h1

The Defense Rests…

April 9, 2010

 

As you may have noticed, this blog has been in hibernation for the better part of two weeks. The reason is that work has been brutal and I literally haven’t had time for anything else. For the past two years I have worked for the United States Attorney’s Office in Boston, MA as a paralegal in the Health Care Fraud division. It’s a rewarding and challenging job, but it’s only in these past two weeks that things have been out of control.

Last Monday our unit started a two week trial against a man accused of Medicare fraud. I’ve been working consistent 10+ hour days and also coming in on weekends. We finished the evidence and argument portions of the trial two days ago, and the jury has been deliberating since. It’s a stressful time, as you sit and wait for 12 people to make a decision on something you’ve worked for months (and for the attorneys, years) on, your mind can’t help but race; is it better for us or the defense that it’s taking the jury so long to decide? Which of the jurors are on our side, which aren’t? It’s had me thinking about my workday long after I’ve left for the night and I thought it might ease my nerves (and be a fun little project), if I sat down to a marathon of films that revolve around a trial.

So without further ado, here are the films I intend to watch and give my thoughts on starting tomorrow (provided the jury can come to a damn decision).

The TrialOrson Welles [1962]

The Wrong ManAlfred Hitchcock [1956]

Anatomy of a MurderOtto Preminger [1959]

The VerdictSidney Lumet [1982]

Witness for the ProsecutionBilly Wilder [1957]

Twelve Angry MenSidney Lumet [1957]

MFritz Lang [1931]

h1

The Element of Crime (Lars von Trier, 1984) – Tackling the Ouevre

March 7, 2010

The Element of Crime is the debut film of director Lars von Trier. It is also the first entry in Trier’s Europa trilogy; however, the trilogy was not declared as such until Trier was working on the last film, Europa. The film starts with an image of a donkey rolling around in the sand along with subsequent images of Egypt. We learn that the main character, Fisher, left Europe 13 years earlier and has stayed in Egypt until a few months prior to take up a police job. Fisher, now back in Egypt, is haunted by headaches and is undergoing hypnosis for treatment.

We are taken back those two months into Europe–a Post-war Europe that is decaying, devastated, despondent, and devoid of day. The entire movie is shot in heavy yellowed sepia tone. It fits the movie well, but whether it is used to depict a bleak Europe, to remind us we are in hypnosis, or just for the sake of style is up for debate. Von Trier will occasionally throw in a blue or green light to alarm the viewer; one might assume the rare presence of a different color would denote an important point in Fisher’s memory. Water is a heavily used theme throughout the movie, whether it has shots by water, moving through water, or in the rain. “Water, water everywhere…and not a drop to drink.” recalls Fisher.

Fisher arrives on boat to the home of Osborne, his former mentor who seems to not quite be in his right mind. Fisher’s case is to catch a criminal who killed a little girl selling lotto tickets. In many ways Fisher walks in footsteps of Osborne. Fisher takes Osborne’s old office at the police station where he finds a trailing report of Osborne’s that describes a criminal extremely similar to the one he is after. Osborne purports that he saw Harry Grey (“The Lotto Murderer”) die, but Fisher is skeptical and believes both murderers are one in the same.

In reference to his book, The Element of Crime, Osborne remarks, “We always looked for the element of crime in society, but why not look in the very nature of man?” Upon this premise Fisher attempts to catch “Grey” by thinking as Grey did, journeying where Grey did, and travelling with a woman as Grey did– so Fisher picks up prostitute to join the search with him.

The movie is very slow moving–almost to a fault. It seems as if von Trier cared more about pacing the movie to his style than to the story; however, one can thank him for doing that because the style is what drives the film around the weak story (written by von Trier and Niels Vørsel). The acting is decent sometimes, but at others times it feels just like that–acting. The dialog has a few good one liners, but ultimately comes off dry. At the end of the film I felt empty and emotionless towards it–not because of the setting and themes of the movie but because the film itself had no heart. The final moral of the story ends up lost and muddled due to this lack of emotion. Some have called the film “shallow and pretentious”, and others a “visual masterpiece”. I’d say it’s somewhere in between. The Element of Crime certainly displayed promise in Lars von Trier cinematic style and technique, but it was just that–an exercise in style attached to a non-enjoyable story.

- Ryan Smith

h1

Le deuxième souffle (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1966) – Tackling the Ouevre

March 7, 2010

Le deuxième souffle, or Second Breath, is a film by the French director Jean-Pierre Melville. The film opens with the quote, “A man is given but one right at birth: to choose his own death. But if he chooses because he’s weary of life, then his entire existence has been without meaning” which is a foreshadowing and a tone-setter of the film. Gu, the main character, is shown escaping a prison with 2 of his inmates. It takes almost 8 minutes until the first word is spoken, but many things were loud and clear. Melville shows a masterful use of framing and minimalistic style. Other parts of the movie are also sparse in dialog, but Melville does a great job of propelling the film with visuals. I don’t really like silent films at all, but if Melville directed one I would definitely be interested.

A shootout in a bar introduces us to Manouche and Blot. Manouche, as we will learn is Gu’s mistress and owner of the bar. Blot is the witty and subtly humorous detective. Blot informs Manouche that Gu has escaped, and soon thereafter Manouche and Gu become reacquainted. Since ‘every’ cop in France is after Gu, he needs to get out of there.  In the process of leaving France Gu is presented with an offer to take part in a $200 million dollar heist.  Manouche does not want Gu to take the offer, but Gu decides to take it, his ‘second breath’ if you will—an attempt to succeed in a heist where he failed 10 years ago.[spoiler] The heist is performed flawlessly, but Gu is later captured and tricked into ratting out a member of the heist. After escaping again Gu comes to the dilemma of going away with Manouche, or upholding the ‘code of conduct’ and his reputation. The final scene shows Gu returning his heist group to ‘make things right’, but in doing so knowing he is choosing his own death as the opening quote foreshadowed.  The interpretation of his death in relation to the quote, however, is hazy. Gu would be chased the rest of his life and if caught would be put back in prison, a place he mentioned he never wants to go back to.  In that sense prison would be death; however, it is not certain that Gu would ever be caught.  Does he lead himself to death because he is weary of always running, because he never wants to go back to prison, or because he wants to uphold his reputation? I think it is a combination of all three.[/spoiler]

Le deuxième souffle is a lengthy 2.5 hours, but it is paced incredibly well.  The entire film is highly detailed and every scene is relevant.  The characters are all well-acted and well-structured; however, although there is good character study I think the film lacks a truly emotional attachment.  This is an intelligent gangster film that Hollywood wishes it could be; you would be hard-pressed to find a modern gangster film that isn’t influenced by Jean-Pierre Melville (see: Heat). Actually I’d call this film more of a great drama with gangster characters. I wholeheartedly agree with the quote in the introduction, “To call Melville a film noir or a gangster film director is to do him a huge disservice.” I wish the film had more of Blot in it, he was my favorite character.

Le deuxième souffle is a wonderfully executed book adaption that is hard to find fault with, but in my eyes the lack of that intangible emotional punch makes it just an excellent film instead of a masterpiece.

h1

Tackling the Oeuvre: Jean-Pierre Melville

March 1, 2010

“I believe that you must be madly in love with cinema to create films. You also need a huge cinematic baggage.” – Jean-Pierre Melville

Melville’s films were cool before there was cool. One only has to look to the directors he inspired (everyone from Godard and Chabrol to Woo and Mann) to understand how truly different his style was in the late 40′s and 50′s. This may help to explain why the U.S. went begging for releases of his films for so long. In fact, L’Armée des ombres (Army of Shadows), a film released in France in 1969, didn’t see its way to our shores until 2006. It’s a shame that U.S. audiences didn’t have the chance to see these films when they were released, but the trickle-like effect of their release has made them seem even more powerful.

A virtual god to the Cahiers group (check Godard’s Breathless to see Melville in the role of novelist Parvulesco, a role he modeled after Vladimir Nabokov), Melville’s gangster stylings show up in many nouvelle vague films such as Bande A Part and Shoot the Piano Player. Later on, the Cahiers group (mainly Godard and Truffaut) publicly spoke out against Melville in a public ploy to distance themselves from Cinema de Papa, but his continuing influence on them is undeniable.

Melville’s films have a quiet intensity to them. The sparse dialogue and drab colors lend a dreamlike quality to the proceedings that transcend the genre in which he prefers to work. On first look, his films have the feel of film noir, but a deeper investigation reveals nuances that stretch far beyond that genre. To call Melville a film noir or a gangster film director is to do him a huge disservice. A true maverick of cinema and one of the most imitated directors of all time, Jean-Pierre Melville’s ouevre is truly worthy of its enormous praise.

Le Samourai - williek311
L’armée des ombres - Chris ‘Shadows’ Cleary
Le Cercle Rouge - Brad Baker
Les enfants terribles - Dan Wotherspoon
Le deuxième souffle - Ryan Smith
Bob le flambeur - Nathan Raine
Le silence de la Mer -
Le doulos - Thomas Balkcom
L’aîné des Ferchaux - TJ Wells

h1

#728 Une femme est une femme (1961)

February 22, 2010

Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard
Starring: Anna Karina, Jean-Claude Brialy, Jean-Paul Belmondo
Genre: Avant Garde, Comedy
IMDB

I have an affinity for films that have an effect on my mood. Some people like to watch a film, be entertained and then forget about it as soon as it’s over. I prefer it when a film sticks with me. It doesn’t have to make such an impression that I can’t stop thinking about it all day, but I like it when a film can subconsciously effect me. Whether it be a film like Ikiru that leaves me somber all day or The Night of the Hunter which puts me in a weird surreal/alert mood, if a film can effect me on that level, chances are I’ll be in to it.

After watching Une femme est une femme, I’m always left with the feeling that I wish Godard had made more films like this. This is Godard at his most playful (not experimentally per se, but playful in an almost giddy way, like he is so excited to have his wife and two of the best actors of the time occupying his screen). It’s a pretty stark contrast to the angry and bitter Godard we see in a film like Weekend. Godard’s use of color here is only bettered in Pierrot le Fou, and unlike that film, the color pallette never becomes oppressive to the eyes. One of the things I like best about this film is the way Godard pays homage to his buddy (at the time) Truffaut. Seeing Jeanne Moreau (playing herself) and Marie Dubois (playing her character from Shoot the Piano Player) is exciting and rewarding. The use of Charlie Aznavour in the soundtrack to the film is a bit more subtle though no less interesting homage to Truffaut. This is not my favorite Godard (though it’s definitely top 3) but it’s the type of film I wish Godard had made more of. He is definitely in his element here, seemlessly combining comedy, eroticism and heart into one magical film.

h1

Some of my Favorite Movie Posters

February 19, 2010

One of these films is rated “G”. Can you guess which one?

h1

#54 Ugetsu Monogatari (1953)

February 17, 2010

Directed by: Kenji Mizoguchi
Starring: Machiko Kyo, Masayuki Mori and Kinuyo Tanaka
Genre: Drama
IMDB

Sometimes I wonder why I never got around to watching this film, having seen Mizoguchi’s Sansho the Bailiff about five times now. I’ve heard people talk about how they think it’s a better film than Sansho and I just laugh. I’ll eventually get to it on this list, but as a precursor to that, I often think of Sansho as the greatest film ever made. Not my favorite film, but the apex of cinema. I think one of the reasons I put off  Ugetsu Monogatari for so long, was that Sansho had ravaged me emotionally so many times, I was sort of afraid to see how else Mizoguchi could tear at my heartstrings. So, going into Ugetsu Monogatari I was both excited, wary and a bit nervous.

Ugetsu tells the story of two ambitious peasant men, one a talented potter, the other a wannabe samurai, and their families in war-torn Japan. Mizoguchi, with a master’s touch, crafts a story about how ambition and greed can destroy man, and how we sometimes misunderstand our own ambition; mistaking it for a healthy drive to succeed. The two peasant men take very different paths, both in pursuit of their dreams, and suffer different though no less tragic fates because of their greed. Despite this film being over 60 years old and set in ancient Japan, it is a refreshing take on ambition in contrast to the modern view of ambition as something to be cultivated and rewarded. I viewed the film twice in preparation for this write-up because of how much Sansho benefits from repeat viewings and I have to say, it falls just shy of Sansho in almost every way (which is actually extremely high praise). It is devastating, though not as devastating as Sansho. The cinematography is beautiful, though not as beautiful as Sansho (I think you get the point). The one place it has Sansho beat is this, whereas after watching Sansho I didn’t really have a strong desire to check out Ugetsu, viewing Ugetsu has me excited to check out some of the other Mizoguchi films I’ve been missing.

h1

Dancer in the Dark (Lars Von Trier, 2000) – Tackling the Oeuvre

February 15, 2010

Antichrist.  As every article, review, blog, and drunken text message regarding Lars von Trier from this day forth will obligatorily and compulsively mention his newest masterwork/pieceofshit, I thought I would fulfill the required task immediately.  Now that we can be sure that there will be no references to penis squashing or infant killing for the duration, the subject at hand may be thoroughly focused upon: Bjork and tap-dancing.  Henceforth we go.

Dancer in the Dark is the final installment of von Trier’s “Golden Heart” trilogy (although there is plenty of crossover between this film and his “USA: Land of Opportunities” trilogy, and one would not be amiss to believe that this film is a suture between the two).  Now, before I begin the review, allow me to first acknowledge the obtrusive:  Yes, Bjork plays the lead character.  Yes, she is slightly annoying to look at.  And yes, her performance deserves the highest of praise.  I had entered this film not only dreading the thought of having to watch her for the 139 minute running time, but prematurely deciding that at the conclusion I would berate her lack of acting prowess.  Let’s just say that I’m sometimes wrong, and I now have a formidable collection of Bjork albums on my iPod.  But I digress…

The film opens with the very antithesis of our expectation: opposing graceful, elegant dancing one might expect, bearing assumptions derived from the title, we are met with one of the most cumbersome, awkward, and embarrassing dance scenes imaginable.  This is merely a precursor for the ineptness that is to come.

Dancer in the Dark tells the story of a hope filled yet delusional woman named Selma (played by Bjork).  She has come to the United States from Czechoslovakia with the not-so-modest desire of transforming her life into a musical.  Only, Selma’s aspirations, and the realties that face her are far from existing in harmony.  She has a modest job at a factory, she rents a small trailer from a policeman and his wife on their farm, and is raising a young boy whose intelligence seems about as sparse as his mother’s.  Von Trier often blurs the lines of reality, and initially it is unclear if Selma truly wants to partake in a musical, or if she just wishes her life would mimic the carefree and whimsical attitudes often found on the stage.  As the film progresses, it becomes clear that her ambitions are much more fallible.

It is when two secrets are revealed, in a grave moment between Selma and her landlord, that the drama begins to unfold in Dancer in the Dark.  Selma divulges that she is going blind, and the fate of her son will one day be the same.  The second secret, from her landlord Bill (played wonderfully by David Morse) reveals that he is going broke, and that he can no longer support his wife and her lusty spending habits.  But Bill’s ego will not surrender its pride, and instead of confronting his wife on the issue, he decides to steal it from the helpless, naïve, ugly Selma.  I will spare many more details.  If you wish to know what happens next, consult your local IMDB hack.

One of Dancer’s most prominent characteristics is its use of spontaneous song and dance scenes.   It took me a while to adjust to the idea of characters randomly breaking into song.  What I initially thought was an outlandish gimmick, soon opened itself as an experimental von Trier-esque musical.  We live in the era of Saw XIV’s and rehashing the Dracula/vampire chronicle in any ways possible – if originality and innovation mean anything anymore, von Trier deserves the highest of accolades.  For this isn’t quite a musical.  This isn’t just a melodrama.  This isn’t an experimental indie film.  And this definitely just isn’t a case of von Trier projecting his misanthropic feelings towards America via film.  It’s something in between, yet something much more.

The songs, which are usually constructed around ambient background noises being woven into some sort of industrial rhythm, serve a different purpose than what we have come to expect from a musical.  The songs serve as Selma’s personal escape from reality. One element of von Trier’s collective work (his oeuvre, if you will) is that his characters constantly wrestle with distorted perception and self-constructed restrictions.   Selma is inescapably wrought with disillusionment and incoherence.  She creates these musical daydreams as her own sort of mental escape from her dire existence.  When she escapes into song, it establishes a place of vulnerability for both Selma and the audience.  But for the most part, von Trier allows Selma to escape in to this world.  Selma states: “I used to imagine I was in a musical, because in a musical nothing dreadful ever happens.”  Her singsong dream world becomes completely mentally engulfing, and she does not realize her house of cards is about to be demolished.  Von Trier has always been a master at manipulating the audience, and in his final scene, when he finally blows over Selma’s house of cards and renders her incapable of escaping the dream world, the effect is staggering.

As established in the introductory article of Tackling the Oeuvre, von Trier has always had the ability to polarize audiences.  Upon receiving the Palme d’Or at Cannes, Dancer was met by a chorus of both cheers and boos.  But what I think is material in this reaction to his film is the very reaction itself; von Trier has the undeniable ability to evoke reaction and emotion out of his audience.  Few filmmakers can claim to be so emotionally consuming as von Trier.  Dancer is no different.  But, Dancer is a film that I would not defend against the harshest criticisms.  Not to say I am not rigid in my opinion that this film is a great work of originality and ambition, but the very nature of the film would justifiably elicit some very negative responses.  And I can easily see how some could hate the film: it’s melodramatic and often overly sentimental, it’s arrogantly bold, and the plot is sometimes hard to take seriously.  But I can not ignore von Trier’s bravery in attempting such a film.  It may be blind, unheeded, irrational ambition from a man who is questionably on the verge of insanity, but ambition none the less.  I recommend this film to anyone who can stomach the melodrama.  If nothing else, it will be sure to give you something to talk about.

- Nathan Raine

h1

#245 Shoot the Piano Player (1960)

February 11, 2010

Directed by: Francois Truffaut
Starring: Charles Aznavour and Marie Dubois
Genre: Film Noir
IMDB

Truffaut came up with the idea for Tirez sur le pianiste because he wanted to try his hand at a genre of film he despised (a noble goal), taking it and deconstructing it while at the same time remaining true to some of the genre specifics. What he churned out was a critically acclaimed box-office flop that has aged better than almost any film from the time period and is now considered one of cinemas greatest treasures. The critical reception of the film scarred Truffaut to the point that he never tried anything as fun or experimental again.

The film tells the story of a lowly and emotionally troubled piano player who gets caught up in his brother’s dealings with a couple of thugs and is forced to fend for himself while at the same time cultivating a relationship with a beautiful young woman. The set up is pure noir, but the execution is where Truffaut distances himself. The film vacillates between the hilarious bordering on slapstick and the truly heartbreaking. It really is a one-of-a-kind genre piece that is the obvious stylistic forerunner of films such as Pulp Fiction and Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels. Truffaut’s nouvelle vague roots bubble to the surface in brilliant ways including a magnificent scene with Charlie and Lena in bed where he jump cuts between the two talking to each other and silently holding each other and an ahead-of-its-time inner-first person narration by Charlie where he neurotically tries to decide whether or not he should take Lena’s hand as the two walk along the streets of Paris. I constantly go back-and-forth trying to decide whether I prefer this or Jules et Jim. That is about the highest praise I can give a film.

h1

I’d Allow Myself to Be Burned at the Stake in Order to See This

February 4, 2010

According to sources, the SXSW Film Festival will be screening Carl Dreyer’s masterpiece The Passion of Joan of Arc with a live score by the Gothic/Industrial duo In the Nursery. Here’s a sample of what to look forward to at the screening.

.

Check out In the Nursery here.

h1

New Poll

February 4, 2010

I added a poll to the column on the right side of the page. The reviews for the current “Tackling the Oeuvre” segment are trickling in now but I thought I’d open the next segment up to a vote. If you have a particular director you think would be better, please vote “other” and then comment on this post with his/her name.

h1

Antichrist (Lars Von Trier, 2009) – Tackling the Oeuvre

February 4, 2010

If it’s really true that there is no such thing as bad publicity, then the premiere of Antichrist at Cannes last year was a smashing success for Lars von Trier. The film turned the traditionally vocal, yet restrained Cannes audience into something akin to a Rocky Horror Picture Show festival. There were catcalls, laughs, groans and many, many boos. A handful of people walked out, but most stuck around to the end where they greeted Von Trier’s dedication to the Great Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky with a mixture of loud scoffs and disbelieving laughs.

It was all people at Cannes could talk about that week. “How could a director, even one as controversial as Von Trier, think that people would take this film seriously?” “How could someone be so selfish and pretentious to believe that whatever sick shit they could imagine was worth being put in a film and shown to the most respected film crowd on Earth”? The prevailing notion was that Von Trier had used the respect his name garnered, to pull a fast one on the movie-going public. In my opinion, after watching the film five times, they were pretty much right.

Forget all the talk about how the film is Von Trier’s catharsis; his way of dealing with a deep depression. This is, plain as day, a giant “fuck you!” to his critics. Through the three films of his “Golden Heart Trilogy” and the two released films of his “USA – Land of Opportunity” trilogy, Von Trier has been branded a misogynist of the highest order. Critics cite the emotional and physical devastation he rains down on his heroines as well as the lack of redemption he affords them as evidence of some sort of lingering hatred for the female gender. So how does he respond; by showing us the absolute physical, emotional and metaphorical coming-apart of a woman. It’s as if Von Trier is saying to his critics, you thought I abused Grace? You thought I was unmerciful to Selma? Well let me show you what those words actually mean.

The film opens with the ultra-stylized slow-motion death of Nick, the infant child of He and She. Set to a vocal arrangement by Handel, the scene plays out with both beauty and inevitability. Anthony Dod Mantle paints this scene in such a stylish black and white, that it feels like watching a dream. We are then transported to the hospital and the world of color, as we learn that She (Gainsbourg) took things pretty hard, and has been bed-ridden for a month. Released into the supervision of her husband (Defoe), she returns to their home where the film essentially starts its descent into madness. Despite being a skilled psychologist, He is completely outmatched by the crazy slowly creeping in to She’s psyche yet, in the film’s tragic catalyst, he fails to realize it.

Eventually the couple makes the trek to their cabin in the woods (Eden), and Von Trier pulls back the curtain revealing himself standing there with a giant middle finger to his audience, with a shot of a deer galloping through the woods with a still-born fetus hanging from its hindquarters. I imagine this is the point in the film where the audience went “oh shit, Von Trier lost his fucking mind”. But he didn’t. The beauty of the opening scene and the quiet of the buildup to Eden is a red-herring. Von Trier wants to pull the audience into his world, get them off balance, and then unleash Eden upon them. In a sense, Defoe is the manifestation of the audience on the screen. He has no idea what awaits him in Eden because he doesn’t fully comprehend the damage Nick’s death has done to She.

Von Trier equates nature (the birds, the trees etc.) as depicted by Eden, with human nature, specifically the nature of women, as depicted by She. She tells her husband that she fears Eden, and he believes it is because it reminds of her son, who she spent time alone with there a few months prior to his death. However, what she really fears about Eden is her own female nature. She subconsciously feels responsible for Nick’s death and, though she can’t vocalize it, feels that something is terribly wrong somewhere deep inside her. When they arrive to Eden, She cannot bear to step on the grass. She is not ready to confront her own female nature, and that manifests itself as feeling as though the grass at Eden is burning her feet.

While in Eden, we slowly see She’s demeanor towards He begin to change. We already know she believes him to have been a detached father, but we begin to see a much more base and animalistic hatred start to manifest. As her demeanor towards him changes, so too does the behavior of nature towards him. He wakes up one morning with bugs covering his hand, he steps outside to a downpour of acorns and he is confronted by a self-cannibalizing fox telling him more about the state of his wife’s psyche then he could garner from hours of speaking with her… “chaos reigns”. Yet it isn’t until he discovers her thesis, and hears her describe it to him that he realizes the problem, and his mistake. Nick’s death was merely the tragically perfect catalyst to her mental break. She already had a warped and delusional view of the nature of women, of her own nature. The fact that her son died while she was busy fulfilling her womanly desires was a once and a million straw in the camel’s back.

He realizes this, but too late. It takes him a while to catch up, to put things together, and before he does She suffers a total mental break. I’ll skip over the gory details, but Von Trier basically takes She apart physically and metaphorically as totally as he had mentally throughout the first hour of the film.

Like most, I hated the film the first time I saw it. I hated it the second time I saw it. However, it has grown on me in subsequent viewings. Yes, Von Trier is overly indulgent in almost every way imaginable. From the un-simulated sexual acts to the much-too-obvious camera tricks (the wavy effect when She runs from the cabin symbolizing her growing detachment from reality… come on Lars!), the film occasionally comes across like a film student trying to use all the techniques he knows at the same time. As a whole however, I now view the film as a massively-flawed masterpiece. I groan at times while watching it. I laugh and I even boo (not really). But at the end, when it cuts to black right before He is overrun by nature (woman’s nature), I feel like I’ve watched one of the most important films of my lifetime.

h1

2/3/10 Instant Watch Update

February 3, 2010

Now that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 offer instant Netflix streaming there is a world of movies available to owners of these consoles at the blink of an eye. It can be difficult to figure out what films have received the “watch instantly” treatment though. Netflix doesn’t really advertise this on their site, and it can be cumbersome to search through the films using the built in browsers on the PS3 and 360. In my search to find a reliable source for realtime updates for these films, I came across Streaming Soon. This fantastic site not only tells you what films are available, it gives advanced notice of what films will be given the “watch instantly” treatment in the upcoming weeks. I’ve browsed through their site and compiled a list of some of the more exciting releases.

Recently released Criterions:
The 400 Blows – Francois Truffaut
Diabolique – Henri Georges Clouzot
Fanny and Alexander – Ingmar Bergman
M – Fritz Lang
Paris, Texas – Wim Wenders
Rome Open City – Roberto Rossellini
The Rules of the Game – Jean Renoir
Samurai Rebellion – Masaki Kobayashi
Toyko Story – Yasujiro Ozu
Ugetsu – Kenji Mizoguchi
Umberto D – Vittorio de Sica
Wages of Fear – Henri Georges Clouzot

Upcoming releases to watch for:

Dead Snow – Tommy Wirkola


The Killing – Stanley Kubrick


Departures – Yojiro Takita (2/12)


Revanche – Gotz Spielmann (2/16)

I will keep you updated with new “instant watch” films that I find interesting as they start to pop up on Netflix.

h1

Tackling the Oeuvre: Lars von Trier

January 25, 2010

“A film should be like a stone in your shoe” – Lars von Trier

Lars von Trier is maybe the most polarizing film figure of our generation. Simultaneously regarded as a genius and a “hack” his reputation, if not his films, recall the public’s early perception of John Cassavettes. But there is an even deeper controversy to von Trier.

He relishes being the outsider. From his overtly anti-American films, to his creation of Dogme95 (a film style that would influence an entire generation of filmmakers, and alienate everyone else) and his decision to allow his film production company Zentropa to become the first major production company to produce hardcore pornographic films, he keeps himself on the fringe of society, while at the same time crafting films that are adept at characterizing it.

His filmography reveals a director at home in many styles, yet determined to deconstruct those styles in a way only he can. From the hardboiled crime style of The Element of Crime to the avant-garde neo-realist/fantasy (yes, that makes no sense) stylings of his Land of Opportunity “Trilogy” (one has to wonder if Washington will ever be made) and even the horror film (Antichrist), von Trier revels in defying expectations and shattering conventions. Whether he is successful in doing so is a matter of lively debate in the film community.

Below is a list of von Trier’s films (excluding The Five Obstructionsand Epidemic). I’ve enlisted the help of some very capable young writers and film buffs to give their opinions on one of the films and maybe on the filmmaker himself. Hopefully this will be the first of many “Tackling the Oeuvre” segments. Keep checking back here for updates where I will link to the reviews as they’re written.  Enjoy!

The Element of Crime – Ryan Smith
Europa - TJ Wells
 Breaking the Waves – Brad Baker
The Idiots – Richard Winters

Dancer in the Dark – Nathan Raine
Dogville - Thomas Balkcom
Manderlay – jwelborn
The Boss of it All – Kevin Kitchell
 
Antichrist – Dan Wotherspoon

     
h1

What’s My Line?

January 22, 2010

I recently re-discovered (through the magic of Youtube) the game show “What’s My Line?”. For those who don’t know, “What’s My Line?” was a game show that aired from 1950 until 1967 (the longest running game show in the history of prime time network television). The way it worked was the host (John Charles Daly) would bring out a contestant (some random Joe), and the panelists Dorothy Kilgallen, Arlene Francis and Bennett Cerf would have to guess what the contestant’s “line” (usually their occupation or something that made them unique) was, by asking simple yes or no questions.

The part of the show that interests me (and has had me watching hours of Youtube clips, is the “mystery guest round”, where the panelists would be blindfolded and Daly would bring out a celebrity which the panelists would have to guess by asking the same yes or no questions. Usually the celebrity would disguise his/her voice in some way so that the panelists wouldn’t be tipped off (of special importance to celebs like Jimmy Stewart and Bette Davis).

I’m not sure exactly what enthralls me about it, but I think it has something to do with seeing these old celebrities (actors, actresses, singers and sports stars) who I’ve seen in amazing roles or doing amazing feats, being themselves. Some of them are extremely charismatic and some aren’t. Some dramatic stars are incredibly funny, and some comedians are pretty dull. I’ve had a great time watching these clips, and then searching out more information about these people. Most of them led amazing lives, but some of their stories interweave in remarkable ways with their appearance on the show, which I find absolutely fascinating. Not to mention that some of the all-time greatest beauties take part and some of them (Elizabeth Taylor and Ava Gardner for instance) are absolutely adorable.

All this to say, I recommend you check out the Youtube clips. If you are a fan of cinema or music from that time period, then I think you’ll get as big a kick out of it as I did.

Here is a link to the full list of celebrities that appeared as “mystery guests” on “What’s My Line?” (though there aren’t Youtube clips of all of them).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What’s_My_Line%3F_Mystery_Guests

Also, below I’ve compiled a few of my favorite clips as well as some interesting back stories and follow up stories about the people involved.

Taylor is an absolute vision in this clip; beautiful and funny.

Stunning is the only word that even begins to describe Ms. Gardner. Her laugh is maybe the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.

Not to populate this with only beautiful women, but this clip has a great backstory (though for my money Bacall is the most gorgeous woman to ever live). If you watch the end closely, Bacall shakes all the panelists’ hands but gives Dorothy Kilgallen a very short handshake.Kilgallen was a journalist who wrote many vicious and slanderous pieces about Bacall’s husband Humphrey Bogart and because of that Bacall and Kilgallen were arch-enemies. It’s believed that the animosity originally stems from the McCarthy hearings where Kilgallen was one of the more prominent snitches, and Bogie and Bacall two of the more prominent “alleged” sympathizers.

Lemmon is fantastic in this clip, but the backstory is very sad. If you watch the clip you’ll see that panelist Ernie Kovacs gives Lemmon a hard time because Lemmon told him he wouldn’t be in town so Kovacs wouldn’t know he was on the show. Kovacs and Lemmon were old friends and, as you can see from the clip, had acted in films together. Not long after this, Kovacs was killed in a car accident after leaving a party where Lemmon was present. It was Lemmon that identified his body at the morgue.

Mitchum is just so fucking cool! Nothing more needs to be said about this one.

h1

A Shift

January 22, 2010

I have decided to combine this blog with my other blog (or more accurately the idea of my other blog) and include posts here that are not limited to my quest to tackle the TSPDT list. It will remain mainly a film blog, but will include things other than reviews. For easy access I have tagged and will continue to tag my TSPDT reviews as “TSPDT” so that they can be easily accessed from the categories on the right margin. Hopefully you will enjoy this expansion.

h1

#747 The Thin Red Line (1998)

January 15, 2010

Directed by: Terrence Malick
Starring: Sean Penn, Jim Caviezal and Nick Nolte
Genre: War
IMDB

War don’t ennoble men. It turns them into dogs… poisons the soul.

The Thin Red Line doesn’t want to inspire feelings of patriotism in you. It doesn’t want to make you proud of your American soldiers fighting overseas. It wants to drop you in the middle of the fight. It wants to show you the devastation a bullet can cause, and then tear you away before you can process it. It wants to put you in the head of a young man in a strange land as gunfires burst all around him and his buddies are cut down before his eyes. It’s an anti-war film, not in a political sense, but in a moral sense.

Terrence Malick is a unique filmmaker for his generation. He’d be a much better fit (and probably much more critically praised) making films alongside Orson Welles and Howard Hawks, filmmakers who understood the camera as an actor and told their stories with visuals as much as plot. The Thin Red Line is not your traditional war movie, and for that reason it wasn’t well received when it was released. In contrast to Saving Private Ryan (to which it will always be linked), people couldn’t get behind a war movie with more talking than shooting. Instead of contrasting the two films, I’ll contrast two scenes. The famous Normandy beach invasion in SPR is famous because it’s a technical marvel. Beautifully shot and realized, it is undoubtedly inspiring to watch. We are with the men as they travel across the Atlantic, we watch as they anticipate the worst, and watch again as they are thrown into something that’s beyond what they could have possibly imagined. We root for our soldiers against the evil Nazis and despite the carnage, we feel good. In TTRL we are again faced with young men in boats approaching a beach landing expecting the worst, expecting to die in a firefight. They arrive… to nothing. The beach is silent, not even a breeze blows through the trees. It is a terrifying scene. The captain approaches a young soldier who arrived to the island earlier. The soldier tells him, “they have fish that live in the trees”. The point, throw out all your expectations. This is a foreign land, this is a foreign enemy and we are facing something much worse than 50,000 German soldiers on a beach… we’re facing the unknown.

The Thin Red Line is my favorite war movie. Some critics will say it’s too cerebral. I’ve never been to war, but I promise you if I was, my mind would be racing a million miles a second. I picture war as a physical battle against the enemy, and a mental battle against yourself, and no other film depicts that dichotomy as well as The Thin Red Line.

h1

#84 Pierrot le Fou (1965)

January 15, 2010

Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard
Starring: Jean-Paul Belmondo and Anna Karina
Genre: Avant-Garde, Drama
IMDB

Godard is the greatest filmmaker ever!”. “Fuck that pretentious hack!” No, that’s not two cineastes on differing sides of the Godard spectrum arguing over the controversial director’s merit, that’s me every single I time I watch Pierrot le Fou. The film begins brilliantly, Godard’s use of red and blue filters as a lens on the petty capitalism that Pierrot (“my name is Ferdinand”) feels he must escape is a fantastically realized technical element.

Yet Godard goes off the rails, he throws too much into the film. He shoves things in, rearranging important plot points to make sure he fits in all of his pretentions (the man singing to Ferdinand on the dock after Marianne leaves him is overly long and grating). The back and forth speaking between Marianne and Ferdinand is great, but overused. The use of color, while at times perfectly executed, is also overused and becomes an eyesore in some scenes (the scene in which Ferdinand drives Marianne home in the beginning). Godard builds his film as a noir, morphs it into a surreal, dream-like piece in the middle, and reverts back to the noir elements to end it. While I understand what he was doing and what he meant to say, the shift wasn’t as fluid as I would have liked and I came away with a very concious feeling of Godard’s intentions.

However, Godard redeems himself with the ending. In the final scene where Ferdinand kills himself, Godard brilliantly ties the surreal with the real, the dream with the noir. In a very surreal scene, Ferdinand paints his face blue, goes to a cliffside and envelops his head with dynamite in the most badass and insane attempt at suicide. Godard fixes his camera on Belmondo as he wraps layer after layer around his head. The second the fuse is lit, Godard smashes real with surreal. Ferdinand realizes, too late, that his time spent with Marianne was detached from reality; a flight of fancy that had no place in reality. “This is silly” he says, almost ironically. The blast of the dynamite is shattering, the smoke slowly drifting over the ocean.

h1

#174 Days of Heaven (1978)

January 15, 2010

Directed by: Terrence Malick
Starring: Richard Gere, Sam Shepard and Brook Adams
Genre: Drama
IMDB:

Does it matter that the acting isn’t really that great? Does it matter that the plot moves a bit too quickly and the ending seems rushed? Does it matter that Malick’s use of voiceovers here wasn’t nearly as developed and substantial as when he used them twenty years later in The Thin Red Line? (You can probably see where I’m going with this). The answer is “no”. None of those things matter. Despite them, there has only been one (yes, one) better American film made since Days of Heaven was released over 30 years ago. The reason that this film remains so intensely good despite its flaws is that it isn’t so much a movie as it is a moving painting; a living, breathing portrait of hardship, love and heartache.

If there was one Blu-Ray disk I could take to Cowboys stadium and watch on their glorious HD screen it would be this one. Days of Heaven is the type of film that, when you think back about it, you conjure up certain cinematic images rather than plot points or character interactions. When I think about Days of Heaven I see the train, overflowing with people, slowly chugging across the brilliant sun-drenched landscape. I see Richard Gere tenderly washing Brooke Adams feet and legs in the shallow creek. I see Gere running through the woods to escape the authorities, and I’m reminded of Pvt. Wick being pursued by the Japanese through the jungle of Guadalcanal in The Thin Red Line. I see that iconic image of Gere’s face hitting the water after he’s been shot, an image that Malick brilliantly captured from underneath the water. And of course, I see the fire.

I could write an essay on the fire because, for my money, it is the greatest sequence of shots, both technically and cinematically, in film history. From the close-ups of the locusts before the fire, to the image of the workers throwing hundreds of buckets full of locusts into the fire, the flames snapping and cracking as they consume the insects, to the out-of-control blaze, the way it sets a cart on fire and the terrified horses pull the flaming cart through the wheat fields, spreading it far beyond the reach of the workers. Throughout all this Malick pulls us back to the feuding men, Gere afraid and confused, Shepard enraged yet mournful for the distruction of his livelihood. Malick and his DP Nestor Almendros capture hell on Earth in those five minutes, in a series of shots that, from a technical perspective, should not be possible. Coming in at just over an hour and a half, this film feels epic and immense because of its images. It is absolutely essential viewing for anyone and everyone.

h1

#929 Pandora and the Flying Dutchman (1951)

January 7, 2010

Directed by: Albert Lewin
Starring: James Mason and Ava Gardner
Genre: Romance, Fantasy
IMDB

Pandora and the Flying Dutchman is a nice little film. It’s the type of film where  your attitude going into it will effect your enjoyment of it. At over two hours long and a bit “laggy” in certain areas, if you can’t get yourself into itss mindset (fantastical and a bit pseudo-intellectual) then I can see it becoming a chore to sit through. The plot is pretty true to the myth, a man condemned to the sea is able to take human form every seven years in order to try to find a woman who will die for him to break his curse, and the actors turn in performances of varying skill. Mason is great as the Dutchman, a fairly difficult role which he pulls off with precision and nuance.

Gardner doesn’t fair as well. From what I know of her as a person, she is basically playing herself in this film. Though fine for the first half of the film (where she needs to be aloof and unnattainable) she falters in the second half where we need to see her undying devotion to the Dutchman. Not to sound chauvinist, but she is saved by her looks in this film. Shot in beautiful technicolor, Gardner has a glow and an aire about her that actually covers for her mediocre acting. Jack Cardiff, the film’s DP, knew what he had in Gardner, and his camera embraces her in stunning fashion. More than a few times I paused the film during a particularly stunning shot of Gardner just to admire it. While not nearly a bad film, Pandora is ultimately a bit forgettable outside of Mason’s performance and the beautiful technicolor cinematography. I believe all of the early technicolor films are worth seeing, if only to marvel at how directors dealt with this novel technology, and what better way to enjoy it then with Ava Gardner on your screen.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.