Taking a cue from my recent trip to Poland and the fact that my cousin is now happily married to a nice young Polish woman, I decided recently to take advantage of an opportunity to watch a Polish director. A film series on the works of Lech Majewski has been showing recently and so I jumped in with eager anticipation for what Poland had to offer. He is an artist and painter and has more than a bit in common with Julian Schnabel. Schnabel of course directed one of my favorite films from last year The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Majewski wrote the story for Basquiat which Schnabel directed. Both have an eye for the visual and a way of framing a scene so beautifully that one can't help but stare breathlessly as one does when observing a great piece of art work.
Angelus tells the story of a strange commune of men who are given three prophecies when their master dies. The first two seem to come true and when they see what they interpret as the sign of the third they take action to stop the destruction of the world. The story if filled with eccentric characters and scenes including but not limited to a guy blowing himself up, an attempt to scale the communist party headquarters and other such zaniness. The story is actually quite funny at times and the images coming at you are sometimes overwhelming.
More artistically driven than narratively, there are some absolutely gorgeous images in this film. Be it an opening sequence where a group of minors walk towards the camera with their headlamps shining forth or one of the many "picture" scenes. That is scenes with titles at the top or bottom which seem to start or end as snapshots in time and represent singular themes such as betrayal. All of it is quite beautiful and at times downright memorizing. The story seems ancillary but by no means unimportant. There is clearly a wonderful connection between the paintings that the characters create and the "paintings" of individual scenes.
In the end it was a pleasant and amusing film that was absolutely wonderful to look at and if you should get the chance I recommend you see it.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Ranting
As I continue to view and explore those canonical films of the past I've come to the following conclusions:
1) I wish I had been born forty years earlier (and lived in a culturally active city) so I could have seen the great craftsmen (Kurosawa, Bergman, Goddard, Bresson, etc) and their works when they came out originally.
2) I love films that tackle BIG themes and I wish more would do so in this day and age. There is nothing more fascinating to me than Bergman tackling the idea of religion or Tarkovsky asking what true love is.
And since I can't be born earlier than I was, I want to implore the filmmakers of the cinematic world to start making BIG theme films. Sure we are going to get a lot of crap but were occasionally going to get a great film. The key is to never propose an answer, just set up the question probe the edges a bit and leave us thinking for ourselves. Fellow blogger cinemaromantico just posted a rant on similar themes and gave us this great line "I hold the high the opinion that a movie can only explain the most pertinent, most essential mysteries of life without truly discussing them." (Cinema Romantico)
Three of my favorite films ever all deal with BIG nay HUGE themes, some multiple themes. Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris handles love, memory, and countless other themes. Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light deals with the silence of god, love (again), miscommunication, and I could go on and on. And of course Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line well sweet maria what doesn't it tackle: war, peace, paradise, paradise lost, religion, love (yet again), sacrifice, man, nature and it goes on and on. And I love every one of those movies because they have a thousand points to investigate and you are rewarded with something great each and every time you view it.
As soon as I can make sense of my own thoughts (and probably after reviewing each a couple of times just to remind me how fantastic they are) I plan to rant at length on each of these films. Of course that is a big as soon as, since my mind is a jumble of desire to vomit forth everything I am thinking about each and every scene in these movies. Which would not only bore the life out of all you obligatory readers but would probably make people angry as well.
So I'm here waiting for a movie that will tell a story worth telling and while its going along suddenly I'll wide eyed and smiling realize holy crap its not just about the story, its about ten thousand things more. Its about love and mistakes and the human condition and sweet maria these movie is wonderful. Is that too much to ask?
1) I wish I had been born forty years earlier (and lived in a culturally active city) so I could have seen the great craftsmen (Kurosawa, Bergman, Goddard, Bresson, etc) and their works when they came out originally.
2) I love films that tackle BIG themes and I wish more would do so in this day and age. There is nothing more fascinating to me than Bergman tackling the idea of religion or Tarkovsky asking what true love is.
And since I can't be born earlier than I was, I want to implore the filmmakers of the cinematic world to start making BIG theme films. Sure we are going to get a lot of crap but were occasionally going to get a great film. The key is to never propose an answer, just set up the question probe the edges a bit and leave us thinking for ourselves. Fellow blogger cinemaromantico just posted a rant on similar themes and gave us this great line "I hold the high the opinion that a movie can only explain the most pertinent, most essential mysteries of life without truly discussing them." (Cinema Romantico)
Three of my favorite films ever all deal with BIG nay HUGE themes, some multiple themes. Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris handles love, memory, and countless other themes. Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light deals with the silence of god, love (again), miscommunication, and I could go on and on. And of course Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line well sweet maria what doesn't it tackle: war, peace, paradise, paradise lost, religion, love (yet again), sacrifice, man, nature and it goes on and on. And I love every one of those movies because they have a thousand points to investigate and you are rewarded with something great each and every time you view it.
As soon as I can make sense of my own thoughts (and probably after reviewing each a couple of times just to remind me how fantastic they are) I plan to rant at length on each of these films. Of course that is a big as soon as, since my mind is a jumble of desire to vomit forth everything I am thinking about each and every scene in these movies. Which would not only bore the life out of all you obligatory readers but would probably make people angry as well.
So I'm here waiting for a movie that will tell a story worth telling and while its going along suddenly I'll wide eyed and smiling realize holy crap its not just about the story, its about ten thousand things more. Its about love and mistakes and the human condition and sweet maria these movie is wonderful. Is that too much to ask?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Haxan
Sweet maria. What the hell did I just watch? Attempting to equate witchcraft of the past with modern day psychological disorders but via a crazy story of witch craft with re-enacted scenes of the most bizarre and strange kind. Benjamin Christensen's strange documentary at times makes use of real documents such as plates from various books on witchcraft and at times uses actors and sets to show either the fear and paranoia of earlier ages or the nature of witch craft practices.
It is at times bizarre, at times strangely comical and at times down right confounding. Most mesmerizing are those scenes of witch ritual often with Christensen himself parading around as Satan and the strangest things occurring. Favorite moment: a skeletal horse walks past the frame and then back again in the background. If you want to see an early experience in crazy cult film style film making, this one tops the list.
It is at times bizarre, at times strangely comical and at times down right confounding. Most mesmerizing are those scenes of witch ritual often with Christensen himself parading around as Satan and the strangest things occurring. Favorite moment: a skeletal horse walks past the frame and then back again in the background. If you want to see an early experience in crazy cult film style film making, this one tops the list.
Broken Blossoms
Apparently Broken Blossoms was a response to his critics about racism. Its story is one in which an Asian man falls in love with a young white woman. She has an abusive father and after a rough night she winds up under the Asian's care. I found the story uninteresting, the blatant attempt to show he wasn't prejudiced makes it obvious that he really was and it lacks the grandeur of his earlier works. Everyone from the girl to her father and the oriental are the most thinly veiled stereotypes that are not interesting.
Intolerance
D.W. Griffith followed up his controversial Birth of a Nation with a an epic tale inspired by Italian cinema such as Cabiria. Intolerance starts stating Griffith's view of the world. Intolerance happens all the time. It resulted in tragedy throughout history, destroyed love and civilizations and he wants to show it is the same now as it ever was. There are four tales in the film. A tale taking place in ancient Babylon, the story of the Passion of Christ, the telling of the slaughter of the Huguenots and a modern day tale of meddling women activists.
Of the four, the passion gets the least screen time in this long movie. Perhaps because it was and is the best known but that made it for me all the more uninteresting and unnecessary. The Huguenots story was also truncated for reasons that make most of that narrative incomprehensible. But the Babylon sequence is rich and full of life and amazing set design and has a decently engaging story of a woman in love with the king of Babylon. Likewise the story of the modern woman and her struggle to raise her child while her husband is in jail and then her baby is taken away is compelling.
As the film enforces its notion of time and returns repeatedly too a fixed image of a woman rocking a cradle we cut back and forth between these stories. Late in the film as the drama intensifies the cuts come faster and faster and it is effective. You feel the pressure of what is happening. As the tragedies start to mount you feel an ever increasing sense of sorrow. Babylon falls, Christ is crucified, the Huguenots are slaughtered.
This builds to a chase sequence of a car trying to catch a train. Can the woman get a gubernatorial pardon before her husband is hanged? I won't say but depending on your notion of movies you might be disappointed or happy. But the Babylon sequence and the modern tale carry the film. It could have been tighter if they had cut the other two sequences but maybe not. It like its predecessor has its fair share of 19th century Southern elitist biases but doesn't come off as overtly troublesome as Birth of a Nation and seems to be and attempt to silence his critics and shows he clearly missed the point of the criticism.
Of the four, the passion gets the least screen time in this long movie. Perhaps because it was and is the best known but that made it for me all the more uninteresting and unnecessary. The Huguenots story was also truncated for reasons that make most of that narrative incomprehensible. But the Babylon sequence is rich and full of life and amazing set design and has a decently engaging story of a woman in love with the king of Babylon. Likewise the story of the modern woman and her struggle to raise her child while her husband is in jail and then her baby is taken away is compelling.
As the film enforces its notion of time and returns repeatedly too a fixed image of a woman rocking a cradle we cut back and forth between these stories. Late in the film as the drama intensifies the cuts come faster and faster and it is effective. You feel the pressure of what is happening. As the tragedies start to mount you feel an ever increasing sense of sorrow. Babylon falls, Christ is crucified, the Huguenots are slaughtered.
This builds to a chase sequence of a car trying to catch a train. Can the woman get a gubernatorial pardon before her husband is hanged? I won't say but depending on your notion of movies you might be disappointed or happy. But the Babylon sequence and the modern tale carry the film. It could have been tighter if they had cut the other two sequences but maybe not. It like its predecessor has its fair share of 19th century Southern elitist biases but doesn't come off as overtly troublesome as Birth of a Nation and seems to be and attempt to silence his critics and shows he clearly missed the point of the criticism.
Redacted
Redacted certainly tries very hard. Based loosely on a real life tragedy in Iraq involving US soldiers who raped a young Iraqi woman and killed her family. Brian De Palma is right filled with outrage. He and we should be disturbed by such actions. We should wonder why such things happen. It is not per se that these soldiers are evil but in tense and hostile situations the psychological effects of war can be massive. And every time I hear about something that should outrage us, I wonder what the army was doing to try to prevent it. Not that I think there are any clear cut answers. And at the very least the film does make you think and does make you question.
Its format is like a cobbled together documentary. Consisting of "found" footage of a French documentary team, a soldier's video journal and various security cameras from bases and check points, we get the fictional narrative of a military unit responsible for a check point. We see what I guess is pretty close to accurate the procedure of a checkpoint and the frustration of soldiers who lose friends to IEDs and attacks. We see the pressure and the attempts to work off the stress.
The trouble is that it doesn't feel like a documentary, it feels forced and contrived. A gimmick. The acting is a little questionable and the primary evil doers don't really get anything resembling fully fleshed out characters. This is not an attempt to understand all sides nor does that need to be the intent but I think it does a disservice to solving problems to paint people as demons. Perhaps that is the historian in me. Near movie's end we get the briefest and oddest confession of one of the culprits about his brother that seems almost out of place.
The film ends with real photos of tragedy in Iraq that are disturbing and unsettling and clearly that is the point. But I ultimately feel a director as talented as De Palma could have shown us he was angry in a much better film.
Its format is like a cobbled together documentary. Consisting of "found" footage of a French documentary team, a soldier's video journal and various security cameras from bases and check points, we get the fictional narrative of a military unit responsible for a check point. We see what I guess is pretty close to accurate the procedure of a checkpoint and the frustration of soldiers who lose friends to IEDs and attacks. We see the pressure and the attempts to work off the stress.
The trouble is that it doesn't feel like a documentary, it feels forced and contrived. A gimmick. The acting is a little questionable and the primary evil doers don't really get anything resembling fully fleshed out characters. This is not an attempt to understand all sides nor does that need to be the intent but I think it does a disservice to solving problems to paint people as demons. Perhaps that is the historian in me. Near movie's end we get the briefest and oddest confession of one of the culprits about his brother that seems almost out of place.
The film ends with real photos of tragedy in Iraq that are disturbing and unsettling and clearly that is the point. But I ultimately feel a director as talented as De Palma could have shown us he was angry in a much better film.
Babylon A.D.
To the base of adoring fans who have waited breathlessly for my review of Babylon A.D. I deeply apologize. Yeah right, as if anyone who is reading this can really barely contain themselves because a self proclaimed idiot hasn't yet expressed his opinion on a end of summer action film. Plot synopsis? Is there even a point? To sum up: dystopian future, weird psychic lady and Vin Diesel. There is something about religion and science but its so boring I find it hard to even care.
This movie is truly and regrettably awful. Vin Diesel has made a career of sorts playing these tough action heroes some he pulls off moderately well (though I still like him best (and it may be the only movie I liked him in) in Pitch Black). Here he is bland and uninteresting and the camera is moving around so much it really doesn't matter what he does, since you will never see it. Let's all agree to a new rule for movies, if your fight sequence has 10583 cuts in a 45 seconds of film then you need to step back and just give us a few damn seconds of sustained shots.
As the film moves it gets increasingly ludicrous and questionable, has an odd cameo by Lambert Wilson (memorable from Matrix Reloaded (one of the few things that was memorable from that movie) but not memorable here. Then rap it up in a nonsensical way and basically forget or show that all that came before is to no purpose. Thanks Babylon A.D. for reminding me why I am ever a bitter person when it comes to movies.
This movie is truly and regrettably awful. Vin Diesel has made a career of sorts playing these tough action heroes some he pulls off moderately well (though I still like him best (and it may be the only movie I liked him in) in Pitch Black). Here he is bland and uninteresting and the camera is moving around so much it really doesn't matter what he does, since you will never see it. Let's all agree to a new rule for movies, if your fight sequence has 10583 cuts in a 45 seconds of film then you need to step back and just give us a few damn seconds of sustained shots.
As the film moves it gets increasingly ludicrous and questionable, has an odd cameo by Lambert Wilson (memorable from Matrix Reloaded (one of the few things that was memorable from that movie) but not memorable here. Then rap it up in a nonsensical way and basically forget or show that all that came before is to no purpose. Thanks Babylon A.D. for reminding me why I am ever a bitter person when it comes to movies.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Chaplin Mutuals
I want to be Charlie Chaplin. Now I say that not really knowing anything about his life. It could have been miserable for all I know. But his screen presence is downright phenomenal to watch. If I thought for one minute I could pull of his strange waddle I think I'd do it all the time. Watching him perform in the Mutual shorts, a series of twelve shorts he made in 1916-1917 for the Mutual Film Corporation which he wrote, directed and produced (and made a gob load of money for doing) one can't help but admire how gifted he is.
The stories are entertaining and filled with amazing stunts all performed with a fluid grace by Mr. Chaplin. I encourage you to watch them if you never have or revisit them if you saw them once. Each is short and the return on your investment is more than generous. I won't describe each one but merely mention some of my favorite moments from the twelve.
The Floorwalker - one word: escalator.
The Fireman - Chaplin's scaling of a building to rescue a damsel in distress is so wonderfully fluid and graceful.
One A.M. - Chaplin playing drunk is fantastic and although the bed gets much attention as it should, the other props are well used as well. I was particularly fond of the spinning table.
The Count - Chaplin on the dance floor while simultaneously fighting off a rival suitor.
The Pawnshop - When Charlie takes apart a clock that was brought into the shop I was in tears from laughing.
Behind the Screen - It had a pie fight, how can I not love it?
The Rink - Every single skating sequence was wonderful.
The stories are entertaining and filled with amazing stunts all performed with a fluid grace by Mr. Chaplin. I encourage you to watch them if you never have or revisit them if you saw them once. Each is short and the return on your investment is more than generous. I won't describe each one but merely mention some of my favorite moments from the twelve.
The Floorwalker - one word: escalator.
The Fireman - Chaplin's scaling of a building to rescue a damsel in distress is so wonderfully fluid and graceful.
One A.M. - Chaplin playing drunk is fantastic and although the bed gets much attention as it should, the other props are well used as well. I was particularly fond of the spinning table.
The Count - Chaplin on the dance floor while simultaneously fighting off a rival suitor.
The Pawnshop - When Charlie takes apart a clock that was brought into the shop I was in tears from laughing.
Behind the Screen - It had a pie fight, how can I not love it?
The Rink - Every single skating sequence was wonderful.
Frozen River
Ray Eddy (Melissa Leo) is mother of two whose husband has just run off with their savings and left her with the bills and debts and all on only a part time job at a discount store. She is the epitome of the working poor. When she seeks out her husband she discovers his car has been co-opted by a local Indian woman, Lila (Misty Upham) who uses it to smuggle illegal immigrants into the US from Canada. Desperate for money and unable to get ahead in her regular work, Ray forms an uncomfortable alliance with the Mohawk woman to use her car to smuggle immigrants.
This requires the two to drive across the frozen river that separates the US from Canada carrying two immigrants in a trunk. Ray has suspicion in general of Lila and Lila doesn't think too highly of white people and there first few encounters are ones of distrust and racism. In addition Ray has to keep up appearances for her youngest son while trying to keep in line her older son who recognizes the hardship they are in. Her fear of being caught and her anxiety about potentially letting terrorists into the country are outweighed by her crushing need for money.
Overall the film is a fairly devastating character study of a working poor single mother who is fighting against odds stacked against her. The problems of simply feeding her kids is frequently at issue and Ray seems to get no breaks. But in addition it develops a very fascinating relationship between Lila and Ray who overcome there distrust and come to a decent understanding of each other's life.
Melissa Leo carries the story for the most part. The ending might be a bit forced and there are two points in the film that I thought a bit much but overall it was well done. We first see Leo crying at movie's open and you get from moment one a real sense of the mountain she is caring on her shoulders. She never surrenders or gives up despite how hopeless it all seems.
This requires the two to drive across the frozen river that separates the US from Canada carrying two immigrants in a trunk. Ray has suspicion in general of Lila and Lila doesn't think too highly of white people and there first few encounters are ones of distrust and racism. In addition Ray has to keep up appearances for her youngest son while trying to keep in line her older son who recognizes the hardship they are in. Her fear of being caught and her anxiety about potentially letting terrorists into the country are outweighed by her crushing need for money.
Overall the film is a fairly devastating character study of a working poor single mother who is fighting against odds stacked against her. The problems of simply feeding her kids is frequently at issue and Ray seems to get no breaks. But in addition it develops a very fascinating relationship between Lila and Ray who overcome there distrust and come to a decent understanding of each other's life.
Melissa Leo carries the story for the most part. The ending might be a bit forced and there are two points in the film that I thought a bit much but overall it was well done. We first see Leo crying at movie's open and you get from moment one a real sense of the mountain she is caring on her shoulders. She never surrenders or gives up despite how hopeless it all seems.
Elegy
Ben Kingsley plays David Kepesh an aging professor who is facing the reality of old age. He has been for much of his life a perpetual bachelor seducing young women at his university and trying to act younger than he is. He has a good friend played by Dennis Hopper and friend with benefits that he sees every couple of months played by Patricia Clarkson. As the film begins he becomes interested in new student Consuela (Penelope Cruz). The film follows their relationship and Kepesh's struggle with his sense of getting older.
There seem to be a great deal of films dealing with aging professors coming out of recent. Some are better than others and although I should not try to judge a movie based on another I can't help but think the themes here have been done much better. Part of it may be that I don't care about Kepesh as a character. He isn't compelling. His problems are not universal and he's largely immature. And since I don't care what happens to him what is the point of caring about the movie?
There is present a sense of old age and growing old but its shallow and rarely at the front and center. There is nothing to suggest any real issue of age. He is not ailing in health. His mind is sound. Its merely his own perception that he is not the young seducer that he once was. I prefer Peter O'Toole's lecherous old man in Venus to Kingsley's Kepesh in terms of insight into old age and performance. And as far as aging intellectuals and problems that are real last year's Starting Out in the Evening is a better investment of your time.
There seem to be a great deal of films dealing with aging professors coming out of recent. Some are better than others and although I should not try to judge a movie based on another I can't help but think the themes here have been done much better. Part of it may be that I don't care about Kepesh as a character. He isn't compelling. His problems are not universal and he's largely immature. And since I don't care what happens to him what is the point of caring about the movie?
There is present a sense of old age and growing old but its shallow and rarely at the front and center. There is nothing to suggest any real issue of age. He is not ailing in health. His mind is sound. Its merely his own perception that he is not the young seducer that he once was. I prefer Peter O'Toole's lecherous old man in Venus to Kingsley's Kepesh in terms of insight into old age and performance. And as far as aging intellectuals and problems that are real last year's Starting Out in the Evening is a better investment of your time.
Man on Wire
According to Phillipe Petit, he wanted to wire walk across the gap between the Twin Towers even before they were completed. With a goal like that and a seemingly uncrushable spirit and belief that nothing is impossible one can only be amazed at the audacity of the stunt and the compelling nature of its execution. Man on Wire the new film that documents Petit's journey from wire walker obscurity to an amazing feat of human determination is everything I could want in a documentary.
Petit previously had exploits of wire walking between the spires of Notre Dame and across the Syndey Harbor Bridge but those as the film presents it were only amateur practice runs to the difficulty of the stunt he desired to perform. Taking a narrative approach that evokes a great heist movie (and I suspect this would have made an amazing fiction film) we are introduced to the dream, the players who helped make it happen and the journey from youthful dreams to accomplishment of the seemingly impossible.
The story is compelling. The interviews are interesting and heartfelt. The archival footage of Petit and crew planning in France, training and discussing the problems is all wonderfully explored. Dramatic re-enactments are used at times to hint at the anxiety of those moments that are undocumented particularly those inside the towers. But tying this all firmly together and what kept me smiling most of the film was Phillipe Petit.
He is so full of life that one can't help but admire and laugh. Frenetic and excitable he recalls his memories of youth and his dreams so vividly that I'm not sure one needs the re-enactments. Its not hard to imagine a young Petit coming up and asking you "would you like to help me out" and in his enthusiasm finding yourself sneaking into a large building to help him walk a high wire. And it is Petit who is so interesting and lively that is the heart of why this film is so entertaining and heartfelt.
So much so that you can just sense how heartbroken he must have been on 9/11/2001. More recent events are wisely kept out of the film but Petit's dream and realization and the ever present imagery of the Twin Towers cannot help us the viewers from thinking about it. And that makes it all the more poignant. See it, you won't regret it.
Petit previously had exploits of wire walking between the spires of Notre Dame and across the Syndey Harbor Bridge but those as the film presents it were only amateur practice runs to the difficulty of the stunt he desired to perform. Taking a narrative approach that evokes a great heist movie (and I suspect this would have made an amazing fiction film) we are introduced to the dream, the players who helped make it happen and the journey from youthful dreams to accomplishment of the seemingly impossible.
The story is compelling. The interviews are interesting and heartfelt. The archival footage of Petit and crew planning in France, training and discussing the problems is all wonderfully explored. Dramatic re-enactments are used at times to hint at the anxiety of those moments that are undocumented particularly those inside the towers. But tying this all firmly together and what kept me smiling most of the film was Phillipe Petit.
He is so full of life that one can't help but admire and laugh. Frenetic and excitable he recalls his memories of youth and his dreams so vividly that I'm not sure one needs the re-enactments. Its not hard to imagine a young Petit coming up and asking you "would you like to help me out" and in his enthusiasm finding yourself sneaking into a large building to help him walk a high wire. And it is Petit who is so interesting and lively that is the heart of why this film is so entertaining and heartfelt.
So much so that you can just sense how heartbroken he must have been on 9/11/2001. More recent events are wisely kept out of the film but Petit's dream and realization and the ever present imagery of the Twin Towers cannot help us the viewers from thinking about it. And that makes it all the more poignant. See it, you won't regret it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)