Saw Doomsday, a ridiculous British apocalyptic film. The idea is that a virus spreads killing everyone. The narrator talks of the brutal indifference of nature. Then in the next breath, he talks of nature restoring balance. This kind of muddiness is endemic throughout the film. It's not just obscure little things like that either. There's some political maneuverings later which are entirely incoherent. Every fight scene is an almost abstract montage of limbs and blood. It's equal parts stylistic and inept. The film is very balls-to-the-walls bad-ass but that's sort of all it is.
The plot follows a sexy female mercenary (or cop or something. Like I say, endemic muddiness.) who is dispatched, Escape From NY-style, to the infected zone where she must contact a scientist who just may have a cure. It's treated like a huge secret that there are living people in the forbidden zone, but as soon as the sexy lady and her troupe of red-shirts shows up they are immediately accosted by endless waves of mohawked young people (I assume they lived near a hair dye and leatherworks warehouse which also happened to be a gym.) These people are inexplicably cannibals despite the literal herds of cows which are flourishing nearby. The toned leather/tribal-tattoo enthusiasts think our heroes look tasty so they fight, the sexy lady gets away but some red-shirts die, they then run into some other people, they fight, they get away, yada yada, etc etc. Eventually the movie ends.
The film is essentially a video game. Blandly badass people rush about from arena-fight to set-piece to boring back-story cutscene to next level and so on. It is also about as fun as a video game, which is to say it's very exciting and heady and quite dumb. I was definitely not in the mood for a fun dumb film however (especially one which is so thuddingly self-serious.) When it sought to fulfil my teenage power-fantasies, it merely left me cold. It may well be that there is a hell of a film buried under all of the bullshit. There's a scene where sexy lady fights a knight in full armour made of scrap metal. That's not a thing you see in your average brainless action-movie, but it wasn't fun or wild enough for me. Maybe if it was a bit more obviously in on the joke it would've been better? As is, it would be a good party-movie to sneer at. Approach with friends.
Jun 30, 2014
Jun 29, 2014
Top Secret!
Saw Top Secret! (thanks, Chris!) It was a spy farce. Although I usually stuffily disdain farces, this one hits the right level of inspired silliness for me. The jokes often draw from absurdity and genre spoofs, both great weaknesses of mine. At one point the male and female lead fall into each others arms and the camera demurely pans to a fireplace. Then they roll in front of the fireplace and the camera pans to another fireplace. Later there is a bizarre extended sequence where the film is played in reverse. There's no reason for it apart from the film just being silly.
The film follows an American singer visiting East Berlin for a concert. He gets caught up in the resistance after helping out a pretty female member. The plot is chosen, I believe, due to the abundance of inherent good and evil roles along with tons of genre conventions that can be spoofed. These spoofs are usually not the most inspired, but they usually blind-side you and are delightful in their stupidity (example: a man nobly throws himself on a grenade. Everyone around him blows up. It's not ingeniously clever but it's done so dead-pan you have to laugh.)
So a good farce all in all. It never takes itself seriously and keeps the goofy jokes coming at a dizzying clip. It's not clever or biting but it's hilarious and frantic and brilliant enough in its own way. It may be that I'm jus tin a receptive mood for once, but this was somehow just what I wanted today.
The film follows an American singer visiting East Berlin for a concert. He gets caught up in the resistance after helping out a pretty female member. The plot is chosen, I believe, due to the abundance of inherent good and evil roles along with tons of genre conventions that can be spoofed. These spoofs are usually not the most inspired, but they usually blind-side you and are delightful in their stupidity (example: a man nobly throws himself on a grenade. Everyone around him blows up. It's not ingeniously clever but it's done so dead-pan you have to laugh.)
So a good farce all in all. It never takes itself seriously and keeps the goofy jokes coming at a dizzying clip. It's not clever or biting but it's hilarious and frantic and brilliant enough in its own way. It may be that I'm jus tin a receptive mood for once, but this was somehow just what I wanted today.
Jun 27, 2014
Bolt
Saw Bolt, the animated film about a Rin Tin Tin-type show where the anthropomorphic protagonist does not realize it's fake. His ignorance of the actual movie-ness of his job is explained by a maniacal director who is really into canine method acting. I thought the film would mostly be about the reveal of the dog's non-super-hero-dom. This reveal, I thought, could have gone all harsh reality ala Monster's University or self-sustaining psuedo-self-delusion ala Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. Instead, it's mostly a road movie.
This is unexpected and unfortunately signals an slightly half-assed-feeling muddiness which dogs (ho ho) the film throughout (I think this sort of comes with the road-trip-style movie though. What fun is a road trip if each episode is the same?) Anyway, indeed the bulk of the film concerns Bolt's efforts to get back to his beloved co-star Penny after being shipped across the US really quickly (you see what I mean about the half-assed story.) Also, I don't want to get into the ending, but some villains get off scott free and other villains are (I feel) not so much villainous as just callous. Their agent, specifically, clearly is just trying his darndest to advance Penny's career (as his job dictates!) and is just being kind of manipulative about it. (Also, tangent, but big props for not making the stage mom some tyrannical Patsy Ramsey-type. That's one cliche they didn't fall into.)
All of that said, I loved this film. I went in with low expectations for some reason and I maybe let it get to me a tad more than I should have (or more than it would get to the average viewer anyway) but it's really hard to remain unmoved by the scene where Bolt and a stray cat discuss the fickle nature of human affection (this conversation could have strayed into some real dark areas. They even pulled some punches in the delivery, keeping relative control when the character could have broken down completely.) I even liked the dumb accent-based jokes with the pigeons, so great was my good-will for this movie. (My favourite joke: a dog-catcher is pepper-sprayed. He writhes on the ground shouting "Spicy eyes!") The greatest source of good-will-pathos is Bolt's slow realization that he's not super-powered but that being a dog with a loving owner pretty much rules. The astute viewer (or at least the viewer who shares my private obsessions) will also note that this film deals with the nature of deception and delusion and so of course it makes the point that if a lie is an inspiring lie then maybe it's not really a bad lie after all (this is a work of fiction after all.)
The philosophical quibbles I have with this film (with respect to justice and so forth) will probably bug me more on repeat viewings and the episodic nature of road-trips probably will too, but for the first watch around, it's an emotional, exciting, fun film about adorable fuzzy wuzzy animals who are earnest and naive and just want to be loved. Heavy on emotion and action but light on slapstick and sarcasm, it might not be the best for very young kids, but is pretty good for an adult, so whatever.
This is unexpected and unfortunately signals an slightly half-assed-feeling muddiness which dogs (ho ho) the film throughout (I think this sort of comes with the road-trip-style movie though. What fun is a road trip if each episode is the same?) Anyway, indeed the bulk of the film concerns Bolt's efforts to get back to his beloved co-star Penny after being shipped across the US really quickly (you see what I mean about the half-assed story.) Also, I don't want to get into the ending, but some villains get off scott free and other villains are (I feel) not so much villainous as just callous. Their agent, specifically, clearly is just trying his darndest to advance Penny's career (as his job dictates!) and is just being kind of manipulative about it. (Also, tangent, but big props for not making the stage mom some tyrannical Patsy Ramsey-type. That's one cliche they didn't fall into.)
All of that said, I loved this film. I went in with low expectations for some reason and I maybe let it get to me a tad more than I should have (or more than it would get to the average viewer anyway) but it's really hard to remain unmoved by the scene where Bolt and a stray cat discuss the fickle nature of human affection (this conversation could have strayed into some real dark areas. They even pulled some punches in the delivery, keeping relative control when the character could have broken down completely.) I even liked the dumb accent-based jokes with the pigeons, so great was my good-will for this movie. (My favourite joke: a dog-catcher is pepper-sprayed. He writhes on the ground shouting "Spicy eyes!") The greatest source of good-will-pathos is Bolt's slow realization that he's not super-powered but that being a dog with a loving owner pretty much rules. The astute viewer (or at least the viewer who shares my private obsessions) will also note that this film deals with the nature of deception and delusion and so of course it makes the point that if a lie is an inspiring lie then maybe it's not really a bad lie after all (this is a work of fiction after all.)
The philosophical quibbles I have with this film (with respect to justice and so forth) will probably bug me more on repeat viewings and the episodic nature of road-trips probably will too, but for the first watch around, it's an emotional, exciting, fun film about adorable fuzzy wuzzy animals who are earnest and naive and just want to be loved. Heavy on emotion and action but light on slapstick and sarcasm, it might not be the best for very young kids, but is pretty good for an adult, so whatever.
Jun 24, 2014
Miracle Mile
Saw Miracle Mile, a breathlessly exciting but kind of dismal romance. The protagonist is a trombone-playing dweeb who meets the girl of his dreams just before accidentally overhearing a phone call indicating that nuclear armageddon is at hand. It is never quite clear, by the way, that his information is accurate (by the end it's apparent of course, but it could well be that everyone dies, or that everyone lives.) He has to rescue himself and his girl and gives up countless sure paths to salvation in pursuit of her safety.
Mostly the film is an action movie, with the world becoming increasingly chaotic and the protagonist becomeing increasingly desperate. The girlfriend is at times irritatingly used as a stumbling block, wandering off when she should stay put (as she was told to do by her Man. 1980s sexism makes a brief appearance.) Also very 80s-ish is the inclusion of gay characters. They are designed to add a layer of verisimilitude to the proceedings, as though they were a drug habit or a phobia, an unusual but honest quirk. At least they are included at all, although they still have the distinct feeling of token-ism about them.
Anyway, the film is very exciting and breathless. We are told that there's only an hour and a half left to live and we see the following adventures in essentially real time. The increasingly more self-assured dweeb lies, shoots and bribes his way through his last hours on earth. Under all of the music and the explosions though, the whole thing is of course very bleak. There is an existential sense that the dweeb and his girl cannot escape the inevitable and would almost be wiser to stop struggling and try to end their lives peacefully. The film's ending is amazing for a blockbuster-style 80s flick. Way more bleak than I would have predicted, it's the stuff of arthouse. An interesting film. Kind of an anti-action film.
Mostly the film is an action movie, with the world becoming increasingly chaotic and the protagonist becomeing increasingly desperate. The girlfriend is at times irritatingly used as a stumbling block, wandering off when she should stay put (as she was told to do by her Man. 1980s sexism makes a brief appearance.) Also very 80s-ish is the inclusion of gay characters. They are designed to add a layer of verisimilitude to the proceedings, as though they were a drug habit or a phobia, an unusual but honest quirk. At least they are included at all, although they still have the distinct feeling of token-ism about them.
Anyway, the film is very exciting and breathless. We are told that there's only an hour and a half left to live and we see the following adventures in essentially real time. The increasingly more self-assured dweeb lies, shoots and bribes his way through his last hours on earth. Under all of the music and the explosions though, the whole thing is of course very bleak. There is an existential sense that the dweeb and his girl cannot escape the inevitable and would almost be wiser to stop struggling and try to end their lives peacefully. The film's ending is amazing for a blockbuster-style 80s flick. Way more bleak than I would have predicted, it's the stuff of arthouse. An interesting film. Kind of an anti-action film.
Jun 23, 2014
Pandora's Box
Saw Pandora's Box, an ambiguous silent film. Silent films have a bit of inherent ambiguity. Without sound, we don't know exactly what was said and in exactly what manner. This film embraces this concept to the hilt. Starring Louise Brooks as a woman who is either a whore or an ingenue, we follow her adventures deeper into misery. Much is unclear however. Is the old man hanging around her really her father, as she claims, or an old 'client' as she later claims? Is the Duchess who follows her simply her friend, or could it be that perhaps that whimsical dance was a bit more serious and that she is her lover? Is Brooks' fate justice, or a pathetic tragedy? The film is interesting in its ambiguity. This is the 30s however and a fishy ambiguity was sometimes the most that could be gotten away with. It's tempting to interpret everything in the most ribald, licentious way, but to do so loses the rich and queer-feeling ambiguity the film cultivates. A cute little mystery of a film.
Jun 22, 2014
Blindness
Saw Blindness. The premise is that the whole world is going blind due to some mysterious contagion. The only person to be mysteriously unaffected is the wife of an eye doctor. Before the disease, she is shown drinking too much wine which, coupled with her lily-white-ness and opulent surroundings, is meant to convey a listless existence. She is busybodyish and patronizing when her husband goes blind. She is a woman living an empty life in shorthand. Later, as she becomes one of the few and then the only person left with sight, her life becomes fuller than she can possibly cope with.
The film also follows the larger breakdown of society, lingering over the chosen compassionate few who are the protagonists. Others descend into feudal states and shambling, zombie-like aggression. I am tempted to accuse this film of left-wing political pandering. The clear-eyed white woman leads a multi-ethnic band of survivors out of the wilderness and into suburban paradise. I seriously don't think that this is even remotely what the film was going for, but the reading is there and if you're in a mood to piss off someone who's just seen this film, there ya go.
Unfortunately, if we abandon the above talking-point, the film doesn't supply much else. There's some late-stage religious talk but this is the background ravings of a madman (he claims the blindness is a punishment from god. I chalk this up to world-building more than theme-establishment.) The quest of survival of our heroes is captivating and the film itself is beautiful but there's no specific theme I can grab hold of. There is of course the implicit theme of story-as-life-metaphor, with the characters' struggle for survival mirroring our own daily struggle for food, entertainment, and enlightenment (and this I think is where the film's heart lies) but few specifics. And anyway what of that? The film has complete won me over and I think it's great. There's a scene where the protagonists and all of the other blind dance in the rain, bathing and catching rainwater. What need have we of a metaphor slathered on top of that?
The film is completely condemnation-free. It portrays all villains not as evil but as merely uninformed or desperate. The rival hordes of blind people are often nude. Far from making them seem insane, this nudity makes them seem vulnerable and exposed, needing shelter and comfort. We feel for the increasingly weary protagonist woman. She cannot feed and clothe the whole world and even her little microcosm may be too much. It's great stuff. Sort of an adventure story told as a romance. The film is both beautiful and interesting. What it lacks in trenchant social commentary it makes up for with sensual aesthetics and kindness. A lovely, lovely film.
Edit: This film apparently has a reputation for being depressing. This is absurd and vile slander spread by empty-headed consumers of sensational pablum who fundamentally hate films the way junkies hate their heroin. This film bravely faces the ugly sides of humanity with compassion and mercy and is therefore one of the more hopeful films I've seen in a while.
The film also follows the larger breakdown of society, lingering over the chosen compassionate few who are the protagonists. Others descend into feudal states and shambling, zombie-like aggression. I am tempted to accuse this film of left-wing political pandering. The clear-eyed white woman leads a multi-ethnic band of survivors out of the wilderness and into suburban paradise. I seriously don't think that this is even remotely what the film was going for, but the reading is there and if you're in a mood to piss off someone who's just seen this film, there ya go.
Unfortunately, if we abandon the above talking-point, the film doesn't supply much else. There's some late-stage religious talk but this is the background ravings of a madman (he claims the blindness is a punishment from god. I chalk this up to world-building more than theme-establishment.) The quest of survival of our heroes is captivating and the film itself is beautiful but there's no specific theme I can grab hold of. There is of course the implicit theme of story-as-life-metaphor, with the characters' struggle for survival mirroring our own daily struggle for food, entertainment, and enlightenment (and this I think is where the film's heart lies) but few specifics. And anyway what of that? The film has complete won me over and I think it's great. There's a scene where the protagonists and all of the other blind dance in the rain, bathing and catching rainwater. What need have we of a metaphor slathered on top of that?
The film is completely condemnation-free. It portrays all villains not as evil but as merely uninformed or desperate. The rival hordes of blind people are often nude. Far from making them seem insane, this nudity makes them seem vulnerable and exposed, needing shelter and comfort. We feel for the increasingly weary protagonist woman. She cannot feed and clothe the whole world and even her little microcosm may be too much. It's great stuff. Sort of an adventure story told as a romance. The film is both beautiful and interesting. What it lacks in trenchant social commentary it makes up for with sensual aesthetics and kindness. A lovely, lovely film.
Edit: This film apparently has a reputation for being depressing. This is absurd and vile slander spread by empty-headed consumers of sensational pablum who fundamentally hate films the way junkies hate their heroin. This film bravely faces the ugly sides of humanity with compassion and mercy and is therefore one of the more hopeful films I've seen in a while.
Jun 21, 2014
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Saw In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (thanks(?) Basil) an atrocious film by noted shlock-meister Uwe Boll. The film is pretty dire. The setting is generic high fantasy with kings and orcs and elves and also boomerangs for some reason. The plot follows a farmer (named Farmer) who comes to prominence in an inter-kingdom struggle between the humans and the orcs (or krugs or whatever.)
The main villain is an evil wizard played by Ray Liotta who seems a lot more like a snotty weird loner kid (black trench coat and all) than a grand mage. The farmer is played by Jason Statham who, despite only playing stoic badasses, is cruelly given shitty pseudo-Shakespeare to deliver (he desperately attempts to rescue the situation by having his character deliver those lines ironically. It almost works, but not really.) The king is played by Burt Reynolds, trying for regal gravitas, but having to deliver lines like "what the hell does that mean?!" in an august manner. (Later on he says "Wisdom shall be our hammer, prudence shall be our nail." to which I respond "what the hell does that mean?!") The script is atrocious. If it's not actively working against the characters it's being meaningless. It sounds like someone who doesn't speak English wrote it. Emotional scenes are filled with words which seem to convey meaning, but are in fact dada-ist tone poetry. Worse however is when the script goes silent and Boll tries to dazzle us with visual effects.
There are several interminable battle scenes between legeons of cloned extras. One is set during a dark and visually confusing thunder storm which the evil wizard summons for no apparent reason. Fragile-looking human ninjas leap about, twirling their little swords very prettily but looking like one good mace-hit would take them out. Luckily the orcs seem to be so disorganized that it takes about 5 of them to kill each human (and we see several humans killed this way. Several.) The presumptive elves, who are high-wire pacifists until they suddenly aren't, dangle uselessly above the fray, every so often tripping an orc or something. During the wizard-y climax, there is a tornado of books which seems pretty cool until it becomes apparent that the books aren't actually going to do anything. They just spin for while (they don't even hit anyone) and then fall, uselessly. What was the point of that? Empty spectacle can be fun, but if that's all you're going for, Uwe, you can do better.
An utter, bewildering waste of time. Uninteresting in both an aesthetic and an intellectual sense. It would be good to watch with friends but alone it is tedious agony. Falling flat when it should soar, soaring at random and inexplicable times (burying a child, for example, takes place during increasingly up-tempo music. Perhaps our heroes are meant be shovelling faster and faster?) annoying when it doesn't mean to be, entertaining by accident, this thing is a mess. It's a kind of glorious mess in that it is marvellously, bafflingly, absurdly awful, but a mess none the less. Watch with friends. Or just not at all. Ugh.
The main villain is an evil wizard played by Ray Liotta who seems a lot more like a snotty weird loner kid (black trench coat and all) than a grand mage. The farmer is played by Jason Statham who, despite only playing stoic badasses, is cruelly given shitty pseudo-Shakespeare to deliver (he desperately attempts to rescue the situation by having his character deliver those lines ironically. It almost works, but not really.) The king is played by Burt Reynolds, trying for regal gravitas, but having to deliver lines like "what the hell does that mean?!" in an august manner. (Later on he says "Wisdom shall be our hammer, prudence shall be our nail." to which I respond "what the hell does that mean?!") The script is atrocious. If it's not actively working against the characters it's being meaningless. It sounds like someone who doesn't speak English wrote it. Emotional scenes are filled with words which seem to convey meaning, but are in fact dada-ist tone poetry. Worse however is when the script goes silent and Boll tries to dazzle us with visual effects.
There are several interminable battle scenes between legeons of cloned extras. One is set during a dark and visually confusing thunder storm which the evil wizard summons for no apparent reason. Fragile-looking human ninjas leap about, twirling their little swords very prettily but looking like one good mace-hit would take them out. Luckily the orcs seem to be so disorganized that it takes about 5 of them to kill each human (and we see several humans killed this way. Several.) The presumptive elves, who are high-wire pacifists until they suddenly aren't, dangle uselessly above the fray, every so often tripping an orc or something. During the wizard-y climax, there is a tornado of books which seems pretty cool until it becomes apparent that the books aren't actually going to do anything. They just spin for while (they don't even hit anyone) and then fall, uselessly. What was the point of that? Empty spectacle can be fun, but if that's all you're going for, Uwe, you can do better.
An utter, bewildering waste of time. Uninteresting in both an aesthetic and an intellectual sense. It would be good to watch with friends but alone it is tedious agony. Falling flat when it should soar, soaring at random and inexplicable times (burying a child, for example, takes place during increasingly up-tempo music. Perhaps our heroes are meant be shovelling faster and faster?) annoying when it doesn't mean to be, entertaining by accident, this thing is a mess. It's a kind of glorious mess in that it is marvellously, bafflingly, absurdly awful, but a mess none the less. Watch with friends. Or just not at all. Ugh.
Jun 20, 2014
Le Roi et l'Oiseau
Saw Le Roi et l'Oiseau, a beautiful French cartoon. It is a film with a strange history: the project was begun in the 40s and released unfinished by a meddlesome producer. From there it lapsed into public domain, where it was packaged into cheap cartoon-collections, unjustly lumped in with such rightfully forgotten dreck as Fraidy Cat and The Herculoids. Cursed with distribution designed more to make a quick buck than to promote genius, the film is almost completely unknown despite being just as wonderful and grand as many of the films by Disney, Pixar, or even Ghibli.
The film's plot revolves around the struggle between the harsh and despotic king of Tachycardia and an insurgent bird in a top hat. The film mines much absurdity and whimsey from the king's lavish lifestyle and childishness. At one point he is hunting for the bird's accomplices. He is seen driving his mobile throne through the moat, his secret policemen in motorized rubber duckies behind him. It's strange and goofy, but played kind of deadpan and surreal. The film also has strangely serious and interesting bits of social struggle (it seems to be seriously into anarchy, delightfully.) At one point our heroes go to the under-city where they are asked if there really is a sun.
The animation is of the super-rendered style that I've seen used to illustrate old children's books. There's a few scenes that have obviously seen the hand of a modern animator (there's some great aristocrats at one point but also some extremely lazily drawn lions) the jokes are dry and silly, but the visuals are impressive. This film is one of the better animated films I've seen and no one has ever heard of it. Go see it.
The film's plot revolves around the struggle between the harsh and despotic king of Tachycardia and an insurgent bird in a top hat. The film mines much absurdity and whimsey from the king's lavish lifestyle and childishness. At one point he is hunting for the bird's accomplices. He is seen driving his mobile throne through the moat, his secret policemen in motorized rubber duckies behind him. It's strange and goofy, but played kind of deadpan and surreal. The film also has strangely serious and interesting bits of social struggle (it seems to be seriously into anarchy, delightfully.) At one point our heroes go to the under-city where they are asked if there really is a sun.
The animation is of the super-rendered style that I've seen used to illustrate old children's books. There's a few scenes that have obviously seen the hand of a modern animator (there's some great aristocrats at one point but also some extremely lazily drawn lions) the jokes are dry and silly, but the visuals are impressive. This film is one of the better animated films I've seen and no one has ever heard of it. Go see it.
Jun 19, 2014
Ils
Saw Ils, a French horror about two adults being terrorized by hoodie-wearing strangers. Despite the lazy-sound premise (as my boyfriend put it: "so they're just people?") the film is quite classy, using jump scares and so on, but feeling very restrained. The hoodie-wearers are correctly never used to shock and horrify. They are ominous only in their numbers and their creepy, feral, rat-like scurrying. Appropriately enough, after the film crystallizes into an action film (as many horrors ultimately do,) the action moves almost entirely underground.
The film is relatively short at 75 minutes and mostly sweet. It's fairly suspenseful and what it lacks in gore it makes up for in ominous-ness (which I prefer anyway.) The concept is a bit weak, but the late-game reveal of who exactly the bad-guys are is interesting and enduringly creepy, so stick around. The film feels classy to me (though it may simply be that I'm being fooled by the foreign language.) Most of the action takes place in a beautifully crumbling chateau and the film is much more about home-invasion anxieties than it is about red corn syrup. It austerely keeps the baddies hidden from sight almost entirely and the final twist is too weak to be the focus of the film, but leaves a nice little bitter aftertaste. A nice horror.
The film is relatively short at 75 minutes and mostly sweet. It's fairly suspenseful and what it lacks in gore it makes up for in ominous-ness (which I prefer anyway.) The concept is a bit weak, but the late-game reveal of who exactly the bad-guys are is interesting and enduringly creepy, so stick around. The film feels classy to me (though it may simply be that I'm being fooled by the foreign language.) Most of the action takes place in a beautifully crumbling chateau and the film is much more about home-invasion anxieties than it is about red corn syrup. It austerely keeps the baddies hidden from sight almost entirely and the final twist is too weak to be the focus of the film, but leaves a nice little bitter aftertaste. A nice horror.
Jun 18, 2014
Performance
Saw Performance, an extremely 60s film about a hit-man who lays low for a period at Mick Jagger's house. The film places much faith in the illuminating powers of drugs, sexuality is explored (but don't worry, only boobs are seen,) and droning music is blared. This is the 60s, ladies and gentlemen. I couldn't really follow the plot well. Identity is slightly fluid and many lines are mumbled beneath psychedelic rock. The film has a strange relationship with male homosexuality. The gangsters whom the hit-man is fleeing from have offices plastered with posters of boxers. Via jarring close-ups, the film implies that their appeal is more erotic than aesthetic. It seems like a slightly tacky attempt to use homosexuality to reenforce the decadence oft he gangsters, suggesting a negative attitude toward the homosexuality. Then again, later on Mick shows up in rouge and lipstick, looking remarkably like his flat-chested girlfriend. He is supposed to be some kind of self-awareness guru and this suggests a transgressive, liberating aspect to the gaiety.
The film is not really centrally about all of that, by the way, it's just what stuck out for me. The film is largely obtuse, confusing, and abrasive. It's quite a trip, just not one I understood much of.
The film is not really centrally about all of that, by the way, it's just what stuck out for me. The film is largely obtuse, confusing, and abrasive. It's quite a trip, just not one I understood much of.
Jun 17, 2014
City of Ember
Saw City of Ember, a kid's movie where society lives entirely underground due an unspecified disaster. There they forgot their surface-dwelling ways and came to believe that the underground was all there is. However, the city is running out of food and power, so it's up to two plucky teens to save the day. The film is a romp. It seems to have an allegorical message but not a very definite one beyond a general wariness of non-parental authority. The film borrows heavily from the junky aesthetic of Terry Guilliam and Jean-Pierre Jeunet (especially City of Lost Children-era Jeunet, which I guess is more Caro.) The protagonists wear stripes and smock-like cardigans. It's a very cute and fun movie which means no harm and is infrequently annoying. The characters are a bit lacking in dimension, with the villains vile and the good guys patient and full of spontaneous hugs. The world is really cool and whimsical though. I would love to see the concept art someday.
Jun 16, 2014
Only God Forgives
Saw Only God Forgives (thanks, Nina!) It was a hallucinatory crime film set in the surreal and harsh world of Thai sex clubs. The plot is kicked off when a man murders a hooker and is in return murdered by her father. This act of murder and revenge precipitates a back-and-forth exchange of violence between the man's family and the police, headed by a never-uniformed cop who wields a kind of square-cut sword. The film is morbid and turgid, full of Lynchian pregnant pauses and ominous, inscrutable imagery. Much of the action takes place in a boxing gym lit entirely by red lights, with twisting hallways that seem labyrinthine. The gym is owned by the central character of the film, a brother of the killed man.
His deadly, dragon-woman mother shows up and does her best to manipulate him into acts of revenge. We hope for him to withstand her cruel influence, but his sexual fantasies revolve exclusively around a lack of control. He dreams especially that his fists (not his limp hands, his fists) are bound, held, or even cut off entirely. I get the impression that this removal of limbs is supposed to correlate to a removal of agency and therefore responsibility. It is ickily implied that he has a severe oedipal complex as well.
The cop with the sword exacts harsh justice but this is the only justice we see in the film. Then again, the only mercy we see comes from the protagonist, who is often balking at his mother's orders. Much of the inscrutable symbolism mentioned above revolves around the relationship between the protagonist and the cop. The ending of the film implies an almost saint-like sacrifice resulting directly from this relationship.
On top of all of this, the film is incredible to look at. Harsh reds and blues clash aggressively, endless beautiful women wait placidly in beautiful rooms, ominous rumbling filling the soundtrack. The proximity of sex is not so much erotic as sinister. A very beautiful film, full of gorgeous images and ugly people, it has something on its mind about morality but for me this was secondary to the awesomely arty mood and tone. I liked this film. I feel a bit as though I missed the deeper story it was telling, but do not care.
His deadly, dragon-woman mother shows up and does her best to manipulate him into acts of revenge. We hope for him to withstand her cruel influence, but his sexual fantasies revolve exclusively around a lack of control. He dreams especially that his fists (not his limp hands, his fists) are bound, held, or even cut off entirely. I get the impression that this removal of limbs is supposed to correlate to a removal of agency and therefore responsibility. It is ickily implied that he has a severe oedipal complex as well.
The cop with the sword exacts harsh justice but this is the only justice we see in the film. Then again, the only mercy we see comes from the protagonist, who is often balking at his mother's orders. Much of the inscrutable symbolism mentioned above revolves around the relationship between the protagonist and the cop. The ending of the film implies an almost saint-like sacrifice resulting directly from this relationship.
On top of all of this, the film is incredible to look at. Harsh reds and blues clash aggressively, endless beautiful women wait placidly in beautiful rooms, ominous rumbling filling the soundtrack. The proximity of sex is not so much erotic as sinister. A very beautiful film, full of gorgeous images and ugly people, it has something on its mind about morality but for me this was secondary to the awesomely arty mood and tone. I liked this film. I feel a bit as though I missed the deeper story it was telling, but do not care.
Jun 15, 2014
I Love you Phillip Morris
Saw I Love you Phillip Morris. It's a seriocomic film about a gay white-collar con artist. The film treats the gay thing very well, I think. It has a theme of identity and honesty which the whole gay thing ties in to really well. The opening text tells us that "this really happened." Yeah, we think, rolling our eyes. This sets up the theme. We then find out after about 10 minutes of film that this paragon of Americana, with his picket fence, active religious life, and blond wife, is gay and the theme of duplicity continues. Notice that the sexual preference isn't used to flaunt how open-minded the film-makers are (or to flatter the audience for tolerating the existence of gays) but rather to further the theme of identity and improve the piece as a whole. Good.
Anyway, Jim lands in prison after his insurance fraud catches up with him. There he meets the titular Phillip Morris, a naive but sincere guy who is the opposite of the clever, shifty protagonist. They fall in adorable love and get out of prison, only for the protagonist to go right back to his tricks, conning his way into a financial executive position at some fancy place with wood panelling everywhere.
Speaking of decor, this film seems to be set in the present day, but with a slightly throwback-y attitude toward the gay lifestyle. I'm not the most trendy of gays (I like to tell people that I'm a geek first and gay a distant second) so maybe I'm just square, but I don't (for example) hang around my apartment in mesh underwear. I can choose to interpret the protagonist's preoccupation with a glamourous lifestyle as being part of his obsession with having an apparently perfect life (which is itself a symptom of his lack of identity (maybe)) but this is a choice I'm making. If I were less charitably inclined or less well informed, I'd just assume the protagonist's lazy theft and showy excess was just how those people are (or secretly want to be.) This is slightly frustrating, but then maybe (hopefully) I'm just selling the general public short.
Anyway, the film is really, primarily interested in entertainment above politics and therefore displays the rather sad manipulations of the protagonist via very fun montages in that fast-forward, rapid-cut style Guy Richie likes to use. There's also a few SNL-sketch-ish scenes. When the protagonist steals his mother's door-mat, I felt like I had accidentally flipped over the a Will Farrell movie, and that someone had just let the actor (Jim Carrey) run free. There's another scene where Phillip is eating those chocolate hearts with romantic messages in the tin foil. Each one he sighs and flutters his eyes after reading, but one he thinks is stupid and angrily crumples up the foil, spitting out the chocolate as well. It's cute and funny.
Really, I was more interested in the identity crisis of the protagonist. He is accused of being no one at all under all of his artifice and shifting lies, of being Peter Sellers-ishly devoid of personality. We can see he loves (or at least believes he loves) Phillip Morris, but that's about it. This weird idea of a robot-person who clearly has agency but perhaps no coherency to their desires is really intriguing to me. As is, the film is fun but ephemeral. It doesn't try hard (or indeed at all) for timeless trenchancy but it is entertaining and (I think) treats the gay thing pretty well and perhaps that's enough. A glib, charming film.
Anyway, Jim lands in prison after his insurance fraud catches up with him. There he meets the titular Phillip Morris, a naive but sincere guy who is the opposite of the clever, shifty protagonist. They fall in adorable love and get out of prison, only for the protagonist to go right back to his tricks, conning his way into a financial executive position at some fancy place with wood panelling everywhere.
Speaking of decor, this film seems to be set in the present day, but with a slightly throwback-y attitude toward the gay lifestyle. I'm not the most trendy of gays (I like to tell people that I'm a geek first and gay a distant second) so maybe I'm just square, but I don't (for example) hang around my apartment in mesh underwear. I can choose to interpret the protagonist's preoccupation with a glamourous lifestyle as being part of his obsession with having an apparently perfect life (which is itself a symptom of his lack of identity (maybe)) but this is a choice I'm making. If I were less charitably inclined or less well informed, I'd just assume the protagonist's lazy theft and showy excess was just how those people are (or secretly want to be.) This is slightly frustrating, but then maybe (hopefully) I'm just selling the general public short.
Anyway, the film is really, primarily interested in entertainment above politics and therefore displays the rather sad manipulations of the protagonist via very fun montages in that fast-forward, rapid-cut style Guy Richie likes to use. There's also a few SNL-sketch-ish scenes. When the protagonist steals his mother's door-mat, I felt like I had accidentally flipped over the a Will Farrell movie, and that someone had just let the actor (Jim Carrey) run free. There's another scene where Phillip is eating those chocolate hearts with romantic messages in the tin foil. Each one he sighs and flutters his eyes after reading, but one he thinks is stupid and angrily crumples up the foil, spitting out the chocolate as well. It's cute and funny.
Really, I was more interested in the identity crisis of the protagonist. He is accused of being no one at all under all of his artifice and shifting lies, of being Peter Sellers-ishly devoid of personality. We can see he loves (or at least believes he loves) Phillip Morris, but that's about it. This weird idea of a robot-person who clearly has agency but perhaps no coherency to their desires is really intriguing to me. As is, the film is fun but ephemeral. It doesn't try hard (or indeed at all) for timeless trenchancy but it is entertaining and (I think) treats the gay thing pretty well and perhaps that's enough. A glib, charming film.
Jun 14, 2014
Rec
Saw Rec, a 2007 found-footage horror, but a very good one. It follows an attractive female reporter doing a fluff story about the daily activities of firemen. She follows the firemen to a house-call which goes horribly zombie and is quarantined in the apartment building with the other tenants, and some cops and firemen. The film has all the benefits of a lack of jump-scares and none of the improvisation nonsense that plagued earlier found-footage stuff. As a zombie film, it's more action oriented and less about building up tension.
There's some great pieces to it though. The scene where everything goes wrong and the zombies come out is great. There's all these little pieces of it I love. There's a quick shot of the reporter isolated in a spotlight. One of the firemen slaps the back of a cop, leaving a bloody hand print. All of this happens very rapidly and following some tedious world-building/mood-setting, so it's very exciting and delightful. Also the variety and quality of the zombies is tip top.
There's another scene where a guy in a hazmat suit enters which is ceremonial and weird. The ceremonial aspect comes up again at the very end when our heroes break into a sealed-off apartment and further back-story is revealed. At that point (about 15 minutes from the end) the film goes full-on horror and becomes such grotesque stuff as creepypasta is made on. It's good, perhaps a little tame (either that or I'm getting tougher) but scary and well-done. I liked it.
There's some great pieces to it though. The scene where everything goes wrong and the zombies come out is great. There's all these little pieces of it I love. There's a quick shot of the reporter isolated in a spotlight. One of the firemen slaps the back of a cop, leaving a bloody hand print. All of this happens very rapidly and following some tedious world-building/mood-setting, so it's very exciting and delightful. Also the variety and quality of the zombies is tip top.
There's another scene where a guy in a hazmat suit enters which is ceremonial and weird. The ceremonial aspect comes up again at the very end when our heroes break into a sealed-off apartment and further back-story is revealed. At that point (about 15 minutes from the end) the film goes full-on horror and becomes such grotesque stuff as creepypasta is made on. It's good, perhaps a little tame (either that or I'm getting tougher) but scary and well-done. I liked it.
Jun 13, 2014
Rocco and His Brothers
Saw Rocco and His Brothers, a troubling Italian film. It revolves around five brothers who move from the tiny village into the big city, hoping for a better life. The film focuses on each brother one at a time, prefacing their segment with title cards. The main plot-line, central brother aside, revolves around a love triangle between Rocco, a boxing brother, and a whore. The boxer starts out as the big, lazy brother. As his boxing career takes off, he starts spending more time with the whore who playfully reminds him that she'll get "bored" of him someday. Sure enough, as his star fades, the whore vanishes only to take up with his brother, Rocco.
As the boxer self-destructs more and more, Rocco becomes saintlike, sacrificing his life, career, money, and happiness for the sake of his increasingly worthless brother. Another brother, gainfully employed at an auto plant, takes a law-and-order high tone, urging Rocco to let his brother fail (I am totally on this guy's side, btw) and urging the boxer to go on welfare and get a job. There's also a brother who has a family and is removed from the situation, and a younger brother who observes all of the proceedings and passes no judgement.
The film is frustrating in many ways. It makes Rocco be so good and inflates his importance by giving him the title. I have a hard dismissing his actions because they are exactly the endlessly forgiving, understanding traits that I associate with saintliness and goodness. The film repays his kindness with endless cruelty. Two scenes in particular stand out as tour de forces: a scene where the boxer confronts Rocco and the whore, and the scene (much later) when the boxer confronts the whore by herself. This second scene is intercut with a climactic boxing victory for Rocco (who also takes up boxing) and continues into a scene where the boxer crashes Rocco's victory party and things spiral into infinite Italian hysteria. (It's truly amazing. Out of context that scene would be hilarious. Of course in context it's gut-wrenching and terrible.)
As a drama, the film is a great success. It has a morbid, doomed, Mayor of Casterbridge-style feel, where man's inhumanity to man is the rich theme of the day. Much blame is heaped on the wicked city the brothers move to, but it's not believable. More than once a bit-character will point out that in the country they'd probably be just as miserable. True, Rocco rebuts, but out there they might not be the instruments of each others' misery. A tough film, but worth it for the drama. The (possible?) denunciation of the sacrifices of Rocco make me a bit uncomfortable, but it's the discomfort of being exposed to a new idea with troubling ramifications. So, good.
PS - The composer is the same guy who composed The Godfather soundtrack, and you can kind of tell.
As the boxer self-destructs more and more, Rocco becomes saintlike, sacrificing his life, career, money, and happiness for the sake of his increasingly worthless brother. Another brother, gainfully employed at an auto plant, takes a law-and-order high tone, urging Rocco to let his brother fail (I am totally on this guy's side, btw) and urging the boxer to go on welfare and get a job. There's also a brother who has a family and is removed from the situation, and a younger brother who observes all of the proceedings and passes no judgement.
The film is frustrating in many ways. It makes Rocco be so good and inflates his importance by giving him the title. I have a hard dismissing his actions because they are exactly the endlessly forgiving, understanding traits that I associate with saintliness and goodness. The film repays his kindness with endless cruelty. Two scenes in particular stand out as tour de forces: a scene where the boxer confronts Rocco and the whore, and the scene (much later) when the boxer confronts the whore by herself. This second scene is intercut with a climactic boxing victory for Rocco (who also takes up boxing) and continues into a scene where the boxer crashes Rocco's victory party and things spiral into infinite Italian hysteria. (It's truly amazing. Out of context that scene would be hilarious. Of course in context it's gut-wrenching and terrible.)
As a drama, the film is a great success. It has a morbid, doomed, Mayor of Casterbridge-style feel, where man's inhumanity to man is the rich theme of the day. Much blame is heaped on the wicked city the brothers move to, but it's not believable. More than once a bit-character will point out that in the country they'd probably be just as miserable. True, Rocco rebuts, but out there they might not be the instruments of each others' misery. A tough film, but worth it for the drama. The (possible?) denunciation of the sacrifices of Rocco make me a bit uncomfortable, but it's the discomfort of being exposed to a new idea with troubling ramifications. So, good.
PS - The composer is the same guy who composed The Godfather soundtrack, and you can kind of tell.
Jun 12, 2014
Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.
Saw Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., a Doctor Who tie-in film from the 60s. So, we're deep in camp land, with honking horns to signify tension, slightly off special effects (which were no doubt good for their time) and fourth-wall-breaking shrugs at the camera. It's fairly silly and lighthearted, but it has its moments. The plot follows the doctor and his gang of female assistant and granddaughter. They accidentally scoop up a British cop and (for some reason) immediately fly off to the year 2150. They there discover the daleks have completely taken earth over and its up to them and a gang of rebels to take it back.
Now, this may shock many of you who know me personally, but I've never seen any Doctor Who before ever. I'm familiar with the concept and know that the show had a more serious reboot recently, but that reboot was clearly after this film. This film relies quite heavily on our goodwill. At one point the granddaughter says that she's cut her ankle on some rubble. She says this while wearing immaculate, knee-high, white socks. The daleks speak in this weird, warbly, cartoony bray and totter around, waving their probosci and ridiculously declaring their own invincibility.
The best part of the film for me was the point during which I most entered into the fantasy. It was a moment when the ridiculous voices of the daleks come over the radio in the rebels' compound. The camera drifts across the grim faces of the rebels. They take the absurd squaking from the radio so seriously, I couldn't help but get carried along. The absurdity of the daleks became grotesque and their cheesiness seemed insulting to the conviction of the rebels. It was a good moment. If you watch this film, look out for that scene.
So this film's fairly harmless. It's cheesy but it means well. Like the worse kind of kid's film, it takes nothing seriously and ultimately goes nowhere. It's a bit entertaining (although it would be more fun as the target of mockery) and largely forgettable. Watch it alone if you're a Who-fan, with friends if you aren't.
Now, this may shock many of you who know me personally, but I've never seen any Doctor Who before ever. I'm familiar with the concept and know that the show had a more serious reboot recently, but that reboot was clearly after this film. This film relies quite heavily on our goodwill. At one point the granddaughter says that she's cut her ankle on some rubble. She says this while wearing immaculate, knee-high, white socks. The daleks speak in this weird, warbly, cartoony bray and totter around, waving their probosci and ridiculously declaring their own invincibility.
The best part of the film for me was the point during which I most entered into the fantasy. It was a moment when the ridiculous voices of the daleks come over the radio in the rebels' compound. The camera drifts across the grim faces of the rebels. They take the absurd squaking from the radio so seriously, I couldn't help but get carried along. The absurdity of the daleks became grotesque and their cheesiness seemed insulting to the conviction of the rebels. It was a good moment. If you watch this film, look out for that scene.
So this film's fairly harmless. It's cheesy but it means well. Like the worse kind of kid's film, it takes nothing seriously and ultimately goes nowhere. It's a bit entertaining (although it would be more fun as the target of mockery) and largely forgettable. Watch it alone if you're a Who-fan, with friends if you aren't.
Jun 11, 2014
Monsters University
Saw Monsters University (thanks, Chris!) It was a delightful Pixar film. It opens with little Mike Wazowski dreaming of being a scarer, harvesting the screams of children. This is a difficult place to start because we are made to want him so much to succeed, but know from Monsters Inc that he will fail. I wondered with some trepidation how Pixar was going to gently show Mike's dreams being crushed. It turns out that this film is kind of bleak. It positions itself as a war between talent and smarts, with Mike representing the book-smart but talentless and a fauxhawk-sporting Sully representing the glib talent, coasting by on family fame.
Typical of Pixar, the film has no magic bullets. The machina produces no deus, there is no last-minute reprieve. That Mike has to face the fact that his dream is impossible is hard, doubly so for a kinda-kid's film. It's sad that it's message is really more appropriate for actual college kids. There is a scene where a beloved keepsake representing his dream gets destroyed in an act of Mike surpassing himself. For me, it didn't hit as much at it should have, but the message is clear. Mike's dream is a delusion which he is stronger for abandoning. Like Up before it, the worth of dreams and sentiment is questioned. Like in The Incredibles, the nature of talent is examined.
Also like the Increadibles, there's some frustrating discussion to be had about this film. In one worrying scene, Mike takes a gang of dispirited would-be scare-ers to see the professional scare-ers at work. He points out that there's no commonalities, that every monster has their niche. Moments later, they are running from the cops (they are trespassing) and Sully, mascot of raw talent, is weighed down, literally carrying the weight of these lesser, loser monsters. I think we're supposed to see Sully's heart is softening, but are they not holding him back? I realize I'm kind of being a jerk here, but the fact remains that this film is subtle and nuanced enough that it's easy to be a jerk about it.
Anyway, most of the film is taken up with a disgraced Mike and Sully battling in a frat tournament against the oh-so-hatefully-smug Douchebag frat. It's fun and exciting, though they never leave the theme of talent vs brains far behind. I loved the headmistress, the kind of unrealistic ridiculousness of monster-college life (human-college life involves a lot more un-cinematic uncertainty and fear, in my experience) and the incredible lameness of the loser-monsters. There are moments where this film falls a little flat and we get a little too preoccupied with that tournament which the film ultimately argues is irrelevant anyway, but there are funny moments and heart-warming moments and anyway the ideas are fascinating and very fresh for a kid's movie. I think we're living in a kind of golden age for kid's entertainment.
Typical of Pixar, the film has no magic bullets. The machina produces no deus, there is no last-minute reprieve. That Mike has to face the fact that his dream is impossible is hard, doubly so for a kinda-kid's film. It's sad that it's message is really more appropriate for actual college kids. There is a scene where a beloved keepsake representing his dream gets destroyed in an act of Mike surpassing himself. For me, it didn't hit as much at it should have, but the message is clear. Mike's dream is a delusion which he is stronger for abandoning. Like Up before it, the worth of dreams and sentiment is questioned. Like in The Incredibles, the nature of talent is examined.
Also like the Increadibles, there's some frustrating discussion to be had about this film. In one worrying scene, Mike takes a gang of dispirited would-be scare-ers to see the professional scare-ers at work. He points out that there's no commonalities, that every monster has their niche. Moments later, they are running from the cops (they are trespassing) and Sully, mascot of raw talent, is weighed down, literally carrying the weight of these lesser, loser monsters. I think we're supposed to see Sully's heart is softening, but are they not holding him back? I realize I'm kind of being a jerk here, but the fact remains that this film is subtle and nuanced enough that it's easy to be a jerk about it.
Anyway, most of the film is taken up with a disgraced Mike and Sully battling in a frat tournament against the oh-so-hatefully-smug Douchebag frat. It's fun and exciting, though they never leave the theme of talent vs brains far behind. I loved the headmistress, the kind of unrealistic ridiculousness of monster-college life (human-college life involves a lot more un-cinematic uncertainty and fear, in my experience) and the incredible lameness of the loser-monsters. There are moments where this film falls a little flat and we get a little too preoccupied with that tournament which the film ultimately argues is irrelevant anyway, but there are funny moments and heart-warming moments and anyway the ideas are fascinating and very fresh for a kid's movie. I think we're living in a kind of golden age for kid's entertainment.
Jun 10, 2014
The Unknown Known
Saw The Unknown Known, an Errol Morris interview with Donald Rumsfeld. It's very reminiscent of Fog of War, the interview with Robert McNamara. Just as McNamara did, Rumsfeld equivocates viciously, discusses mostly his role in the war that defined a presidency (here the Iraq, not the Vietnam war, though that old symbol of American hubris is brought up as well) and squirms to protect his image.
He is very fond of Carollian wordplay. The title comes from a memo where he iterates through all possibilities of known/unknown unknown/known, explaining the meaning of each. He misidentifies the phrase "unknown known" as being something which you believe you know, but which you do not (he gives a better interpretation later, that being something you are unaware that you know.) When discussing the Iraq war, he quotes "the belief in the inevitability of conflict may be the primary cause of conflict" and that "if you wish for peace you must prepare for war." Morris points out that this implies war is the only possibility and Rumsfeld replies that in his book he says "all generalizations are false, including this one" which is to say "fuck your logic." He often characterizes misleading oneself as "chasing the wrong rabbit."
The torture memos are discussed, and Rumsfeld bemoans the misinformation propagated by the press ("Not one person was waterboarded at Guantanamo bay!" he cries, glibly ignoring the other tortures of sadistic, cruel, and weirdly sexual natures.) 9/11 is inevitably discussed, causing Rumsfeld to refer to the unforeseen attack on Pearl Harbour (a deeply appropriate metaphor, considering that Pearl Harbour has its own conspiracy theories, and was the catalyst of its own war.)
Not that Morris gives him a fair time of it either. He sometimes subtly moves goalposts and twice leaves Rumsfeld stranded, blinking, waiting for the next question, his smile freezing and faltering, leaving him looking shifty and ill-at-ease. I believe Rumsfeld is a man deeply burdened by his mistakes. He was the secretary of defence during 9/11, during Guantanamo bay, he was even around for Watergate. He defends himself against critics by citing the unknowable quality of the future, the ambiguity of words, and the impossibility of knowing anything at all with a complete degree of certainty. I believe he is obsessed with being correct but that this costs him his certainty, leaving him equivocating and playing dry games. He began as a statesman, but life has left him a logician.
He is very fond of Carollian wordplay. The title comes from a memo where he iterates through all possibilities of known/unknown unknown/known, explaining the meaning of each. He misidentifies the phrase "unknown known" as being something which you believe you know, but which you do not (he gives a better interpretation later, that being something you are unaware that you know.) When discussing the Iraq war, he quotes "the belief in the inevitability of conflict may be the primary cause of conflict" and that "if you wish for peace you must prepare for war." Morris points out that this implies war is the only possibility and Rumsfeld replies that in his book he says "all generalizations are false, including this one" which is to say "fuck your logic." He often characterizes misleading oneself as "chasing the wrong rabbit."
The torture memos are discussed, and Rumsfeld bemoans the misinformation propagated by the press ("Not one person was waterboarded at Guantanamo bay!" he cries, glibly ignoring the other tortures of sadistic, cruel, and weirdly sexual natures.) 9/11 is inevitably discussed, causing Rumsfeld to refer to the unforeseen attack on Pearl Harbour (a deeply appropriate metaphor, considering that Pearl Harbour has its own conspiracy theories, and was the catalyst of its own war.)
Not that Morris gives him a fair time of it either. He sometimes subtly moves goalposts and twice leaves Rumsfeld stranded, blinking, waiting for the next question, his smile freezing and faltering, leaving him looking shifty and ill-at-ease. I believe Rumsfeld is a man deeply burdened by his mistakes. He was the secretary of defence during 9/11, during Guantanamo bay, he was even around for Watergate. He defends himself against critics by citing the unknowable quality of the future, the ambiguity of words, and the impossibility of knowing anything at all with a complete degree of certainty. I believe he is obsessed with being correct but that this costs him his certainty, leaving him equivocating and playing dry games. He began as a statesman, but life has left him a logician.
Jun 9, 2014
Alone
Saw Alone, a Thai horror about a pair of conjoined sisters who separate. One dies, but haunts the other. The film has mirrors galore (even pairs of mirrors sometimes) and opens with a cake being cut exactly in two. This symbolism is the hardest stab at capital-A-Art the film makes and it's not a very strong one. That aside, the film is quite scary, using jump-scares to great effect. By the end of the film it crystallizes into a sort of slasher, once it becomes clear who the actual villain is. (Side note: I have a little bit of sympathy for the killer. Do their years together mean nothing?) The cause of the haunting is revealed via sepia-toned flashback and is (as usual) deeply tragic.
I don't have much to say here. I thought the film was quite generic, relying on jump scares and quick cuts to be creepy. Totally lacking in any kind of cleverness that I could discern, the storyline is more tragic than terrifying and the plot is needlessly complicated and needlessly explained (not that the plot is overly complex anyway, but why bother revealing that everyone grew up together as well? It just feels too cute and convenient to me.) The film seems to function more like a mystery, I thought, but with jumps and ghosts mixed in. The reveal is the most interesting thing about this film and even then, you can kind of smell a twist coming (those of you who routinely guess twists will have no problem with this one.) Then again, then again. As I often say, I'm a total wimp who tries very hard not to be scared and am therefore missing out on 90% of what makes a horror tick. So I may well have missed the mark totally. Ah well. 1 down, 41 to go.
PS - Googling "imdb Alone" brings up a link to the imdb page but has the plot summary for The Eye, a completely different, Hong Kong film. Get it together, Goog.
I don't have much to say here. I thought the film was quite generic, relying on jump scares and quick cuts to be creepy. Totally lacking in any kind of cleverness that I could discern, the storyline is more tragic than terrifying and the plot is needlessly complicated and needlessly explained (not that the plot is overly complex anyway, but why bother revealing that everyone grew up together as well? It just feels too cute and convenient to me.) The film seems to function more like a mystery, I thought, but with jumps and ghosts mixed in. The reveal is the most interesting thing about this film and even then, you can kind of smell a twist coming (those of you who routinely guess twists will have no problem with this one.) Then again, then again. As I often say, I'm a total wimp who tries very hard not to be scared and am therefore missing out on 90% of what makes a horror tick. So I may well have missed the mark totally. Ah well. 1 down, 41 to go.
PS - Googling "imdb Alone" brings up a link to the imdb page but has the plot summary for The Eye, a completely different, Hong Kong film. Get it together, Goog.
Jun 8, 2014
Death in Venice
Saw Death in Venice, the pathetic tale of an ageing composer who falls in love with Tadzio, a boy several decades younger than him. In the original book the boy is 14 or so but in this film he is a slightly safer 16. Icky issues aside, the film is really centrally about failing to age well and dying. The protagonist is vacationing in Venice for the sake of his health and to work on some music. He holds the philosophical position that all art is labour (not inspiration) and his failing health is therefore directly responsible for his failing popularity. Tadzio symbolizes both his lost vitality and his lost childhood. He struggles to reclaim these pieces of his past but is intelligent enough to know that Tadzio is not really these things.
He is clearly destructively infatuated with Tadzio but cannot tear himself away. Too weak to leave the object of his desire and too proud to surrender to his fascination and talk to the boy, he resorts to an ever more creepy stalking and skulking. This parallels his relationship to his lost art. He can neither retire, nor can he break out in a new direction. Through flashback we see his creative straightjacket described (in insufferably shouty discussions with a fellow artist. Apparently what artists do mostly is Shout! About! ART!) where compromise is seen as weakness. There is a beautiful scene where Tadzio walks on the beach, wrapped in a towel like a Greek statue while the protagonist composes and we hear the opera singer in his head. This is the best that can happen for the poor composer but it leaves him unsatisfied.
He suffers further degradations relating to his one-sided pursuit of Tadzio and therefore to his vanishing youth. There's an ominous early scene where the composer recoils in disgust at a man with dyed hair and makeup, grotesquely trying to remain young, but by the end the composer himself is painting his hair and powdering his face. When he dies, his hair is ludicrously dripping black onto his face. Through his creepy pursuits, Tadzio becomes aware of the composer and often, when the composer is stalking/tailing him, he turns back with a placid, inscrutable expression. This frustrating lack of response is the primary engine that drives audience interest. Will they ever have closure? I was endlessly frustrated wishing that he'd just talk to Tadzio already. Probably by discovering that the idol was mere flesh and blood would have broken the spell. Instead the nostalgic obsession is left to fester and metastasize.
The film is chilly, sad, haunting and frustrating. It's primarily pathetic, as we watch an old letch slowly loose all of his dreams and his dignity. The film is ambiguous too about Tadzio. His role is primarily to act as inscrutable focal point of the composer's desires, but the exact nature of those desires is never explicitly spelled out and the audience must be content with informed guesses. There are no answers here, only problems.
He is clearly destructively infatuated with Tadzio but cannot tear himself away. Too weak to leave the object of his desire and too proud to surrender to his fascination and talk to the boy, he resorts to an ever more creepy stalking and skulking. This parallels his relationship to his lost art. He can neither retire, nor can he break out in a new direction. Through flashback we see his creative straightjacket described (in insufferably shouty discussions with a fellow artist. Apparently what artists do mostly is Shout! About! ART!) where compromise is seen as weakness. There is a beautiful scene where Tadzio walks on the beach, wrapped in a towel like a Greek statue while the protagonist composes and we hear the opera singer in his head. This is the best that can happen for the poor composer but it leaves him unsatisfied.
He suffers further degradations relating to his one-sided pursuit of Tadzio and therefore to his vanishing youth. There's an ominous early scene where the composer recoils in disgust at a man with dyed hair and makeup, grotesquely trying to remain young, but by the end the composer himself is painting his hair and powdering his face. When he dies, his hair is ludicrously dripping black onto his face. Through his creepy pursuits, Tadzio becomes aware of the composer and often, when the composer is stalking/tailing him, he turns back with a placid, inscrutable expression. This frustrating lack of response is the primary engine that drives audience interest. Will they ever have closure? I was endlessly frustrated wishing that he'd just talk to Tadzio already. Probably by discovering that the idol was mere flesh and blood would have broken the spell. Instead the nostalgic obsession is left to fester and metastasize.
The film is chilly, sad, haunting and frustrating. It's primarily pathetic, as we watch an old letch slowly loose all of his dreams and his dignity. The film is ambiguous too about Tadzio. His role is primarily to act as inscrutable focal point of the composer's desires, but the exact nature of those desires is never explicitly spelled out and the audience must be content with informed guesses. There are no answers here, only problems.
Jun 7, 2014
The War of the Worlds: Next Century
Saw The War of the Worlds: Next Century, a Polish dystopian film where Martians have landed and have somehow set up an oppressive authoritarian regime. They broadcast announcements urging people to register as a "Friend of the Martians" for which they receive a complimentary ear tag. The protagonist is the host of a morning talk-show-style news program which disseminates announcements and propaganda. At first he is flattered and bribed and given life-passes and free ear tags and so on, but after a small act of rebellion, his wife is taken from him. This precipitates a crisis of conscience and he starts to fight back against the powers that be.
The film is very Kafka-esque. The level of sincerity of any character at any moment is often very hard to gauge. For example, the protagonist registers as a Friend of the Martians very obviously against his will. The registration official confides that he hates the Martians. Our hero is on the verge of confiding back but first asks "Are you playing a provocateur?" and the official responds that yes, he was just testing him. All of the interactions in the film are like that. A kindly prostitute may be a government agent. A crazy revolutionary is being manipulated by the powers that be.
The film is built on a desire to stir the audience to some form of resistance and is therefore quite bleak. Television is positioned as the supreme controller of the masses and there is no winning against this foe. The film slightly falls victim of its own pessimism, I feel, but then the film would feel a bit cheap if the rebels succeeded and all was well in the end. Bleak and slightly wearying, this is a joyless film about joyless stuff. It's the least humorous dystopia I've seen in a while. Interesting but heavy.
Edit: Had a bit of time to think about the film and something I forgot to mention was that us humans, not the Martians, are the true villains of the film. The Martians are barely even seen and it is implied that we humans have skillfully made slaves of ourselves. I wonder (in my profoundly ignorant little way) if this may have a connection with Poland during WW2? When a victim blames themselves for their suffering, it flatters their own sense of agency and denies the embarrassing label of 'victim.' Could this film be a manifestation of shame at Poland's failure to resist the Nazis? I have no idea, but it's an interesting lens to view the film through anyway.
The film is very Kafka-esque. The level of sincerity of any character at any moment is often very hard to gauge. For example, the protagonist registers as a Friend of the Martians very obviously against his will. The registration official confides that he hates the Martians. Our hero is on the verge of confiding back but first asks "Are you playing a provocateur?" and the official responds that yes, he was just testing him. All of the interactions in the film are like that. A kindly prostitute may be a government agent. A crazy revolutionary is being manipulated by the powers that be.
The film is built on a desire to stir the audience to some form of resistance and is therefore quite bleak. Television is positioned as the supreme controller of the masses and there is no winning against this foe. The film slightly falls victim of its own pessimism, I feel, but then the film would feel a bit cheap if the rebels succeeded and all was well in the end. Bleak and slightly wearying, this is a joyless film about joyless stuff. It's the least humorous dystopia I've seen in a while. Interesting but heavy.
Edit: Had a bit of time to think about the film and something I forgot to mention was that us humans, not the Martians, are the true villains of the film. The Martians are barely even seen and it is implied that we humans have skillfully made slaves of ourselves. I wonder (in my profoundly ignorant little way) if this may have a connection with Poland during WW2? When a victim blames themselves for their suffering, it flatters their own sense of agency and denies the embarrassing label of 'victim.' Could this film be a manifestation of shame at Poland's failure to resist the Nazis? I have no idea, but it's an interesting lens to view the film through anyway.
Jun 6, 2014
Dead Silence
Saw Dead Silence (thanks, Kim!) It was a modern horror film (which means, of course, that I had to watch it with one hand on the volume at all times. I'll always be a wimp.) It revolved around killer puppets. I thought the way the themes of the plot tied together was the most interesting. I believe the film began as a primarily sensual concept: the murders should always happen in (dead) silence. This allows the boom and bang of the jump scare to be all the jumpier. From there, the film's writers hit upon ventriloquist dummies as a rich source of ideas revolving around voice/non-voice/sound/living/dead/etc-type themes. From there, they filled in the details with a belligerent cop, some old curses, spooky dolls, add in a harmless crazy-person and we're done!
The original concept is quite promising but those details are so regrettably by-the-numbers. It's frustrating and I wish someone had put more care into the film, drawing meaning out of the themes and gaining insight. Of course, big words aside, I think this all really stems from a desire for a film which is less horrifying and more thought-provoking (but such is my weakness.) There's also an ancillary theme of parenthood/childhood but this also doesn't really go anywhere (for me anyway. Then again, I may have missed some illuminating dialogue in the scary scenes.) Again, the themes and concepts it toys with are interesting and rich, but the film primarily uses them to deliver scares. Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you, it's just that I'm not very interested in scares. Of the scares, they are indeed quite scary. This may not mean much coming from a wimp like me, but it was enough to make me resort to the volume control many times.
The exact style of horror also deserves a mention. It opens with a herky-jerky, fast/slow credit sequence that seemed reminiscent of reality TV openers. It continues into a Paranormal Activity-style domestic horror. Then someone mentions "local myths" and we're off to a spooky old town where we enter full-blown, classic Vampire-&-Frankenstein land, with lightning, dead leaves, and dry ice galore. Later on there's even an evil stepmother! I dug this collage of different horror styles. It's not as messy as I make it sound and felt nice and homage-y to me, like it was stripping back layers, travelling back in time to some primal place (this is even set up, perhaps, by an opening text crawl about the Latin roots of the word "ventriloquist.") I also liked spotting the different styles we went through (which, reader beware, sometimes means I'm making stuff up!) So, all in all, not a bad film. It was a bit much for a snivelling wimp like me, and also a bit too empty-headed for a pretentious ass like me, but it delivered scares and entertained. It did what it set out to do and did it well. What more can we ask for?
PS - The theatre at the climax is called the Guignol. This is appropriate for two reasons.
The original concept is quite promising but those details are so regrettably by-the-numbers. It's frustrating and I wish someone had put more care into the film, drawing meaning out of the themes and gaining insight. Of course, big words aside, I think this all really stems from a desire for a film which is less horrifying and more thought-provoking (but such is my weakness.) There's also an ancillary theme of parenthood/childhood but this also doesn't really go anywhere (for me anyway. Then again, I may have missed some illuminating dialogue in the scary scenes.) Again, the themes and concepts it toys with are interesting and rich, but the film primarily uses them to deliver scares. Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you, it's just that I'm not very interested in scares. Of the scares, they are indeed quite scary. This may not mean much coming from a wimp like me, but it was enough to make me resort to the volume control many times.
The exact style of horror also deserves a mention. It opens with a herky-jerky, fast/slow credit sequence that seemed reminiscent of reality TV openers. It continues into a Paranormal Activity-style domestic horror. Then someone mentions "local myths" and we're off to a spooky old town where we enter full-blown, classic Vampire-&-Frankenstein land, with lightning, dead leaves, and dry ice galore. Later on there's even an evil stepmother! I dug this collage of different horror styles. It's not as messy as I make it sound and felt nice and homage-y to me, like it was stripping back layers, travelling back in time to some primal place (this is even set up, perhaps, by an opening text crawl about the Latin roots of the word "ventriloquist.") I also liked spotting the different styles we went through (which, reader beware, sometimes means I'm making stuff up!) So, all in all, not a bad film. It was a bit much for a snivelling wimp like me, and also a bit too empty-headed for a pretentious ass like me, but it delivered scares and entertained. It did what it set out to do and did it well. What more can we ask for?
PS - The theatre at the climax is called the Guignol. This is appropriate for two reasons.
Jun 4, 2014
The Man Who Laughs
Saw The Man Who Laughs, an amazing, grotesque spectacle. Made in the 20s, it's the extremely theatrical tale of a boy disfigured at a young age by illicit surgeon-gypsies to have a permanent smile on his face. The boy grows into a man and becomes a circus freak. He has some kind of romance with a blind girl and also political machinations whirl about him due to his birth (it's very Dickensian. Money and titles solve everything.) the film is theatrical not only in its plot but in its acting and subject. The smiling man is always surrounded by clowns and freaks. The actors all have these deeply wrinkled, very expressive faces (except for the love interest of course, who is smooth and tiny-featured.) They roll their eyes and shake their heads and carry on so grotesquely, it almost seems like a parody of itself.
This film has all of the best of the silent-era madness. Obvious characterization, telling-not-showing, grotesque facial expressions, those black rings around the eyes, and mobs of dirty, ugly people. Mot of the film takes place on a fairgrounds so there's much ugly madness going on. At one point, a slumming duchess is pawed by a drunken gang of men. They don't hide it either, it's dead centre. There's also the bewildering and freaky opening plot point of the surgeon-gypsies. They're only on screen for a moment, but their existence alone is amazing.
the above makes this film sound very crazy (it is) but it's also very broad and a bit slow by today's standards. The film has no pretensions to high art. It's a fairly straightforward (though overwrought and madcap) morality play. I think this film is best enjoyed as a curiosity, with friends. It's very wild, very weird, very strange. (also, bonus: the Batman villain the Joker is said to have been modelled on the smiling man. Again, the smile is pretty freaky.)
This film has all of the best of the silent-era madness. Obvious characterization, telling-not-showing, grotesque facial expressions, those black rings around the eyes, and mobs of dirty, ugly people. Mot of the film takes place on a fairgrounds so there's much ugly madness going on. At one point, a slumming duchess is pawed by a drunken gang of men. They don't hide it either, it's dead centre. There's also the bewildering and freaky opening plot point of the surgeon-gypsies. They're only on screen for a moment, but their existence alone is amazing.
the above makes this film sound very crazy (it is) but it's also very broad and a bit slow by today's standards. The film has no pretensions to high art. It's a fairly straightforward (though overwrought and madcap) morality play. I think this film is best enjoyed as a curiosity, with friends. It's very wild, very weird, very strange. (also, bonus: the Batman villain the Joker is said to have been modelled on the smiling man. Again, the smile is pretty freaky.)
Jun 3, 2014
Funny Games
Saw Funny Games, an extremely aggressive film by Michael Haneke. The film opens on a family vacationing in some opulent, Martha's Vineyard-style boating community. Two young men drop by. They are polite and courteous but they will not leave. The young men then begin playing sadistic games with the family. This is a hard film to watch. It is a film you can trust however. There are no jump scares but the tension is often unbearable. At one point a member of the family gets away. The camera voraciously follows them, which we savvy viewers knows spells doom. If the one who gets away gets help, then they vanish from the film with dubious chances of survival. That we are watching them can only mean that one of the sadists is not far behind.
The film has several moments like this, giving you hope and then sucking it away slowly but steadily. It also has a thick gloss of meta-level commentary. The killer who seems to be in charge directly addresses the camera several times, the first time winking at us. He asks us if we've had enough later on and uses a remote to help in his torture. Near the very end, the killers discuss an imaginary film one of them wants to direct. It involves a superhero travelling between reality and fiction. I have the subtitles. The discussion is:
"But the fiction is real, isn't it?"
"How do you mean?"
"Well, you see it in the film, right?"
"Of course."
"So, it's just as real as the reality which you see likewise, right?"
Subtle, Haneke. The fourth wall-breaking is his attempt to implicate us the viewer in the shenanigans on screen and the dialogue above is his attempt to remove the "just a movie" defence. I'm not sure I buy this argument (I go further: I do not buy this argument) but it is compelling. I think that to condemn us for pressing play is to deny responsibility for having made the film in the first place. The argument that the film seemingly makes, that it should not exist, is one built on very treacherous ground.
I was anticipating this film because I wanted to be horrified and by golly I was. That the film goes into a meta-level place, trying to derive horror from the fact that I the viewer could possibly be interested in this subject is an interesting choice. I'm glad it goes there too, because otherwise it would just be another run-of-the-mill slasher. I react to its attempt to make me responsible with ebullient enthusiasm. This is partly out of spite.
Anyway, the film is hard going, but not as hard as some I've seen. Haneke has an iron grip on our pulse rate and makes a hell of a movie. I'd like to see the American version, but not any time soon.
The film has several moments like this, giving you hope and then sucking it away slowly but steadily. It also has a thick gloss of meta-level commentary. The killer who seems to be in charge directly addresses the camera several times, the first time winking at us. He asks us if we've had enough later on and uses a remote to help in his torture. Near the very end, the killers discuss an imaginary film one of them wants to direct. It involves a superhero travelling between reality and fiction. I have the subtitles. The discussion is:
"But the fiction is real, isn't it?"
"How do you mean?"
"Well, you see it in the film, right?"
"Of course."
"So, it's just as real as the reality which you see likewise, right?"
Subtle, Haneke. The fourth wall-breaking is his attempt to implicate us the viewer in the shenanigans on screen and the dialogue above is his attempt to remove the "just a movie" defence. I'm not sure I buy this argument (I go further: I do not buy this argument) but it is compelling. I think that to condemn us for pressing play is to deny responsibility for having made the film in the first place. The argument that the film seemingly makes, that it should not exist, is one built on very treacherous ground.
I was anticipating this film because I wanted to be horrified and by golly I was. That the film goes into a meta-level place, trying to derive horror from the fact that I the viewer could possibly be interested in this subject is an interesting choice. I'm glad it goes there too, because otherwise it would just be another run-of-the-mill slasher. I react to its attempt to make me responsible with ebullient enthusiasm. This is partly out of spite.
Anyway, the film is hard going, but not as hard as some I've seen. Haneke has an iron grip on our pulse rate and makes a hell of a movie. I'd like to see the American version, but not any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)