why It's Kind of Cool:
First of all, it is a film of great performances. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, in particular, is insanely impressive. And yet, in the host of supporting roles that I've heard him receive praise for this one is rarely mentioned. And he kills, he's barely in it but when he is he's raw and sensitive and you feel like all his nerves are exposed and snapping like broken power lines. Watch it, you'll see. Also the scene with Cruise and the interviewer is this incredibly involving battle for control. In fact, most of the drama, while a little over the top, is still very powerful. As the movie progressed I could feel the weight of the story pressing down on me, and if I film can do that it's doing something right. Finally, the frog sequence is amazing. It sort of plays into the overstated, stylized aspect of the film and just goes for broke. Honestly if I'm on the fence about that stylized, staged feeling about the film, the frog's probably put me over. It's fucking weird and unique and offers a surreal climax that fits the tone perfectly.

Why it Could Be Better:
I mentioned the strange narrative rhythm before. I don't know if it's a detraction or not, but it is certainly off putting. I read somewhere that the film was trying to mimic the build of "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles. If this is true, they failed. The song, a classic, builds and then breaks down, and then builds back up again. This film, however, starts at full build. It opens at a crescendo, and then attempts to carry that crescendo for a good two thirds of the film. That, if nothing else, makes the film one of its kind. But while being fascinating, it undermines its dramatic tension. The reason things have a build is so we can become more involved, and when it reaches its climax we are right there with it. Instead the film almost has an anti-climax, save the whole frogs bit. Its something that would probably grow on you in repeated viewings but almost demands repeated viewings in order to do so. A film that can't be nearly appreciated to its full extent the first time around is either doing something very right or something very wrong. Or both. I've already mentioned the staged and stylized aspect of the film, which only sometimes feels too forced and too mechanical. But those moments are jarring and show that this is truly a flawed film (if not beautiful and ambitious). And as a side note, Julianne Moore has one cool scene with the lawyer but it seems this scene is replayed in other scenes to exponentially diminishing affect. By the end of the movie she becomes shrill and histrionic and I almost wish she was never in the film at all.

The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) - 2006

Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Writer: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Players: Ulrich Muhe, Sebastian Koch, and a guy who looks suspiciously like the principal in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
IMDB #59 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/]

The Gist:
The third film in my unintentional Communist film hat trick. This one is about East Germany during the cheery days of Soviet control where people kidnap subversives, ban questionable playwrights, and wire tap everyone under the sun. And unlike the last two movies, this film takes little liberty for exaggeration. You have a main character who in the beginning is extremely professional, an idealist surrounded by men who are more interested in power than sustaining the virtues of socialism. He very quickly becomes emotionally involved with his subjects and begins protecting them against the "Stasi". This change seems to happen over maybe 10 or 15 minutes in a 137 minute film. In lesser hands this would have lead to an abrupt character shift, but for seem reason it works well (thanks in no small part to Muhe's incredible empathy toward his character Wiesler). Through the careful effort to keep the young playwright from harm, Wiesler comes to life. He lives vicariously through the playwright's passion and at the end of the film the broad moral of freedom is only as important as Wiesler's private realizations.

Why This Movie Kills:
Because it's characters are well developed and stir in their own quiet ways, rattling the cage of East Germany. Because it moves like a sleek thriller and by the end of it you realize it was the perfect length but secretly want it to go on because you're so invested. Because its filled with astute human observations and does not rely on embellishment to make a point. This last bit is very rare, because the filmmaker often doesn't have that much respect for its audience. However, Donnersmarck makes his statements the good old fashion way, through film techniques. He shoots the majority of this film with a wide angle lens which has, among other traits, the impression of creating great distance between spatial objects. This creates a feeling of isolation that reflects the mind state of those left behind the Iron Curtain, those afraid to express individuality and descent. Communism's greatest mistake may have been to take the principles of socialism from a broad focus of the people to a specific focus of the individual (allegedly applying force to the latter would help attain the former). This way lies the path of Orwell's 1984, a work hard to ignore while watching this film.

My Nitpicking:
I can't help it, I always find ending on a freeze frame cheesy. It drives me crazy, so much so that I want to make a digital copy of this movie and use a fade before it goes to that freeze frame then convert it back to DVD format and live with the degradation of quality that the process would involve. Elaborate and extraneous I know. Other than that I'd have to watch it again. My initial impressions are pretty favorable.

[Does this guy look like the principal from Ferris Bueller? Is that just me?]

Strike

Strike (Stachka) - 1925

Director: Sergei Eisenstein
Writers: Sergei Eisenstein and three other Russian guys with hard to pronounce names
Players: A bunch of Russian nonactors
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015361/]

The Gist:
Mmm, taste that communist propaganda. This was apparently a very appropriate film to follow Manchurian Candidate. Sergei made this film very shortly before Battleship Potempkin, which is one of the most famous silent films of all time. Both films go together very well, have a common visual aesthetic. And in both films you have the sacrificial death of a lowly working class someone or another that spurs the revolt. It's not important who because in these films you have two characters, the working class and the evil capitalist czarist murdering bastards with jowels and fucked up teeth who drop babies from three story buildings and sick the hoses on the working class like it was Alabama in 1963. And those are not exaggerations, they're in the film. Anyway, you throw in a quote from Lenin and beautiful shots of huge masses of workers storming the factory office shouting their demands and you have some powerful nationalistic media.

Why It's Kind of Cool:
It's pretty. It's really pretty. For a film shot in 1925, when America was putting out fairly stellar but visually stagnant productions like Chaplin's Gold Rush and Keaton's The Navigator, Eisenstein turned out to be an artistic madman. The only thing that comes close is some of the German Expressionism stuff like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Eisenstein had beautiful rhythmic editing, great composition, the scenes really burst to life and give the subject matter a great deal of heft.

Why It Could Be Better:
It's 94 minutes long. I know that seems short but not for a silent film, a silent film drama that has a really thin plot (bourgeois ruling class abuses lower working class, working class "strikes" and makes demands for better working conditions, ruling class smoke cigars and balk and set the police on workers, workers are massacred, the end). Also there are loose illuminations of "spies" that weed out some of the strike leaders but these plot elements are poorly developed and often leave the audience trying to piece together what is happening. To reference Dr. Caligari again, that film was 77 minutes long and still could have lost a good ten minutes, but was otherwise perfect for silent film pacing. An even better example is one of my favorite silent films, Sherlock Jr., clocking in at a tight 45 minutes. A perfect length for a silent feature film for the modern audience.

The Manchurian Candidate

The Manchurian Candidate - 1962

Director: John Frankenheimer
Writer: George Axelrod
Players: Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Janet Leigh
IMDB #120 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/]

The Gist:
Big cold war paranoia film, complete with mock up of Joseph McCartney and bad Asian stereotypes and poor Frank Sinatra sweating nervously through most of the movie. The story is about soldiers who are abducted during the Korean War who all get hypnotized in order to concoct some bullshit story about one of their own, Raymond Shaw, beating a battalion of Korean soldiers single handedly, or something of the like, just so that he can get the congressional medal of honor. Then, having established high standing in society, he is used to give his father credibility (note: his father is the McCartney mock up) for a vice presidential campaign and then used as a zombie hypnotized assassin to help him eventually become president. Only his father is a drunken buffoon and his mother is one pulling the strings, and she has some vague Communist agenda going on. And Frank Sinatra's in there too and he spends most of the time looking nervous and beating up Asian man servants and unexplainably winning the affections of Janet Leigh just by being Frank Sinatra. Sounds convoluted, no?

Why It's Kind of Cool:
It picks up on this weird unconscious fear of communism that was obviously very prevalent at the time. The idea that someone could be, on the surface, normal and yet underneath there is this insidious thing waiting to unmask itself. Something innocuous, like solitaire, unlocks the hypnotized cold blooded communist assassin who perpetrates acts that would destroy Raymond Shaw if he ever had any recollection. These are powerful underlying sentiments about the red scare culture. Also Laurence Harvey kills in this movie, he is perfect. As the movie progresses and his two states of consciousness start to merge he plays it just right, becoming the most believable character in the story. Also the movie has good pacing and is for the most part very engaging as a kind of thriller.

Why It Could Be Better:
Some of the story was just terrible. Really large leaps in narrative logic, like Janet Leigh deciding that she's in love with Frank Sinatra and leaves her fiance based on Frank jittering around like a heroin addict and mostly ignoring her oddly persistent advances. And then they're in love, almost immediately. It was annoying and poorly written. Also the shift from Frank Sinatra's fall from grace in the military back to something of a promotion and heading the case against Raymond Shaw was barely passed over. Poorly written again. However most of the writing was pretty good and the flashback with Shaw and his bird was a particularly nice touch, giving emotional weight to the rest of the film.

Week One

I have already gotten a jump start on the week. Last night I watched the original Manchurian Candidate for the first time. First impressions: Janet Leigh could do better than an old Frank Sinatra in his Mr. Rogers sweater vest. I know he sang Fly Me to the Moon but come one. More on the film later.

For now I would like to map out the week's mission statement:

Manchurian Candidate (1962) - Check
The Lives of Others (2006) - Check
Strike (1925) - Check
Magnolia (1999) - Check

A quick note

Part of this mission statement is to fulfill another, older mission statement of watching the entirety of the imdb top 250. After polishing off The Manchurian Candidate I have 68 films to go. My current week's list will knock off two more (Magnolia and The Lives of Others). Other requirements for entry will be to fulfill watching an important director's canon:

Hitchcock (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Dardenne Brothers
Kurosawa (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Ford (1, 2)
Leone (1, 2)
Allen (1)
Bresson (1)
Kubrick (1, 2, 3, 4)
Cassavetes

Satyajit Ray (1)
Polanski (1)
Cronenburg
Herzog
Bergman (1, 2)
Hawkes (1)
Fellini (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Altman

Scorcese (1)
Von Trier (1)
Truffaut (1)
Godard
Ozu (1)
Anthony Mann (1, 2)
Almodovar (1, 2, 3)
Antonioni (1)
Renoir (1, 2, 3, 4)
Loach

Tati (1)
Trakovsky (1, 2, 3)

Melville
De Sica (1, 2)

Other requirements will be to more fully appreciate a particular presence in film, be it a movement (French New Wave) or simply a country's important body of work (Germany, China) or a specific genre (Samurai Films, Spaghetti Westerns).

Other requirements include films that I've meant to watch and haven't, films that my friends can't believe I haven't watched yet, films that I haven't heard of that I'm watching for a class, or any other "list" that I can find on the internet of must see films and such.

As for the imdb list of films that I need to watch (including, inexplicably, Changling):

A Fistful of Dollars - Check
For a Few Dollars More - Check
Life is Beautiful - Check
Double Indemnity - Check
M - Check
Paths of Glory - Check
Aliens
The Lives of Others - Check
Das Boot - Check
The Bridge on the River Kwai - Check
All About Eve - Check
Singin' in the Rain - Check
Modern Times - Check
Rebecca - Check
Downfall - Check
Metropolis - Check
Once Upon a Time in America
Full Metal Jacket - Check
The Bicycle Thief - Check
Witness for the Prosecution
Kind Hearts and Coronets - Check
Ran - Check
The Deer Hunter
Wild Strawberries - Check
Diabolique (The Devils 1955) - Check
Judgement at Nuremberg
Platoon
The Wages of Fear - Check
8 1/2 - Check
The Night of the Hunter - Check
Nights of Cabiria - Check
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans - Check
The Killing - Check
Brief Encounter - Check
The Thing
The Best Years of Our Lives
Sleuth - Check
The Wild Bunch
Umberto D. - Check
Shadow of a Doubt - Check
Stalag 17
Grave of the Fireflies - Check
The Lady Vanishes - Check
The Battle of Algiers - Check
Anatomy of Murder - Check
The Ox-Bow Incident - Check
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - Check
La Strada - Check
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
The Lost Weekend - Check
The Exorcist
The Conversation - Check
Rosemary's Baby - Check
Bonnie and Clyde - Check
Sweet Smell of Success - Check
All Quiet on the Western Front
Network - Check
Frankenstein (1931) - Check
Great Expectations (1946) - Check
Patton
Arsenic and Old Lace
Laura - Check
My Man Godfrey (1936) - Check
The Big Parade (1925)
Magnolia - Check
The Day the Earth Stood Still - Check
La Dolce Vita - Check
Changling