It's called "dialectics"--a method of solving disputes through discussion, hopefully achieved through reason and logic. That, at least, was Socrates' goal. To look at the concept in a broader way, two opposing forces must eventually reach some sort of compromise, either by reason or by force, and we all should hope that reason is the victor.
This is the bedrock of all of the teachings of Dan Dunne, an inter-city, middle school history teacher who disregards curriculum, favoring a post-modern, quasi-communist point of view instead. His class isn't like the junior high I remember. There are too few kids, the lessons are too loose, the teacher is too chummy (and all the kids are black, but as I grew up in New Mexico that really isn't such a notable difference). All in all, Mr. Dunne seems too good a teacher to be true. He loves his job and has that eye-rolling goal of changing the life of just one child.
But Dan has a secret. He seems to be perpetually tired. He eyes are red and puffy, he constantly sweats, and the occasional scratching becomes increasingly noticeable. A crack addict on the not-so-down-low, Dan is a child. He parties, he drinks, he snorts, his apartment is a hovel. Some misplaced sense of duty has urged him into teaching, but something more is keeping him in a rut.
Ryan Gosling gives an inspired performance as this young man, hurt and lonely, leading a miserable life. His acting is as thoughtful as ever in this movie; his character incredibly frustrating, but someone we cheer for. He has to get better. He has to make a change.
Dan's opportunity for something better comes when his secret is discovered by one of his students, a tomboy named Drey. A hard-knock life and a void of strong male figures in her life leads Drey to Dan, the two forming an unusual, misguided and sensitive friendship. We fear it will border on inappropriate, and certainly a young girl fraternizing with her base head schoolteacher is not what I would call commonplace, but director Ryan Fleck's directorial debut is careful to navigate away from implications of sexual misconduct.
As great as Gosling is (and he is very) the true standout of this movie Shareeka Epps, who plays the androgynous, tough as nails 13-year-old. Pursed lips and steady eyes like a thousand walls of concrete are nothing but self-defense, and we know this girl is lost and hurt. As a first performance--as a performance in general, for that matter--this girl shows she's got something special.
Fleck's story is about the struggles of an abuser having an in-flux relationship with this girl. Her mother works, her father is distant and the only other adult she knows sells what Teacher is buying. It is precarious, it is gripping. I had a hard time thinking about the story as it seems scarily real. I don't mean in a school teacher finding a new buddy in a preteen, but that there are people in close contact with children who undoubtedly are in the same sort of situation as Dan. I think about my three little brothers, all of whom are about that same age, and what sort of influences they have to look up to. Is their idol another Dan? Is he better, or is Dan the best choice? Are we allowed to judge a man based on one flaw, however big that may be, or is that an ugly sign of hypocrisy and hubris? Those are big questions, and I don't know if I enjoy thinking about them.
The film comes to a troubling and beautiful climax, as we know it has to. It is too special a movie to follow formula. "Half Nelson" is such a small treasure because it asks us to look for help and for affection in places we might not normally turn to. Who can be a role model, and what makes one person more fit to be one than another? The dialectic of this film is that Dan is a man who needs to grow up, and Drey is the person who can get him to change his act. Drey is a girl who needs to have the chance to be a little girl, and Dan is the man who can be a father figure. The two are simply incompatible. If they both try to shelter or be sheltered simultaneously then the pushmi-pullyu walks nowhere. If a conclusion can be reached then you tell me, or rather tell Mr. Fleck. I think what he was saying, and I happen to agree, is that sometimes even Socrates can't fix the world.
3.5/4
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Santa sangre (1989)
Alejandro Jodorowsky has taken the rules of film-making, spat on them, and thrown them in the dirt. His surrealist, Mexican melodrama may be one of the single strangest films I have ever watched, but one which shows that when untethered by the bonds of convention, art can occur in bloody, ugly, fantastic ways.
Fenix was a boy magician in a circus run by his father and mother. The latter, Concha, was a devout leader of the Church of Santa Sangre--the Church of Holy Blood. Finding her husband cheating on her with the Tattooed Woman, Concha attacks her husband who in turn cuts her arms off and slits his own throat. Scarred by the images, Fenix is locked away in a school for children with Down syndrome where he lives like a feral cat for years. Once grown, his armless mother returns to him, helps him escape and uses him to exact her revenge on the corrupting world of women.
Jodorowky's film is less a telling of a story and more like a series of dreams being realized. His style is a combination of David Lynch and Federico Fellini; a blending of the phantasmagorical, the sublime, and the episodic. Going through his movie one does not learn from words--there are no explanations--but rather ideas that have been melted and beaten into something resembling an image. It is strange and often uncomfortable, but it conjured all sorts of ideas of my own.
The film is like a birth and death happening in tandem. Its imagery is shocking, ugly, yet magnificent in its uniqueness and the unabashed way in which it tries to be ugly. Watching the clipped story lines of love and loss, religion and madness were both frustrating in their lack of convention, and hypnotic simply because it all felt so new. Jodorowsky is a poet of the blackest sort, but I have to say that his rhymes were too clever for me to puzzle out the meanings.
Some of his creations were exuberant and full of life. I felt very strongly that if this were translated for the stage it could be an astounding piece of performance art. Its magic would be difficult to carry across mediums, but the heightened dialogue and its sense of being very tangible even through all its absurdity makes me think that a theatre audience might appreciate it as a play.
That said, it is not, and as a film I find it very hard to believe that people could "like" this movie. I didn't "like" this film, but I certainly appreciated the concept and the performances by Axel Jodorowsky and Blanca Guerra. As entertainment, "Santa sangre" fails. But as a realized nightmare rife with hidden meaning it is striking. If you feel up to the challenge I encourage you to watch, but don't anticipate an easy ride. The film will challenge you to keep pace, and I must admit that by the end I was huffing and puffing.
3/4
Fenix was a boy magician in a circus run by his father and mother. The latter, Concha, was a devout leader of the Church of Santa Sangre--the Church of Holy Blood. Finding her husband cheating on her with the Tattooed Woman, Concha attacks her husband who in turn cuts her arms off and slits his own throat. Scarred by the images, Fenix is locked away in a school for children with Down syndrome where he lives like a feral cat for years. Once grown, his armless mother returns to him, helps him escape and uses him to exact her revenge on the corrupting world of women.
Jodorowky's film is less a telling of a story and more like a series of dreams being realized. His style is a combination of David Lynch and Federico Fellini; a blending of the phantasmagorical, the sublime, and the episodic. Going through his movie one does not learn from words--there are no explanations--but rather ideas that have been melted and beaten into something resembling an image. It is strange and often uncomfortable, but it conjured all sorts of ideas of my own.
The film is like a birth and death happening in tandem. Its imagery is shocking, ugly, yet magnificent in its uniqueness and the unabashed way in which it tries to be ugly. Watching the clipped story lines of love and loss, religion and madness were both frustrating in their lack of convention, and hypnotic simply because it all felt so new. Jodorowsky is a poet of the blackest sort, but I have to say that his rhymes were too clever for me to puzzle out the meanings.
Some of his creations were exuberant and full of life. I felt very strongly that if this were translated for the stage it could be an astounding piece of performance art. Its magic would be difficult to carry across mediums, but the heightened dialogue and its sense of being very tangible even through all its absurdity makes me think that a theatre audience might appreciate it as a play.
That said, it is not, and as a film I find it very hard to believe that people could "like" this movie. I didn't "like" this film, but I certainly appreciated the concept and the performances by Axel Jodorowsky and Blanca Guerra. As entertainment, "Santa sangre" fails. But as a realized nightmare rife with hidden meaning it is striking. If you feel up to the challenge I encourage you to watch, but don't anticipate an easy ride. The film will challenge you to keep pace, and I must admit that by the end I was huffing and puffing.
3/4
Thursday, February 21, 2013
The Bells of St. Mary's (1945)
I love a good story about nuns. Here is a secret that few people but my mother know: when I was little I desperately wanted to become a nun when I grew up. I was raised in a fairly secular house; my mother was "spiritual" but not religious, and my father, though he went to a Catholic school, was then atheist. I didn't even go to church until I was 15 and that was my own choice. No, I wanted to be a nun when I was little because I loved their habits. My mother encouraged me to consider the priesthood, but the collar was no match for those awesome gowns and headdresses. I like things that billow.
Anyway, "The Bells of St. Mary's" is a charming little movie starring Bing Crosby and one of my all-time favorite actresses, Ingrid Bergman. Crosby plays the new pastor of a parochial school, St. Mary's, which is under the threat of being condemned by the evil, greedy Mr. Bogardus (how clever the writer must have felt in coming up with a name like that). His character, Father O'Malley, will not only have to fight to save the charming school, full of charming kids, taught by charming nuns, he will also go head to head with the stubborn Sister Benedict (Bergman). It's all rather charming.
I'm not sure that I would want Crosby teaching my children in real life, but here he is perfectly affable, with his soft smile and his chocolate voice. Would it be a Crosby film if they didn't throw in a few pointless musical numbers? Irrelevant though they may be, I think I might be physically impossibly not to swoon when he opens his mouth.
Bergman is demure and enjoyable to watch in a peculiar role for her. She was surprisingly funny in it, though that didn't stop her natural sadness from pushing through. The two of them are a good match, and although I think both were odd choices for their respective parts, they did very well with what they had. That's the thing about good actors, they can do a better job in ill-fitting roles, than mediocre actors in parts made for them.
This is a predictable but harmless film. A feel-good romp about the goodness in the hearts of men, featuring fine performances and some sweet and tender moments. Leo McCarey's movie may have made a strong appearance at the Academy Awards when it first premiered, but I suspect that was just a sign of the times. People were looking for stories that could take them away from war and remind them that they actually had souls. That's all well and good, but I largely suspect this is film I will forget two weeks from now.
3/4
Anyway, "The Bells of St. Mary's" is a charming little movie starring Bing Crosby and one of my all-time favorite actresses, Ingrid Bergman. Crosby plays the new pastor of a parochial school, St. Mary's, which is under the threat of being condemned by the evil, greedy Mr. Bogardus (how clever the writer must have felt in coming up with a name like that). His character, Father O'Malley, will not only have to fight to save the charming school, full of charming kids, taught by charming nuns, he will also go head to head with the stubborn Sister Benedict (Bergman). It's all rather charming.
I'm not sure that I would want Crosby teaching my children in real life, but here he is perfectly affable, with his soft smile and his chocolate voice. Would it be a Crosby film if they didn't throw in a few pointless musical numbers? Irrelevant though they may be, I think I might be physically impossibly not to swoon when he opens his mouth.
Bergman is demure and enjoyable to watch in a peculiar role for her. She was surprisingly funny in it, though that didn't stop her natural sadness from pushing through. The two of them are a good match, and although I think both were odd choices for their respective parts, they did very well with what they had. That's the thing about good actors, they can do a better job in ill-fitting roles, than mediocre actors in parts made for them.
This is a predictable but harmless film. A feel-good romp about the goodness in the hearts of men, featuring fine performances and some sweet and tender moments. Leo McCarey's movie may have made a strong appearance at the Academy Awards when it first premiered, but I suspect that was just a sign of the times. People were looking for stories that could take them away from war and remind them that they actually had souls. That's all well and good, but I largely suspect this is film I will forget two weeks from now.
3/4
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The Oscars (2013)
It's that time of year again, folks! Awards Season culminates this Sunday with the Academy Awards, and although I never usually agree with their selections I follow it religiously, so before you fill out those Oscar ballots and place your bets give this a glance.
Here are links to the nine Best Picture nominees if you want to know my thoughts in depth:
"Amour", "Argo", "Beasts of the Southern Wild", "Django Unchained", "Les Miserables", "Life of Pi", "Lincoln", "Silver Linings Playbook", "Zero Dark Thirty"
This has been an usually good year for films and there are some very close, very exciting races. Although nobody is very sure of who is going to win in many categories, I will give your best bet, a close contender and then my own personal opinions. Note: although I have seen all Best Picture nominees I have not seen films in several of the other categories.
* Best Picture: It was almost a lock in the early races that "Lincoln" was going to claim the gold, having the most nominations and a towering performance from Daniel Day-Lewis, not to mention being directed by one of the most well-regarded filmmakers working. But win after win for "Argo" has made it the top contender. At this point there is pretty much nothing to stop Ben Affleck's CIA drama. After all, although the Academy loves biopics, presidents, war films and period pieces, what they love more than anything else is patting themselves on the pack. As much as "Argo" is about the Iranian Hostage Crisis it is also very much about Hollywood's impact outside of their own, smug little bubble.
Will Win: "Argo"
Could Win: "Lincoln"
Should Win: Although my personal favorite film this year is "Life of Pi" (At least as far as the nominees--"The Master" is my actual favorite), the year's best film is Kathryn Bigelow's masterful "Zero Dark Thirty". "Argo", then, does not seem like such an odd choice, as it is essentially "Zero" without the torture, the political condemnation, and a heaping helping of high-horse syndrome.
* Best Actor: If there is anything such as a dead-lock this year, it's Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in "Lincoln". He was the front-runner even before anyone had seen the film. If you look at the last ten years, five Best Actor winners have played historical figures. The Academy just really likes it if you can channel a real person. That is not to short change Day-Lewis; his performance proves once again that he is our generation's Marlon Brando, and that is about the highest praise I could ever give to an actor. Also, his win will make him the first actor ever to win three Best Actor statuettes, even more than Brando, and place him second only to Katharine Hepburn.
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Could Win: Nobody, but for the game's sake Hugh Jackman once had a shot.
Should Win: Joaquin Phoenix gave the best performance this year in Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master" as the troubled and violent Freddie Quell. He was an early favorite, but after trashing the Academy and awards ceremonies in general he practically dug his own grave. Nevertheless, it is dark and extremely frightening bit of acting.
* Best Actress: This is one of the closest and most interesting of all the categories this year, as their are three perfectly legitimate choices: Jessica Chastain, Emmanuelle Riva and Jennifer Lawrence. For a while it seemed that Riva had this in the bag, having been in a foreign film which received nominations in three of the other major categories, but as time has gone on that momentum has gone through a curious ebb and flow. Chastain has been the favorite of critics, Lawrence the choice of audiences. Right now it seems safest to say that Lawrence will win for her work in "Silver Linings Playbook". After her Oscar-nominated work in "Winter's Bone", and the amount of prolific and fine work she has done, combined with the fact that she is 22 and untrained, I think the Academy is ready to honor her. However, Riva is making a small comeback and could sneak it right out from under her, making her the oldest Oscar winner in the history of the category.
Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence
Could Win: Emmanuelle Riva, possibly Chastain. Sorry to be so wishy-washy. It's that close.
Should Win: I've gone back and forth between Riva and Lawrence, and finally decided that it should be Riva. I finally had to go back to the trite phrase "acting is reacting", and was able to come to the conclusion that as a standalone performance Lawrence takes it. However, for what an actor should be, Riva's chemistry with Jean-Louis Trintignant was far stronger than Lawrence's with Bradley Cooper. Therefore, Riva has it for me.
* Best Supporting Actor: Possibly even tighter than the Best Actress race is Supporting Actor. For the first time in who knows how long there are four actors who would be appropriate choices (Sorry Alan Arkin, you have no chance). Right now we are in a dead heat between Christoph Waltz and Tommy Lee Jones. You could basically flip a coin to decide between the two. Phillip Seymour-Hoffman had initial momentum and was a critic's favorite, but his chances are failing. Robert De Niro, on the other hand, could surprise everyone and steal it, as he hasn't won an award since "Raging Bull". Frankly, I think everyone is just glad to know the once greatest working actor hasn't completely lost his magic. This is also an interesting category in that all five nominees are past winners. My picks are almost arbitrary.
Will Win: Christoph Waltz. I think they want "Django" to win in something, as Tarantino's chances for his screenplay are dwindling.
Could Win: De Niro may surprise us all, but Tommy Lee Jones is your next best pick, or possibly even a better one.
Should Win: Phillip Seymour Hoffman. He and Phoenix in "The Master" were two parts of the same whole. Collectively, they made a--excuse the pun--masterful performance.
* Best Supporting Actress: Finally, a bit of direction. It's Anne Hathaway. Surprise. The princess lost her diary and her hair, warbled a bit and broke our hearts in Thomas Hooper's...ahem...underwhelming "Les Miserables". Although people are annoyed with her fake humility at previous ceremonies, there is no denying that she pretty much made what would otherwise have been an unwatchable film.
Will Win: Anne Hathaway
Could Win: I'm not sure how, but Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln is seen as the next choice. I thought she was an enormous blemish on that movie and that she should never act again, but what do I know? Anyway, nothing short of Field's husband being shot in the Ford Theater could earn her the gold.
Should Win: Hathaway. I loved Amy Adams, but Hathaway just did such a damn fine job in that one song. The rest of her performance was forgettable, but I can't deny good acting when I see it.
* Best Director: This was the category which had everyone scratching their heads when nominations were announced last month. No Tarantino? No Affleck? No Bigelow? Who the hell is that Frenchman, or that first-timer? I assume there is going to be some vote-splitting, giving Affleck his Best Picture and Stephen Spielberg Best Director for "Lincoln". It's more a film you can appreciate than enjoy, but there's no denying it's well made. That said, we could see surprises from Ang Lee or Michael Haneke, who impeccably directed two of the most mesmerizing movies this year. Even David O. Russel has a shot, with his crowd pleasing "Silver Linings".
Will Win: Stephen Spielberg
Could Win: Ang Lee
Should Win: Ang Lee moved me to tears with his extraordinary "Life of Pi". Not only has he proven himself one of the most versatile directors in the field, but he turned and unfilmable book into a breathtaking masterpiece. I would love for him to walk away with the Oscar simply to give his work a bit more credit than just in the technical categories.
* Writing - Original Screenplay: I was certain that Quentin Tarantino would take the Oscar for "Django", and although I am not completely unconvinced, the Writers Guild Award winners have made me pause. Tarantino is not member of the Guild and therefore wasn't eligible for the prize, but I had completely counted out "Zero" for almost everything at the Oscars until I saw that Mark Boal had won. Could he be a contender? Probably not, but I guess we'll see.
Will Win: "Django Unchained"
Could Win: "Zero Dark Thirty"
Should Win: "Django Unchained". I love Tarantino. I might not always get his style, but as I mentioned in my review of the film I think that this may well be his turning point. There is a level of maturity to the work which I have not previously seen from him, and above all else the guy just has an amazing ear for dialogue.
* Writing - Adapted Screenplay: I'd imagine that Tony Kushner is the front runner for "Lincoln", which I found stilted, but critics loved. However, unlike the Original Screenplay category, Kushner is a member of the Writer's Guild and lost to Chris Terrio's "Argo". I still think they will go with "Lincoln", though.
Will Win: "Lincoln"
Could Win: "Argo"
Should Win: This is one of the weakest categories for me, but I'd have to go with "Beasts of the Southern Wild". I found its bayou poetry really endearing.
* Animated Feature: "Brave"
* Animated Short: "Paperman"
* Foreign Language Film: "Amour"
* Cinematography: "Life of Pi"
* Costume Design: "Anna Karenina"
* Documentary Feature: "Searching for Sugar Man"
* Documentary Short: I have no idea. "Inocente"
* Editing: "Argo". If it comes out as "Lincoln", change your Best Picture choice immediately.
* Makeup and Hair Styling: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"
* Music: "Life of Pi"
* Original Song: "Skyfall"
* Production Design: "Les Miserables"
* Short Film - Live Action: I have no idea. "Curfew"
* Sound Editing: "Life of Pi", unless they have no idea what they're doing, then it will be "Argo"
* Sound Mixing: "Les Miserables"
* Visual Effects: "Life of Pi"
God, that was a chore. Good luck!
*Post-show update: Well that was a fun, exciting Oscars this year! Match 'em up, I called most of them. In the future I should go with my better judgement. It's impossible to think like an Academy member, really (not that I want to), but there were some interesting surprises. The only one really worth noting was the much deserved second Oscar given to Ang Lee for directing. I wanted it, and for some inexplicable reason, I got it. How he trumped the Goliath known as Spielberg is beyond me -- perhaps it was actually realized that although they could appreciate a film like "Lincoln" it wasn't really all that enjoyable a watch? Perhaps the nomination was enough to make them rest easy? Or perhaps it was simply that Ang Lee is one of the best and most versatile directors we are privileged to have working right now who, once again, managed to make another masterpiece.
Here are links to the nine Best Picture nominees if you want to know my thoughts in depth:
"Amour", "Argo", "Beasts of the Southern Wild", "Django Unchained", "Les Miserables", "Life of Pi", "Lincoln", "Silver Linings Playbook", "Zero Dark Thirty"
This has been an usually good year for films and there are some very close, very exciting races. Although nobody is very sure of who is going to win in many categories, I will give your best bet, a close contender and then my own personal opinions. Note: although I have seen all Best Picture nominees I have not seen films in several of the other categories.
* Best Picture: It was almost a lock in the early races that "Lincoln" was going to claim the gold, having the most nominations and a towering performance from Daniel Day-Lewis, not to mention being directed by one of the most well-regarded filmmakers working. But win after win for "Argo" has made it the top contender. At this point there is pretty much nothing to stop Ben Affleck's CIA drama. After all, although the Academy loves biopics, presidents, war films and period pieces, what they love more than anything else is patting themselves on the pack. As much as "Argo" is about the Iranian Hostage Crisis it is also very much about Hollywood's impact outside of their own, smug little bubble.
Will Win: "Argo"
Could Win: "Lincoln"
Should Win: Although my personal favorite film this year is "Life of Pi" (At least as far as the nominees--"The Master" is my actual favorite), the year's best film is Kathryn Bigelow's masterful "Zero Dark Thirty". "Argo", then, does not seem like such an odd choice, as it is essentially "Zero" without the torture, the political condemnation, and a heaping helping of high-horse syndrome.
* Best Actor: If there is anything such as a dead-lock this year, it's Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in "Lincoln". He was the front-runner even before anyone had seen the film. If you look at the last ten years, five Best Actor winners have played historical figures. The Academy just really likes it if you can channel a real person. That is not to short change Day-Lewis; his performance proves once again that he is our generation's Marlon Brando, and that is about the highest praise I could ever give to an actor. Also, his win will make him the first actor ever to win three Best Actor statuettes, even more than Brando, and place him second only to Katharine Hepburn.
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Could Win: Nobody, but for the game's sake Hugh Jackman once had a shot.
Should Win: Joaquin Phoenix gave the best performance this year in Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master" as the troubled and violent Freddie Quell. He was an early favorite, but after trashing the Academy and awards ceremonies in general he practically dug his own grave. Nevertheless, it is dark and extremely frightening bit of acting.
* Best Actress: This is one of the closest and most interesting of all the categories this year, as their are three perfectly legitimate choices: Jessica Chastain, Emmanuelle Riva and Jennifer Lawrence. For a while it seemed that Riva had this in the bag, having been in a foreign film which received nominations in three of the other major categories, but as time has gone on that momentum has gone through a curious ebb and flow. Chastain has been the favorite of critics, Lawrence the choice of audiences. Right now it seems safest to say that Lawrence will win for her work in "Silver Linings Playbook". After her Oscar-nominated work in "Winter's Bone", and the amount of prolific and fine work she has done, combined with the fact that she is 22 and untrained, I think the Academy is ready to honor her. However, Riva is making a small comeback and could sneak it right out from under her, making her the oldest Oscar winner in the history of the category.
Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence
Could Win: Emmanuelle Riva, possibly Chastain. Sorry to be so wishy-washy. It's that close.
Should Win: I've gone back and forth between Riva and Lawrence, and finally decided that it should be Riva. I finally had to go back to the trite phrase "acting is reacting", and was able to come to the conclusion that as a standalone performance Lawrence takes it. However, for what an actor should be, Riva's chemistry with Jean-Louis Trintignant was far stronger than Lawrence's with Bradley Cooper. Therefore, Riva has it for me.
* Best Supporting Actor: Possibly even tighter than the Best Actress race is Supporting Actor. For the first time in who knows how long there are four actors who would be appropriate choices (Sorry Alan Arkin, you have no chance). Right now we are in a dead heat between Christoph Waltz and Tommy Lee Jones. You could basically flip a coin to decide between the two. Phillip Seymour-Hoffman had initial momentum and was a critic's favorite, but his chances are failing. Robert De Niro, on the other hand, could surprise everyone and steal it, as he hasn't won an award since "Raging Bull". Frankly, I think everyone is just glad to know the once greatest working actor hasn't completely lost his magic. This is also an interesting category in that all five nominees are past winners. My picks are almost arbitrary.
Will Win: Christoph Waltz. I think they want "Django" to win in something, as Tarantino's chances for his screenplay are dwindling.
Could Win: De Niro may surprise us all, but Tommy Lee Jones is your next best pick, or possibly even a better one.
Should Win: Phillip Seymour Hoffman. He and Phoenix in "The Master" were two parts of the same whole. Collectively, they made a--excuse the pun--masterful performance.
* Best Supporting Actress: Finally, a bit of direction. It's Anne Hathaway. Surprise. The princess lost her diary and her hair, warbled a bit and broke our hearts in Thomas Hooper's...ahem...underwhelming "Les Miserables". Although people are annoyed with her fake humility at previous ceremonies, there is no denying that she pretty much made what would otherwise have been an unwatchable film.
Will Win: Anne Hathaway
Could Win: I'm not sure how, but Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln is seen as the next choice. I thought she was an enormous blemish on that movie and that she should never act again, but what do I know? Anyway, nothing short of Field's husband being shot in the Ford Theater could earn her the gold.
Should Win: Hathaway. I loved Amy Adams, but Hathaway just did such a damn fine job in that one song. The rest of her performance was forgettable, but I can't deny good acting when I see it.
* Best Director: This was the category which had everyone scratching their heads when nominations were announced last month. No Tarantino? No Affleck? No Bigelow? Who the hell is that Frenchman, or that first-timer? I assume there is going to be some vote-splitting, giving Affleck his Best Picture and Stephen Spielberg Best Director for "Lincoln". It's more a film you can appreciate than enjoy, but there's no denying it's well made. That said, we could see surprises from Ang Lee or Michael Haneke, who impeccably directed two of the most mesmerizing movies this year. Even David O. Russel has a shot, with his crowd pleasing "Silver Linings".
Will Win: Stephen Spielberg
Could Win: Ang Lee
Should Win: Ang Lee moved me to tears with his extraordinary "Life of Pi". Not only has he proven himself one of the most versatile directors in the field, but he turned and unfilmable book into a breathtaking masterpiece. I would love for him to walk away with the Oscar simply to give his work a bit more credit than just in the technical categories.
* Writing - Original Screenplay: I was certain that Quentin Tarantino would take the Oscar for "Django", and although I am not completely unconvinced, the Writers Guild Award winners have made me pause. Tarantino is not member of the Guild and therefore wasn't eligible for the prize, but I had completely counted out "Zero" for almost everything at the Oscars until I saw that Mark Boal had won. Could he be a contender? Probably not, but I guess we'll see.
Will Win: "Django Unchained"
Could Win: "Zero Dark Thirty"
Should Win: "Django Unchained". I love Tarantino. I might not always get his style, but as I mentioned in my review of the film I think that this may well be his turning point. There is a level of maturity to the work which I have not previously seen from him, and above all else the guy just has an amazing ear for dialogue.
* Writing - Adapted Screenplay: I'd imagine that Tony Kushner is the front runner for "Lincoln", which I found stilted, but critics loved. However, unlike the Original Screenplay category, Kushner is a member of the Writer's Guild and lost to Chris Terrio's "Argo". I still think they will go with "Lincoln", though.
Will Win: "Lincoln"
Could Win: "Argo"
Should Win: This is one of the weakest categories for me, but I'd have to go with "Beasts of the Southern Wild". I found its bayou poetry really endearing.
* Animated Feature: "Brave"
* Animated Short: "Paperman"
* Foreign Language Film: "Amour"
* Cinematography: "Life of Pi"
* Costume Design: "Anna Karenina"
* Documentary Feature: "Searching for Sugar Man"
* Documentary Short: I have no idea. "Inocente"
* Editing: "Argo". If it comes out as "Lincoln", change your Best Picture choice immediately.
* Makeup and Hair Styling: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"
* Music: "Life of Pi"
* Original Song: "Skyfall"
* Production Design: "Les Miserables"
* Short Film - Live Action: I have no idea. "Curfew"
* Sound Editing: "Life of Pi", unless they have no idea what they're doing, then it will be "Argo"
* Sound Mixing: "Les Miserables"
* Visual Effects: "Life of Pi"
God, that was a chore. Good luck!
*Post-show update: Well that was a fun, exciting Oscars this year! Match 'em up, I called most of them. In the future I should go with my better judgement. It's impossible to think like an Academy member, really (not that I want to), but there were some interesting surprises. The only one really worth noting was the much deserved second Oscar given to Ang Lee for directing. I wanted it, and for some inexplicable reason, I got it. How he trumped the Goliath known as Spielberg is beyond me -- perhaps it was actually realized that although they could appreciate a film like "Lincoln" it wasn't really all that enjoyable a watch? Perhaps the nomination was enough to make them rest easy? Or perhaps it was simply that Ang Lee is one of the best and most versatile directors we are privileged to have working right now who, once again, managed to make another masterpiece.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Amour (2012)
There is a lesser known Humphrey Bogart film called "In a Lonely Place", where Bogart plays an aggressive, alcoholic screenwriter whose life might possibly be saved by a young woman. There is a scene in the film which has stuck in my mind even after the rest of the film has slipped away. The two of them are in the kitchen, he is making breakfast, she is reading a script of his. He tells her, "A good love scene should be about something else besides love. For instance, this one. Me fixing grapefruit. You sitting over there, dopey, half-asleep. Anyone looking at us could tell we're in love." This idea left an impression on me, and I have never failed to think about it when I watch a film in which love is proclaimed.
Amour is "love" in French, and although I feel patronizing saying it, I mention this only because that it is an enormous title for a film which implies that are going to see what love truly is. Michael Haneke's "Amour" rises to the challenge of the expectations which it has set for itself by presenting us with a wrenching, deeply powerful image of what love should be, and what it can be. He gives it to us with grace, humility, and a great wisdom which causes one to pause and reflect on the relationships we have forged or will forge in our lifetime.
It is a simple story of an elderly couple, Georges and Anne, ex-music teachers, who will have to suffer one last great trial in their relationship and navigate the final evolution of a true romance. Anne suffers a debilitating stroke, one which will lead her down a slow, winding path towards death. An open shot shows the fire department breaking into a seeming deserted apartment to find the dead Anne lying on her bed, her head wreathed in flowers. The film's ending, then, is no surprise to us, and we are well aware that are going to see how their relationship is tested until its final end.
It is an unflinching look into the face of mortality (though it at times will make us flinch while watching it), in which Georges, honoring Anne's wishes, does not take her to a hospital or a home, choosing instead to look after her himself. The bathings, diaper changes, feedings, wheelchairs and all of the other heartbreaking elements of watching a loved one approach death are shown with patience and tender emotion. Haneke was very smart to take his time and let every excruciating moment have its breathing room. To hurry through unpleasantness would cheapen his message. His film is impeccably directed.
Obviously, to contend with subject matter such as this, two exceptionally gifted actors were needed, and Haneke found them in Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva. Films like this one are always my favorites because their success or failure relies so heavily on the relationship between actor and director, and actor and actor. It is very apparent that Haneke, Trintignant and Riva all shared a certain level of professionalism and comfort with one another, otherwise the bravura performances simply would not have been there.
Riva, at first glance, has the more difficult challenge of the two. She not only had to master the physical complexities of a woman slipping away, unable to use the right side of her body, but also had to make us believe in what she was doing. Not since Daniel Day-Lewis' Christy Brown in "My Left Foot" have I been so thoroughly convinced that the actor was not acting an ailment. I believed her. And what's more, she tore out my heart.
As good as she was, however, she would have been nothing without Trintignant. I responded more to him, who had to make sense of the complexities of loving a person so much that he would do anything for her. His Georges surprised me in the dignity that he fought for in her passing. There was no self-pity, there was no loss of self-control. He was humiliated, of course he was. But Georges fights to protect that dignity that he and his wife share right to the bitter end. Observe him during the first scene in which Anne suffers the onset of her stroke. He does not panic. He looks calmly into her eyes, asks her what the matter is, and when she doesn't respond he fetches a wet towel to dab her face with. Only then when she still doesn't respond does he get dressed to find help. That is the deeply affectionate man he is. Georges knows his wife, and wants to tend to her himself.
I am young and I have never been in love. In a small way I'm sure that distanced me from fully absorbing the true effects of this movie, though I am mildly glad to say that this was so. It is an emotionally shattering film that made me yearn for companionship. Although I would have to watch this again to be sure, I don't believe that either of them ever once said "I love you". They never said much of anything of significance, in fact. Their silence was thunderous, however, and when they did speak it was about grapefruit. That, I believe, is what amour is about.
4/4
Amour is "love" in French, and although I feel patronizing saying it, I mention this only because that it is an enormous title for a film which implies that are going to see what love truly is. Michael Haneke's "Amour" rises to the challenge of the expectations which it has set for itself by presenting us with a wrenching, deeply powerful image of what love should be, and what it can be. He gives it to us with grace, humility, and a great wisdom which causes one to pause and reflect on the relationships we have forged or will forge in our lifetime.
It is a simple story of an elderly couple, Georges and Anne, ex-music teachers, who will have to suffer one last great trial in their relationship and navigate the final evolution of a true romance. Anne suffers a debilitating stroke, one which will lead her down a slow, winding path towards death. An open shot shows the fire department breaking into a seeming deserted apartment to find the dead Anne lying on her bed, her head wreathed in flowers. The film's ending, then, is no surprise to us, and we are well aware that are going to see how their relationship is tested until its final end.
It is an unflinching look into the face of mortality (though it at times will make us flinch while watching it), in which Georges, honoring Anne's wishes, does not take her to a hospital or a home, choosing instead to look after her himself. The bathings, diaper changes, feedings, wheelchairs and all of the other heartbreaking elements of watching a loved one approach death are shown with patience and tender emotion. Haneke was very smart to take his time and let every excruciating moment have its breathing room. To hurry through unpleasantness would cheapen his message. His film is impeccably directed.
Obviously, to contend with subject matter such as this, two exceptionally gifted actors were needed, and Haneke found them in Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva. Films like this one are always my favorites because their success or failure relies so heavily on the relationship between actor and director, and actor and actor. It is very apparent that Haneke, Trintignant and Riva all shared a certain level of professionalism and comfort with one another, otherwise the bravura performances simply would not have been there.
Riva, at first glance, has the more difficult challenge of the two. She not only had to master the physical complexities of a woman slipping away, unable to use the right side of her body, but also had to make us believe in what she was doing. Not since Daniel Day-Lewis' Christy Brown in "My Left Foot" have I been so thoroughly convinced that the actor was not acting an ailment. I believed her. And what's more, she tore out my heart.
As good as she was, however, she would have been nothing without Trintignant. I responded more to him, who had to make sense of the complexities of loving a person so much that he would do anything for her. His Georges surprised me in the dignity that he fought for in her passing. There was no self-pity, there was no loss of self-control. He was humiliated, of course he was. But Georges fights to protect that dignity that he and his wife share right to the bitter end. Observe him during the first scene in which Anne suffers the onset of her stroke. He does not panic. He looks calmly into her eyes, asks her what the matter is, and when she doesn't respond he fetches a wet towel to dab her face with. Only then when she still doesn't respond does he get dressed to find help. That is the deeply affectionate man he is. Georges knows his wife, and wants to tend to her himself.
I am young and I have never been in love. In a small way I'm sure that distanced me from fully absorbing the true effects of this movie, though I am mildly glad to say that this was so. It is an emotionally shattering film that made me yearn for companionship. Although I would have to watch this again to be sure, I don't believe that either of them ever once said "I love you". They never said much of anything of significance, in fact. Their silence was thunderous, however, and when they did speak it was about grapefruit. That, I believe, is what amour is about.
4/4
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Trois couleurs: Rouge (1994)
Krzysztof Kieslowski's trilogy comes to a soft and lovely conclusion with "Rouge", and finally shows the arc which I had hoped and spoken of in "Bleu". Although I am still not entirely convinced with the Trois couleurs series as a whole, his final film and his overall message made this a worthwhile excursion, and I have to say it made me feel rather inspired.
The film opens with a man attempting to make a phone call from his Genevan apartment. We are taken through wires and circuits, roads and water at breakneck speeds, traversing across great distances only to reach a busy signal. This scene, during the opening credits, in a small way represents the film as a whole. Though we have all the powers of the world at our disposal needed to connect to other individuals, we too often spend our time trying to reach them, oblivious to a world passing us by.
Irene Jacob stars as a model named Valentine whose life collides, quite unexpectedly, with that of a retired judge (Jean-Louis Trintignant) following a freak accident. Outside of the world of this mysterious hermit her life revolves around bubblegum ads, newspapers and slot machines, and a series of phone calls with a never seen, uber jealous boyfriend. All the while she and the love of her life never meet, though constantly pass right under each other's noses.
In the Judge's world, however, she is thrust into the lives of people whom she would never normally know about, as he eavesdrops into their sordid secrets with some sort of police radio. Valentine's naivety and good heart combat the Judge's bitterness and cynicism, but they complete each other, and their talks reveal more of life than either has on their own.
I have spent a long time pondering what Kieslowski's final message could have been. Upon seeing this movie, one gets the entire picture. In the end it was never Julie or Karol Karol who were Kieslowski's heroes--it was always Irene. His argument is that grief and revenge mean nothing in our world, yet are ever present. For him, Irene's compassion and desire for understanding and helping her fellow man are all that is important, yet they are so infrequent as we spend all of our time dwelling on the unhappiness of our lives.
Kieslowski's final script is richer, more thoughtful and far more beautiful, as it supplies the good with the bad. It tries not to force its material as was done with the previous two, but relies simply on the interactions that we take for granted, and encourages us to think about the secrets and skeletons that everyone has. There is no such thing as the individual for him, nor are there such things as self-contained occurances. Although he probably believes in happenstance, no meeting is without meaning, and that is reassuring.
You do not need to watch all three films that closely to find the one image which connects them all--his argument would be rendered useless had he decided to make it difficult to find. In the previous two films we watched how the main characters interplayed with this seemingly minor event and thought little about what the protagonists action or inaction meant for our relationship with them. But watch Irene and what she does. Kieslowski does not make an especially big deal out of it, and yet it is the cornerstone to his entire argument. I choose not to describe it because if you take the time to watch his films it should be self-evident.
Lastly, as I have done with "Bleu" and "Blanc", I will discuss what I believe was meant by his choosing to model his films after the Tricolour. In the French flag, the color red symbolizes fraternity. For the first time I find a logical connection between the movie's content and the color's symbolism. The movie is a cry for love, platonic or otherwise. More than that it is also a cry for liberty and equality: the liberty to lead one's life as he chooses, unburdened by the willful agency of others, and the inherent equality that we all possess. To pass judgment on your neighbor is a sign of vanity.
Although I felt a bit hollow about the conclusions reached in his first two chapters, I have always been a fan of Kieslowski's work with his actors, and this is no exception. More than that, I feel a closing of the doors and a contentment with what I have seen. The French often make movies about simple things in life, and although Kieslowski is no Frenchman his ultimate goal has not gone unnoticed.
3.5/4
The film opens with a man attempting to make a phone call from his Genevan apartment. We are taken through wires and circuits, roads and water at breakneck speeds, traversing across great distances only to reach a busy signal. This scene, during the opening credits, in a small way represents the film as a whole. Though we have all the powers of the world at our disposal needed to connect to other individuals, we too often spend our time trying to reach them, oblivious to a world passing us by.
Irene Jacob stars as a model named Valentine whose life collides, quite unexpectedly, with that of a retired judge (Jean-Louis Trintignant) following a freak accident. Outside of the world of this mysterious hermit her life revolves around bubblegum ads, newspapers and slot machines, and a series of phone calls with a never seen, uber jealous boyfriend. All the while she and the love of her life never meet, though constantly pass right under each other's noses.
In the Judge's world, however, she is thrust into the lives of people whom she would never normally know about, as he eavesdrops into their sordid secrets with some sort of police radio. Valentine's naivety and good heart combat the Judge's bitterness and cynicism, but they complete each other, and their talks reveal more of life than either has on their own.
I have spent a long time pondering what Kieslowski's final message could have been. Upon seeing this movie, one gets the entire picture. In the end it was never Julie or Karol Karol who were Kieslowski's heroes--it was always Irene. His argument is that grief and revenge mean nothing in our world, yet are ever present. For him, Irene's compassion and desire for understanding and helping her fellow man are all that is important, yet they are so infrequent as we spend all of our time dwelling on the unhappiness of our lives.
Kieslowski's final script is richer, more thoughtful and far more beautiful, as it supplies the good with the bad. It tries not to force its material as was done with the previous two, but relies simply on the interactions that we take for granted, and encourages us to think about the secrets and skeletons that everyone has. There is no such thing as the individual for him, nor are there such things as self-contained occurances. Although he probably believes in happenstance, no meeting is without meaning, and that is reassuring.
You do not need to watch all three films that closely to find the one image which connects them all--his argument would be rendered useless had he decided to make it difficult to find. In the previous two films we watched how the main characters interplayed with this seemingly minor event and thought little about what the protagonists action or inaction meant for our relationship with them. But watch Irene and what she does. Kieslowski does not make an especially big deal out of it, and yet it is the cornerstone to his entire argument. I choose not to describe it because if you take the time to watch his films it should be self-evident.
Lastly, as I have done with "Bleu" and "Blanc", I will discuss what I believe was meant by his choosing to model his films after the Tricolour. In the French flag, the color red symbolizes fraternity. For the first time I find a logical connection between the movie's content and the color's symbolism. The movie is a cry for love, platonic or otherwise. More than that it is also a cry for liberty and equality: the liberty to lead one's life as he chooses, unburdened by the willful agency of others, and the inherent equality that we all possess. To pass judgment on your neighbor is a sign of vanity.
Although I felt a bit hollow about the conclusions reached in his first two chapters, I have always been a fan of Kieslowski's work with his actors, and this is no exception. More than that, I feel a closing of the doors and a contentment with what I have seen. The French often make movies about simple things in life, and although Kieslowski is no Frenchman his ultimate goal has not gone unnoticed.
3.5/4
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
I had an anomalous and unique experience while driving home after seeing this film. Throughout the movie I experienced rushes of horror and disbelief, but on the whole I did not feel in the same way I feel during other dramas. I watched the story unfold with a critical eye, was dumbfounded by what I was seeing, and I left. I did not cry which I have a tendency to do when I get overwhelmed. Upon leaving the theater and on my drive home, however, thoughts began buzzing around in my head about the implications of the actions depicted in "Zero Dark Thirty" and what those efforts meant to me. Suddenly, I had an upswell of emotions followed by nausea. I pulled over to the side of the road because I started retching. I did not vomit, but the tears finally came. What happened is beyond me, but I do know that I have been profoundly moved by this movie, the very best film of 2012.
This is the story of the largest manhunt in human history, the search for Osama bin Laden as told through the lens of a CIA agent named Maya (Jessica Chastain), a girl recruited out of high school and brought to the Middle East to engage in the hunt. We are taken through a decade of time, from September 11 through the eventual capture and killing of the number one most wanted man in the Western world. It is a complex, seemingly endless story of the this woman's obsession with his capture, and although I cannot be sure how much we can accept that bin Laden's ultimate fate was decided by Maya alone, the movie definitely makes the case that most, if not all praise, can be given to her tireless efforts.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the making of this film. Kathryn Bigelow (the Oscar-winning director of "The Hurt Locker") placed a statement at the beginning of the movie explaining that it was based off of first-hand accounts, though it does not specify from whom or for what purpose. There are people within the government who would try to get you to disregard this film based on the inaccuracies of certain events (which I will detail), but there are two reasons why I would say that that is all the more reason to trust Bigelow: 1) I do not disbelieve that the accounts given were intended to harm or mislead the public, and although we do not know who gave the statements on which this film is based, the film is too painstakingly detailed for us not to believe them. 2) The United States government, when asked about the film, stated that it was inaccurate in numerous ways. Normally when they are asked about how their actions have been portrayed on screen they respond with a brief and solid "No comment". Their interest must have been piqued and the unusualness of their response lends me to believe that if anything, what we are seeing is too accurate.
This mentioned, let's talk about the film.
Chastain is brilliant as Maya, a beautiful, whip-smart young woman who learns the ropes fast and seemingly has nerves equivalent to any uniformed man conducting "enhanced interrogation". I would say she has nerves of steel, but Chastain's glower could melt metal, and then some. Her superior calls her crazy after ten years of hunting, and perhaps she is mad, but Chastain's performance delivers something that keeps her in a realm where we not only sympathize with her, but we hate others for not attacking her lead with the same amount of vigor.
This seemingly unimportant lead--a brief mention of a courier by a detainee--sparks Maya's decade-long quest which gets several members of her unit killed, including a bomb in which six CIA members died, the largest single attack in their history. Through her setbacks and the increasing lack of interest from other agents whose sights turned to more pressing matters at the home front, Maya kept on with this one untried link, which eventually led her to discovering the compound in Pakistan where bin Laden had been in hiding.
Bigelow's direction is astonishing. For two and a half hours the film is an unrelenting masterpiece of tension. Much of the story's action, particularly in the second act, takes place in a CIA outpost where Maya conducts her research, pouring over photographs, files, videotapes and relentlessly working to keep her colleagues on board with her work. But never once does this become dull. In fact, never once does this become unsuspenseful. We know the end of the saga, but I have never been so interested in watching a woman read papers, not knowing what she is looking for.
The film begins and ends with two of the best directed scenes of any movie this year. The latter is the one we know--the payoff, as it were. In almost real time, the audience follows the Navy S.E.A.L. Team 6 onto the compound, where it is raided, room by room, without music and often through the eyes of the soldiers. It is a monument to Bigelow's skills and twenty minutes where I could not have torn my eyes away from the screen had the room been on fire.
The former is arguably the reason why Bigelow blew her chances at the Oscars this year. We seen very graphically depictions of what I labeled above as "enhanced interrogation". I hope you can extrapolate that this is a cruel euphemism for "torture". Maya is brought into a tent in the middle of the desert with a fellow CIA agent named Dan (a terrific and terrifying Jason Clarke). In the middle of this tent, suspended by rope is a Taliban member whom we will meet at varying times through the first hour of the film, being subjected to waterboarding, music torture (I'm not sure what else one would call it), sleep and food deprivation, and eventually being placed in a box the size of a small suitcase. Dan says "Everybody breaks, bro. It's biology." Dan isn't our friend and we know it, yet he is hypnotic. I must say that now that I have seen a dramatization of waterboarding I sincerely wish I hadn't. I can imagine many forms of enhanced interrogation, but that is nothing short of torture.
These depictions are what the government has been so angry and dismissive about, so I have little doubt that they are accurate. I am not sure what Bigelow and writer Mark Boal imagined what would happen when they made this film, but perhaps getting their attention was enough. If nothing else, it certainly got mine.
"Zero Dark Thirty" is an incendiary, breathtaking work that demands your immediate focus from the start. It is a movie that begs to be seen, thought about and discussed, though unfortunately I think it will largely go unnoticed by the masses. Bigelow has surpassed herself, probably making the movie of her career--several careers for that matter. The film is enraging, but made me feel oddly patriotic, which I normally am not. I think now that perhaps I felt ill after watching this movie because I was torn between the pleasure of seeing a man killed, known for an event I can barely remember, and the fact that I was seeing any man killed, plotted and planned for by my government for a decade. I felt something new after watching this movie, and something very strong. Perhaps it was the relief of seeing tens years of news reports, xenophobia, airport security checks, and Westboro funeral demonstrations finally reaching some sort of tangible conclusion. All was not for naught. But then again, maybe it was.
Pontificating aside, if you see only one film this year, make it this one.
4/4
This is the story of the largest manhunt in human history, the search for Osama bin Laden as told through the lens of a CIA agent named Maya (Jessica Chastain), a girl recruited out of high school and brought to the Middle East to engage in the hunt. We are taken through a decade of time, from September 11 through the eventual capture and killing of the number one most wanted man in the Western world. It is a complex, seemingly endless story of the this woman's obsession with his capture, and although I cannot be sure how much we can accept that bin Laden's ultimate fate was decided by Maya alone, the movie definitely makes the case that most, if not all praise, can be given to her tireless efforts.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the making of this film. Kathryn Bigelow (the Oscar-winning director of "The Hurt Locker") placed a statement at the beginning of the movie explaining that it was based off of first-hand accounts, though it does not specify from whom or for what purpose. There are people within the government who would try to get you to disregard this film based on the inaccuracies of certain events (which I will detail), but there are two reasons why I would say that that is all the more reason to trust Bigelow: 1) I do not disbelieve that the accounts given were intended to harm or mislead the public, and although we do not know who gave the statements on which this film is based, the film is too painstakingly detailed for us not to believe them. 2) The United States government, when asked about the film, stated that it was inaccurate in numerous ways. Normally when they are asked about how their actions have been portrayed on screen they respond with a brief and solid "No comment". Their interest must have been piqued and the unusualness of their response lends me to believe that if anything, what we are seeing is too accurate.
This mentioned, let's talk about the film.
Chastain is brilliant as Maya, a beautiful, whip-smart young woman who learns the ropes fast and seemingly has nerves equivalent to any uniformed man conducting "enhanced interrogation". I would say she has nerves of steel, but Chastain's glower could melt metal, and then some. Her superior calls her crazy after ten years of hunting, and perhaps she is mad, but Chastain's performance delivers something that keeps her in a realm where we not only sympathize with her, but we hate others for not attacking her lead with the same amount of vigor.
This seemingly unimportant lead--a brief mention of a courier by a detainee--sparks Maya's decade-long quest which gets several members of her unit killed, including a bomb in which six CIA members died, the largest single attack in their history. Through her setbacks and the increasing lack of interest from other agents whose sights turned to more pressing matters at the home front, Maya kept on with this one untried link, which eventually led her to discovering the compound in Pakistan where bin Laden had been in hiding.
Bigelow's direction is astonishing. For two and a half hours the film is an unrelenting masterpiece of tension. Much of the story's action, particularly in the second act, takes place in a CIA outpost where Maya conducts her research, pouring over photographs, files, videotapes and relentlessly working to keep her colleagues on board with her work. But never once does this become dull. In fact, never once does this become unsuspenseful. We know the end of the saga, but I have never been so interested in watching a woman read papers, not knowing what she is looking for.
The film begins and ends with two of the best directed scenes of any movie this year. The latter is the one we know--the payoff, as it were. In almost real time, the audience follows the Navy S.E.A.L. Team 6 onto the compound, where it is raided, room by room, without music and often through the eyes of the soldiers. It is a monument to Bigelow's skills and twenty minutes where I could not have torn my eyes away from the screen had the room been on fire.
The former is arguably the reason why Bigelow blew her chances at the Oscars this year. We seen very graphically depictions of what I labeled above as "enhanced interrogation". I hope you can extrapolate that this is a cruel euphemism for "torture". Maya is brought into a tent in the middle of the desert with a fellow CIA agent named Dan (a terrific and terrifying Jason Clarke). In the middle of this tent, suspended by rope is a Taliban member whom we will meet at varying times through the first hour of the film, being subjected to waterboarding, music torture (I'm not sure what else one would call it), sleep and food deprivation, and eventually being placed in a box the size of a small suitcase. Dan says "Everybody breaks, bro. It's biology." Dan isn't our friend and we know it, yet he is hypnotic. I must say that now that I have seen a dramatization of waterboarding I sincerely wish I hadn't. I can imagine many forms of enhanced interrogation, but that is nothing short of torture.
These depictions are what the government has been so angry and dismissive about, so I have little doubt that they are accurate. I am not sure what Bigelow and writer Mark Boal imagined what would happen when they made this film, but perhaps getting their attention was enough. If nothing else, it certainly got mine.
"Zero Dark Thirty" is an incendiary, breathtaking work that demands your immediate focus from the start. It is a movie that begs to be seen, thought about and discussed, though unfortunately I think it will largely go unnoticed by the masses. Bigelow has surpassed herself, probably making the movie of her career--several careers for that matter. The film is enraging, but made me feel oddly patriotic, which I normally am not. I think now that perhaps I felt ill after watching this movie because I was torn between the pleasure of seeing a man killed, known for an event I can barely remember, and the fact that I was seeing any man killed, plotted and planned for by my government for a decade. I felt something new after watching this movie, and something very strong. Perhaps it was the relief of seeing tens years of news reports, xenophobia, airport security checks, and Westboro funeral demonstrations finally reaching some sort of tangible conclusion. All was not for naught. But then again, maybe it was.
Pontificating aside, if you see only one film this year, make it this one.
4/4
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Mother (2009)
From its opening sequence in which Mother is seen dancing an eerie jig in the middle of a field of tall grass, it was clear that this was not the film that I expected to watch. That out of place sequence spoke so much of a story of mystery, of humor, and of a certain depth whose explanation was not going to be given to the audience readily. It was a challenge both intellectually and emotionally, but in the end I found it offered abundant rewards for my patience.
Mother is played Hye-ja Kim, the sole parent of young man with special needs, named Yoon Do-joon (Bin Won). Set in a little South Korean village, a terrible murder rips the community apart, and all blame falls to this boy who not only doesn't have an alibi, but inconveniently (or conveniently, depending on how cynical one is) doesn't have the functions necessary to remember where he was. Do-joon is sent to jail and later to an asylum, and it falls to his mother to prove her child innocent in a town filled with inept cops and unhelpful lawyers. A poor woman, she uses what resources she has available to her--her unlicensed acupuncturing practice, and the help of her friends--to uncover the mystery of how the local teen prostitute was found dead on a roof, her skull bludgeoned in.
This is a labyrinthine story where twists, pitfalls and shady characters abound, and I promise it will challenge you on an ethical level. Director Joo-ho Bong skillfully creates layers of mood with subtlety, blending humor with horror almost unnoticeably, and adds in enough creepy visuals to keep you scratching your head in puzzlement. The story is angering, bewildering and ultimately jaw-dropping, with a final thirty minutes that blew me away. I did not realize how involved I was with its characters until the film's climax.
A lot of credit has to be given to Hye-ja, whose portrait of the ever-enduring mother is frustrating, but understandable. It is impossible not to sympathize with a little, old Korean woman trying to look out for her mentally handicapped son, but like I said, there are moments where you will be morally challenged even by her. This was a demanding role; she basically supported the film on her shoulders, and I think she made admirable work of it.
Although it isn't the type of film that you watch everyday (nor would you want to), I think it set out to traverse the deepest regions of our psyche to make sense of why a person commits murder. It is a subject that has been tackled countless times and will be looked at countless more, but "Mother" approaches it from a unique angle. I admire its gumption and its clear and fine execution. What it did is what every decent drama ought to do: it made me think, and it made want to climb into the screen and have a chit-chat with the characters about their actions. In essence, I saw real people in the screen.
3.5/4
Mother is played Hye-ja Kim, the sole parent of young man with special needs, named Yoon Do-joon (Bin Won). Set in a little South Korean village, a terrible murder rips the community apart, and all blame falls to this boy who not only doesn't have an alibi, but inconveniently (or conveniently, depending on how cynical one is) doesn't have the functions necessary to remember where he was. Do-joon is sent to jail and later to an asylum, and it falls to his mother to prove her child innocent in a town filled with inept cops and unhelpful lawyers. A poor woman, she uses what resources she has available to her--her unlicensed acupuncturing practice, and the help of her friends--to uncover the mystery of how the local teen prostitute was found dead on a roof, her skull bludgeoned in.
This is a labyrinthine story where twists, pitfalls and shady characters abound, and I promise it will challenge you on an ethical level. Director Joo-ho Bong skillfully creates layers of mood with subtlety, blending humor with horror almost unnoticeably, and adds in enough creepy visuals to keep you scratching your head in puzzlement. The story is angering, bewildering and ultimately jaw-dropping, with a final thirty minutes that blew me away. I did not realize how involved I was with its characters until the film's climax.
A lot of credit has to be given to Hye-ja, whose portrait of the ever-enduring mother is frustrating, but understandable. It is impossible not to sympathize with a little, old Korean woman trying to look out for her mentally handicapped son, but like I said, there are moments where you will be morally challenged even by her. This was a demanding role; she basically supported the film on her shoulders, and I think she made admirable work of it.
Although it isn't the type of film that you watch everyday (nor would you want to), I think it set out to traverse the deepest regions of our psyche to make sense of why a person commits murder. It is a subject that has been tackled countless times and will be looked at countless more, but "Mother" approaches it from a unique angle. I admire its gumption and its clear and fine execution. What it did is what every decent drama ought to do: it made me think, and it made want to climb into the screen and have a chit-chat with the characters about their actions. In essence, I saw real people in the screen.
3.5/4
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
For some reason I thought I could go into this and watch it as I would any other film. I watch "South Park" religiously and have gotten to know the comedic stylings of Trey Parker and Matt Stone very well by now, but I guess I let my ego get the better of me. They certainly put me in my place very quick. I would almost go so far to say that this is a movie beyond review, but it would defeat the whole purpose of this blog if I let a film defeat me. So let's keep it short and sweet, and have done with the foreplay:
Our favorite four potty-mouthed 3rd graders go to see the new Terrance & Phillip movie, an R-rated flick which exposes Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman to a whole host of new words, their favorite being F dash dash dash. When their parents see how their children have been corrupted they go up in arms against the country of Canada, which they feel has been destroying the morals of the youth. Amid other subplots of Satan and Saddam Hussein's romance, Cartman's anti-swearing V-chip, and Stan's pining for Wendy, the Americans go to war against the Canadians.
Parker and Stone entered the Guinness Book of World Records for having the most obscenities in their movie than any other film--a whopping 399 swears. And that doesn't include the nudity, children smoking, gay sex and half a dozen other no-no's that they throw in for good measure. It was obviously evident that this was a tirade against a PC culture, pushing the boundaries of what could be produced and shown to a wider audience. I have no doubt that--like the boys seeing Terrence and Phillip's "Asses of Fire"--there will be a whole host of real life youngsters who will end up watching this and be subjected to the ridiculous that is South Park unleashed. God bless them for that.
And did I mention the best part? It's a musical! Long before "The Book of Mormon" Parker and Stone were writing satiric, witty and deliciously catchy music, with songs like "Uncle Fucka", "What Would Brian Boitano Do?", and their Oscar-nominated "Blame Canada!" The whole film is incredibly rude, incredibly clever, not always hilarious, but always whip smart and darkly funny. One of my favorite parts is when Satan's ass is likened to Liza Minelli.
It may seem like an eye-rolling, frat boy thing to say, but Parker and Stone are two of the greatest social commentators that we have today. They understand the meaning of free speech and use it to their greatest advantage. Like all comedians they have their peaks and troughs, but there is no denying that their greatest asset is exposing the downright idiocy of the human species. I have no doubt that, as they have Simpson's Studies in colleges, that thirty years down the line there will be classes in every university dedicated to deconstructing South Park and what it was that Parker and Stone set out to do, and how they accomplished it so well. It is one of those rare moments of extreme clarity when we are able to see the zeitgeist (I hate using that word and normally avoid it when I can) of a generation. They have tapped into it, and I am glad to say that I followed them through the process.
In their honor and in the honor of the First Amendment: fuck, fucker, motherfucker, shit, shit head, bitch, cunt, cunt licker, asshole, dick, dick wad, dick hole, cock, cock sucker, fag, faggot, douche, douche head, vaginal belch, etc. Thank you.
2.5/4
Our favorite four potty-mouthed 3rd graders go to see the new Terrance & Phillip movie, an R-rated flick which exposes Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman to a whole host of new words, their favorite being F dash dash dash. When their parents see how their children have been corrupted they go up in arms against the country of Canada, which they feel has been destroying the morals of the youth. Amid other subplots of Satan and Saddam Hussein's romance, Cartman's anti-swearing V-chip, and Stan's pining for Wendy, the Americans go to war against the Canadians.
Parker and Stone entered the Guinness Book of World Records for having the most obscenities in their movie than any other film--a whopping 399 swears. And that doesn't include the nudity, children smoking, gay sex and half a dozen other no-no's that they throw in for good measure. It was obviously evident that this was a tirade against a PC culture, pushing the boundaries of what could be produced and shown to a wider audience. I have no doubt that--like the boys seeing Terrence and Phillip's "Asses of Fire"--there will be a whole host of real life youngsters who will end up watching this and be subjected to the ridiculous that is South Park unleashed. God bless them for that.
And did I mention the best part? It's a musical! Long before "The Book of Mormon" Parker and Stone were writing satiric, witty and deliciously catchy music, with songs like "Uncle Fucka", "What Would Brian Boitano Do?", and their Oscar-nominated "Blame Canada!" The whole film is incredibly rude, incredibly clever, not always hilarious, but always whip smart and darkly funny. One of my favorite parts is when Satan's ass is likened to Liza Minelli.
It may seem like an eye-rolling, frat boy thing to say, but Parker and Stone are two of the greatest social commentators that we have today. They understand the meaning of free speech and use it to their greatest advantage. Like all comedians they have their peaks and troughs, but there is no denying that their greatest asset is exposing the downright idiocy of the human species. I have no doubt that, as they have Simpson's Studies in colleges, that thirty years down the line there will be classes in every university dedicated to deconstructing South Park and what it was that Parker and Stone set out to do, and how they accomplished it so well. It is one of those rare moments of extreme clarity when we are able to see the zeitgeist (I hate using that word and normally avoid it when I can) of a generation. They have tapped into it, and I am glad to say that I followed them through the process.
In their honor and in the honor of the First Amendment: fuck, fucker, motherfucker, shit, shit head, bitch, cunt, cunt licker, asshole, dick, dick wad, dick hole, cock, cock sucker, fag, faggot, douche, douche head, vaginal belch, etc. Thank you.
2.5/4
Monday, February 11, 2013
Faust (1926)
It is almost impossible to describe what sort of visceral power the images in F. W. Murnau's "Faust" conjure up from the depths. The tale is as classic as the German countryside, and it is met with visual mastery comparable to the soaring heights of its source material. In the classic story of the philosopher, Faust, in a cosmic struggle of good and evil, Murnau creates for us a nightmarish world all its own.
Towards man come riding the four horseman of the apocalypse, urged on by the terrifying Mephisto. His warriors are halted by the appearance of the Archangel who challenges the devil to a battle of wills: if Mephisto can corrupt the life of the pious philosopher, Faust, the world will be claimed for evil. The devil accepts, and so begins the great metaphysical struggle of man's natural appetites.
There is no CGI in this film, only ingenuity. And I would go so far to say that this film is ingengious. The lights, costumes and incredible sets all work towards creating a landscape full of monsters and magic which few films, save masterpieces like "Metropolis" and "Blade Runner", have been able to accomplish. There is little in Murnau's dreamscapes which are identifiable, for the film works in the realm of the mind and need to remain so.
This is a movie about man's greed, and his ability or inability to overcome his urges and find something more in the life he has been given. When the themes are so huge it is necessary that the film be huge too. "Faust" is a frightening, shocking, breathtaking example of Expressionism and one of my new favorite movies.
Our protagonist--pawn would be a better description--is an aging man who sells his soul, initially for the good of man which has been stricken by plague, but later finds himself consumed with a desire for youth, sex, power, glory and all of the unnecessary pleasures which had long remained hidden inside his good heart. As first, this seems to be a story of a man's renunciation of God, but we know this cannot be so. There is good in man, and we know that a man as good as this cannot be utterly taken by vice and hedonism.
Faust takes a surreal journey toward redemption despite the best efforts of Mephisto, who uses all of his charm and cunning to seduce Faust from goodness with the allures of pleasure. It will take something stronger than all the powers of Hell to break his contract. But will it be a devotion to God, a quest for knowledge, or something far simpler? We know what it is.
It is an intense drama which demands self-reflection, but an incendiary climax leaves us with optimism. I am a good person, and so are you. We may deviate from the way of goodness, but it is in our capacity to do what's right and find contentment with the last and greatest of all pleasures: love. This is a film of poetry, of sweeping emotion and dazzling style. It has aged beautifully because its messages are timeless. What's more, it is simply a testament that film itself is able to achieve greatness as an art, transcending painting and literature as a combination of both to--although very occasionally--make something which touches the soul.
4/4
Towards man come riding the four horseman of the apocalypse, urged on by the terrifying Mephisto. His warriors are halted by the appearance of the Archangel who challenges the devil to a battle of wills: if Mephisto can corrupt the life of the pious philosopher, Faust, the world will be claimed for evil. The devil accepts, and so begins the great metaphysical struggle of man's natural appetites.
There is no CGI in this film, only ingenuity. And I would go so far to say that this film is ingengious. The lights, costumes and incredible sets all work towards creating a landscape full of monsters and magic which few films, save masterpieces like "Metropolis" and "Blade Runner", have been able to accomplish. There is little in Murnau's dreamscapes which are identifiable, for the film works in the realm of the mind and need to remain so.
This is a movie about man's greed, and his ability or inability to overcome his urges and find something more in the life he has been given. When the themes are so huge it is necessary that the film be huge too. "Faust" is a frightening, shocking, breathtaking example of Expressionism and one of my new favorite movies.
Our protagonist--pawn would be a better description--is an aging man who sells his soul, initially for the good of man which has been stricken by plague, but later finds himself consumed with a desire for youth, sex, power, glory and all of the unnecessary pleasures which had long remained hidden inside his good heart. As first, this seems to be a story of a man's renunciation of God, but we know this cannot be so. There is good in man, and we know that a man as good as this cannot be utterly taken by vice and hedonism.
Faust takes a surreal journey toward redemption despite the best efforts of Mephisto, who uses all of his charm and cunning to seduce Faust from goodness with the allures of pleasure. It will take something stronger than all the powers of Hell to break his contract. But will it be a devotion to God, a quest for knowledge, or something far simpler? We know what it is.
It is an intense drama which demands self-reflection, but an incendiary climax leaves us with optimism. I am a good person, and so are you. We may deviate from the way of goodness, but it is in our capacity to do what's right and find contentment with the last and greatest of all pleasures: love. This is a film of poetry, of sweeping emotion and dazzling style. It has aged beautifully because its messages are timeless. What's more, it is simply a testament that film itself is able to achieve greatness as an art, transcending painting and literature as a combination of both to--although very occasionally--make something which touches the soul.
4/4
Monday, February 4, 2013
Trois couleurs: Blanc (1994)
Thankfully straying away from the grimness of "Bleu", Krzysztov Kieslowski's second part of his "Three Colors" trilogy turns from grief to revenge, in this amusing dark comedy.
Karol Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski) is a little Polish hairstylist living in Paris. The film opens on him entering a court room where he is humiliated by his wife during their divorce proceedings. Left literally penniless, with a suitcase on the street, Karol decides he must get back to his homeland and start anew. Without funds, however, he takes to playing music with a comb and tissue paper, only to attract the attention of one of his fellow countrymen. His immediate friend, Mikolaj (Janusz Gajos) agrees to transport him back to Poland and help him get reestablished.
What follows is a deliciously executed plan of revenge, as this sniveling man uses all of his cunning to raise himself from the dirt in order to see his ex-wife one last time. As we watch his plans unfold--sometimes a bit confusing and unbelievable, but never less than entertaining--the audience is left with the predicament of wanting him to give his wife, Dominique (Julie Delpy), her comeuppance, while at the same time hating him in all of his unlikable ruthlessness.
Zamachowski and Gajos give fine performances as partners in crime (in the very literal sense). Gajos in particular delivers his lines with a coolness and a mystery that is immediately endearing. We learn little about him or his life, and his actions in the film do nothing but peak our interest without sating it.
I am very glad that this film was a comedy, after the major bummer that part one of the series was. None of the characters themselves are particularly humorous and there are plentiful moments of poignancy, but there are little moments here and there that remind us that Kieslowski isn't taking this piece too seriously, and through it all we must remember to breathe; he knows full well that some of this makes no sense.
As I did with "Blue", I shall try to define what white means for "White". In the French flag the color white is meant to represent equality. I argued before that I did not understand the importance of liberty in the first film, and I am not too sure I know the importance of equality here either. I suppose that we demand fairness in the courts: justice. Perhaps the final execution of his plot was meant to be read as a balancing of the scales, an equalizing process. However, that nagging little voice in the back of my head continues to yell "It's just a marketing ploy--get passed it!" Okay, little nagging voice.
A final thought: This is meant to be a trilogy about Parisian society, but nearly all of the action takes place in Poland. I can think of several arguments as to why this would be the case, but none of them sound especially plausible, given the concept. I really don't know if I'm up to the challenge of watching the final third. But I suppose I'm pot-committed now. Let us open our arms to brotherhood!
3/4
Karol Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski) is a little Polish hairstylist living in Paris. The film opens on him entering a court room where he is humiliated by his wife during their divorce proceedings. Left literally penniless, with a suitcase on the street, Karol decides he must get back to his homeland and start anew. Without funds, however, he takes to playing music with a comb and tissue paper, only to attract the attention of one of his fellow countrymen. His immediate friend, Mikolaj (Janusz Gajos) agrees to transport him back to Poland and help him get reestablished.
What follows is a deliciously executed plan of revenge, as this sniveling man uses all of his cunning to raise himself from the dirt in order to see his ex-wife one last time. As we watch his plans unfold--sometimes a bit confusing and unbelievable, but never less than entertaining--the audience is left with the predicament of wanting him to give his wife, Dominique (Julie Delpy), her comeuppance, while at the same time hating him in all of his unlikable ruthlessness.
Zamachowski and Gajos give fine performances as partners in crime (in the very literal sense). Gajos in particular delivers his lines with a coolness and a mystery that is immediately endearing. We learn little about him or his life, and his actions in the film do nothing but peak our interest without sating it.
I am very glad that this film was a comedy, after the major bummer that part one of the series was. None of the characters themselves are particularly humorous and there are plentiful moments of poignancy, but there are little moments here and there that remind us that Kieslowski isn't taking this piece too seriously, and through it all we must remember to breathe; he knows full well that some of this makes no sense.
As I did with "Blue", I shall try to define what white means for "White". In the French flag the color white is meant to represent equality. I argued before that I did not understand the importance of liberty in the first film, and I am not too sure I know the importance of equality here either. I suppose that we demand fairness in the courts: justice. Perhaps the final execution of his plot was meant to be read as a balancing of the scales, an equalizing process. However, that nagging little voice in the back of my head continues to yell "It's just a marketing ploy--get passed it!" Okay, little nagging voice.
A final thought: This is meant to be a trilogy about Parisian society, but nearly all of the action takes place in Poland. I can think of several arguments as to why this would be the case, but none of them sound especially plausible, given the concept. I really don't know if I'm up to the challenge of watching the final third. But I suppose I'm pot-committed now. Let us open our arms to brotherhood!
3/4
Sunday, February 3, 2013
The Joyless Street (1925)
I hope and pray that you, the lovely reader, are a Greta Garbo fan, that you know her work, but more importantly that you have simply seen her face. I have had the discussion a number of times with numerous people about the fact (well, I suppose not so much fact, but widespread opinion) that there are no more beautiful women in the cinema. The ones we do have--Catherine Zeta-Jones, Cate Blanchett--are getting too old, and the young girls--Jennifer Lawrence, Carey Mulligan--are not pretty enough. I don't know whether Hollywood has simply thrown out beauty, replaced with sexy, or if Megan Fox is simply the best we can do. At any rate, look on the face of young Garbo and I dare you to tell me she isn't absolutely stunning.
She landed her first starring role in G.W. Pabst's film about the down and out in Vienna, following the First World War. Her character is Greta, the daughter of an unemployed state worker who suffers to make sure her father and little sister don't starve. She systematically sacrifices all she has, including her dignity, to spare her family from hardship, but her idiot of a father does nothing but inadvertently hurt them anyway.
It was a promising beginning for the young actress, not only showing off that exquisite face with those sleepy doe eyes, but also showed a respectable range of emotions. I was moved by her performance and was invested in character; it is of no surprise to me that she would become the biggest sensation in film, challenged only by the American "It" girl, Clara Bow. What is fortunate for her and for modern audiences is that she did not fall victim to the dreaded pantomime, but rather kept a rigid, demure face and a composure which makes the film a lasting one.
As for the movie itself, it is a decent, thought-provoking look at the effects of war and the reconstruction process under the Wiemar Republic. Greta is the ever-suffering personification of the German volk, tested by the ineptitude of the aged and the greedy capitalist. As an historical text it is a rich piece for analyzing the voice of the people in art in a time and place when scholars are only ever really focused on those in charge.
As entertainment for an audience, I found this to be an engaging movie with characters which I cared about. The English version is meant to be about half the length as the original German one. If you can read German, which I cannot, it might be interesting to do a side-by-side analysis to find what was left out, and thereby determine what American and British audiences were not seeing when it premiered. It is an ironic story, though one with a compromised ending which I was not fond of. If nothing else, it is always nice to see Garbo do what she does, and what she does is exist in her radiant form.
3/4
She landed her first starring role in G.W. Pabst's film about the down and out in Vienna, following the First World War. Her character is Greta, the daughter of an unemployed state worker who suffers to make sure her father and little sister don't starve. She systematically sacrifices all she has, including her dignity, to spare her family from hardship, but her idiot of a father does nothing but inadvertently hurt them anyway.
It was a promising beginning for the young actress, not only showing off that exquisite face with those sleepy doe eyes, but also showed a respectable range of emotions. I was moved by her performance and was invested in character; it is of no surprise to me that she would become the biggest sensation in film, challenged only by the American "It" girl, Clara Bow. What is fortunate for her and for modern audiences is that she did not fall victim to the dreaded pantomime, but rather kept a rigid, demure face and a composure which makes the film a lasting one.
As for the movie itself, it is a decent, thought-provoking look at the effects of war and the reconstruction process under the Wiemar Republic. Greta is the ever-suffering personification of the German volk, tested by the ineptitude of the aged and the greedy capitalist. As an historical text it is a rich piece for analyzing the voice of the people in art in a time and place when scholars are only ever really focused on those in charge.
As entertainment for an audience, I found this to be an engaging movie with characters which I cared about. The English version is meant to be about half the length as the original German one. If you can read German, which I cannot, it might be interesting to do a side-by-side analysis to find what was left out, and thereby determine what American and British audiences were not seeing when it premiered. It is an ironic story, though one with a compromised ending which I was not fond of. If nothing else, it is always nice to see Garbo do what she does, and what she does is exist in her radiant form.
3/4
Friday, February 1, 2013
Nosferatu (1922)
"Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror" is considered a classic, and I will not dispute that. Certainly, for its development of expressionist art in cinema and for its influence on further horror films to come, it is an important film and absolutely one worth study. As far as its entertainment value or how "horror"-filled it actually is, I think contemporary critics feel too intimidated to discuss it as it actually is, a rather muddy, ugly, boring little movie.
I suppose we can not discuss it as being terrifying, for that is not what it sets out to do. "Horror" is the correct noun, in that much of what we see is horrible, as it slowly builds its tension and gruesomeness likes rats infesting a ship. But critics, I believe, look for reasons to define it as a scary picture by describing it as simply something that haunts you after it is over. I was not haunted by anything other than the knowledge that I have seen it three times now and three times have found it a waste of my energy.
It is the first vampire film and loosely based off of the novel "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. Director F. W. Murnau was never able to obtain the rights to the plot (or at least never bothered trying to pay for them) so made a few alterations to the story and changed the vampire's name to Orlok. A very clever idea. The story is a classic one, of a real estate agent who travels to some exotic, east European country to sell a piece of British property to the mysterious Count Orlok. While there, the count sees a picture of the agent's beautiful wife and falls in love with her. His obsession leads him to England to claim the woman as his bride, along the way sucking the blood of victims to keep him gruesomely alive.
The film has a number of qualities which speak in its favor. The first is a mesmerizing, frightening performance from Max Schreck as the vampire. Words are no use to describe him, but a look at him sends a chill down one's spine, especially considering that Murnau used nothing more than fake ears and teeth to alter his appearance. The man doesn't so much act as he does simply appear, moving, unblinking, with a slow exactness that is truly unnerving. As far as the creature himself is concerned, Schreck has fashioned the scariest of all vampires.
After that, the film's use of lighting and location filming adds terrific visual layers to the movie. Castles, tombs, creepy ships and abandoned houses do contribute to a sense of uneasiness throughout. Murnau's use of shadow is brilliant, especially in the film's final moments.
Where the film stumbles and falls is in its terrible adaptation of the great vampire story. I will give it the benefit of the doubt and say that its awful script was due mainly to the English translation I watched, but I am not entirely convinced. The film has lost all of the romanticism of the book, leaving it with a clunky feeling of uncertainty which left me more bored than amused. The only moments where the film was actually any good were the moments with Schreck, but his screen time was so small that percentage wise the movie lost my interest almost entirely.
As an allegory of WWI and the Weimar Republic "Nosferatu" can be read in a number of interesting ways. The monster movie genre seemed to emerge right from this period with the release of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", but that is only really of any interest to a person who studies film in an historical context. So from that viewpoint I will not dwell on it, except to say that intellectually there is a bit of something that is stimulating, but as far as being watchable it does not help.
This film has always been one of the great let-downs for me. There are far superior movies in the same vein as this one, made at roughly the same time. Its praise is baffling, and my only reasoning for it is that it is insincere. If you are an historian or someone who really cares about film then I recommend it to you. You will sit and rub your chin and say "Mhmm" in the thoughtful way of a man who doesn't understand what he is watching at all. And then later you will be able to smugly go up to your friends and say that you've watched a silent, German expressionist film, thereby dazzling them with your worldliness. For the rest of you, however, go watch "Twilight".
2.5/4
I suppose we can not discuss it as being terrifying, for that is not what it sets out to do. "Horror" is the correct noun, in that much of what we see is horrible, as it slowly builds its tension and gruesomeness likes rats infesting a ship. But critics, I believe, look for reasons to define it as a scary picture by describing it as simply something that haunts you after it is over. I was not haunted by anything other than the knowledge that I have seen it three times now and three times have found it a waste of my energy.
It is the first vampire film and loosely based off of the novel "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. Director F. W. Murnau was never able to obtain the rights to the plot (or at least never bothered trying to pay for them) so made a few alterations to the story and changed the vampire's name to Orlok. A very clever idea. The story is a classic one, of a real estate agent who travels to some exotic, east European country to sell a piece of British property to the mysterious Count Orlok. While there, the count sees a picture of the agent's beautiful wife and falls in love with her. His obsession leads him to England to claim the woman as his bride, along the way sucking the blood of victims to keep him gruesomely alive.
The film has a number of qualities which speak in its favor. The first is a mesmerizing, frightening performance from Max Schreck as the vampire. Words are no use to describe him, but a look at him sends a chill down one's spine, especially considering that Murnau used nothing more than fake ears and teeth to alter his appearance. The man doesn't so much act as he does simply appear, moving, unblinking, with a slow exactness that is truly unnerving. As far as the creature himself is concerned, Schreck has fashioned the scariest of all vampires.
After that, the film's use of lighting and location filming adds terrific visual layers to the movie. Castles, tombs, creepy ships and abandoned houses do contribute to a sense of uneasiness throughout. Murnau's use of shadow is brilliant, especially in the film's final moments.
Where the film stumbles and falls is in its terrible adaptation of the great vampire story. I will give it the benefit of the doubt and say that its awful script was due mainly to the English translation I watched, but I am not entirely convinced. The film has lost all of the romanticism of the book, leaving it with a clunky feeling of uncertainty which left me more bored than amused. The only moments where the film was actually any good were the moments with Schreck, but his screen time was so small that percentage wise the movie lost my interest almost entirely.
As an allegory of WWI and the Weimar Republic "Nosferatu" can be read in a number of interesting ways. The monster movie genre seemed to emerge right from this period with the release of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", but that is only really of any interest to a person who studies film in an historical context. So from that viewpoint I will not dwell on it, except to say that intellectually there is a bit of something that is stimulating, but as far as being watchable it does not help.
This film has always been one of the great let-downs for me. There are far superior movies in the same vein as this one, made at roughly the same time. Its praise is baffling, and my only reasoning for it is that it is insincere. If you are an historian or someone who really cares about film then I recommend it to you. You will sit and rub your chin and say "Mhmm" in the thoughtful way of a man who doesn't understand what he is watching at all. And then later you will be able to smugly go up to your friends and say that you've watched a silent, German expressionist film, thereby dazzling them with your worldliness. For the rest of you, however, go watch "Twilight".
2.5/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)