Saw Tout ce qui Brille (AKA All That Glitters) (thanks, Nina!) It was a film about the dangers of high society. The film revolves around these two girls who are such adorably good friends that they talk in a dense jargon of in-jokes and nonsense words. They are pugnaciously bratty to others but in a tough, winning way. I was more inclined to side with the girls against the world. They meet up with some high-society lesbians (I think lesbians anyway) who at first think they're one the rich beautiful people. Soon however, they are passing their coats to the girls and asking them to look after their kids.
One of the girls falls begrudgingly into this servant role and the other finds herself a sugar-daddy, repulsively semi-whoring herself out (semi-spoiler, and because this film is about the dangers of money, the sugar daddy thing does not exactly work out well.) This drives a wedge between the two girls and serves as a cautionary tale against the corrupting powers of money and pretension.
Around the girls orbit a supporting cast of embarrassing low-class friends, awkward family, and assorted captial-c Characters. The film is overall quite pleasant. Even the sad parts are kind of sweet in a way. You get the sense that the girls have both grown into better people, just people who don't want to see each other any more. It reminded me of The Devil Wears Prada in its tone and message. The themes are serious, but the action is usually not.
Take all of the above with a grain of salt however, because the subtitles I was using were babelfish.com-translated from the French subs for the hearing impaired. It lightened the mood sometimes. After a big fight between the girls, I bust out laughing when "melancholy orchestra" appeared at the bottom of my screen. Also the girls may have been speaking perfectly normal french, but I get shit like
"Elvis love you."
"That's nice. I love it too."
or
"Give him. I do not want this bag of shit."
"On galley to move you, and thou mouths."
What??? I can kind of follow but it makes everything into choppy poetry. No better subtitles exist online and the DVD only has french subtitles (at least on amazon anyway.) But I guess that's France for you. Ugh. A cute little movie with zen koans for dialogue.
Jul 31, 2014
Jul 30, 2014
Trash Humpers
Saw Trash Humpers, a film that could probably be described as more of an experience than a story. The film is composed of a series of little skit-like scenes which follow the adventures of three people in old-person makeup and garish clothing. They merrily hump trashcans and tree branches and plants (which I think stretches the definition of "trash" a tad, but I'm just picky I guess.) They smash electronics and kill some people in very low-budget ways. The scenes are sometimes kind of hilarious (there's a scene with what I guess are the most game prostitutes ever) or surreal (there's a birthday party that's pretty fun) but are most often we get the definite result of some punk-y kids in masks just messing around.
The film smacks of trying a bit hard at times. For example, there's a scene where a little boy in a suit hits a doll with a hammer (oh my! Whatever will Mattel think?) Later on a man in a french maid outfit recites a poem about how cool trash is (but- but it's trash!? Trash? Cool? My brains!) I don't want to be too dismissive as that's a very easy posture to adopt, but it feels a lot like a high school kid re-discovering the joy of destruction and, carried away by this sense of breaking taboos, wrapping it up in an aggressive, confrontational film.
There's one main clever idea and here it is: The film is intentionally trash. By watching it (and worse, by analyzing it) we become the Trash Humpers, gratifying ourselves on this trash. But (and here's where the film gets a bit twaddle-y) this isn't a bad thing because trash and trashing things is pretty cool and so are you for watching this film. It's a bold move to try to sucker your audience like this but then Harmony Korine (the director) has sort of made a career out of producing extremely unpleasant films. I admit, I was kind of annoyed by the film, so mission accomplished I guess. In addition to the general abrasiveness of the film (there's an almost constant rooster-crow-like cackle coming from behind the camera, just to give you a taste of the annoyance in this thing,) I found it to be fairly inventive and amusing in parts, so maybe there's some counter-currents flowing through this film. I don't know.
I think Korine tries to flex his art chops a bit here, but the results are a bit lumpy and also a bit obvious (at one point a character declares that everyone who has jobs are stupid and that they, the trash humpers, are the only truly free ones around. Okay.) The "everything sucks except sucky things which are awesome" meme is kind of easy and dumb and anyway only is presented here and not spun or explored really at all. It's fun to get lost in the mayhem for a little while, just to sort of get a taste of the nihilism, but then you've really got to move on.
The film smacks of trying a bit hard at times. For example, there's a scene where a little boy in a suit hits a doll with a hammer (oh my! Whatever will Mattel think?) Later on a man in a french maid outfit recites a poem about how cool trash is (but- but it's trash!? Trash? Cool? My brains!) I don't want to be too dismissive as that's a very easy posture to adopt, but it feels a lot like a high school kid re-discovering the joy of destruction and, carried away by this sense of breaking taboos, wrapping it up in an aggressive, confrontational film.
There's one main clever idea and here it is: The film is intentionally trash. By watching it (and worse, by analyzing it) we become the Trash Humpers, gratifying ourselves on this trash. But (and here's where the film gets a bit twaddle-y) this isn't a bad thing because trash and trashing things is pretty cool and so are you for watching this film. It's a bold move to try to sucker your audience like this but then Harmony Korine (the director) has sort of made a career out of producing extremely unpleasant films. I admit, I was kind of annoyed by the film, so mission accomplished I guess. In addition to the general abrasiveness of the film (there's an almost constant rooster-crow-like cackle coming from behind the camera, just to give you a taste of the annoyance in this thing,) I found it to be fairly inventive and amusing in parts, so maybe there's some counter-currents flowing through this film. I don't know.
I think Korine tries to flex his art chops a bit here, but the results are a bit lumpy and also a bit obvious (at one point a character declares that everyone who has jobs are stupid and that they, the trash humpers, are the only truly free ones around. Okay.) The "everything sucks except sucky things which are awesome" meme is kind of easy and dumb and anyway only is presented here and not spun or explored really at all. It's fun to get lost in the mayhem for a little while, just to sort of get a taste of the nihilism, but then you've really got to move on.
Jul 28, 2014
Lake Mungo
Saw Lake Mungo, an unconventional Australian ghost movie. It's filmed in a documentary style, interviews spliced with footage from the central family's home movies. The premise is that the daughter of a family dies in a swimming accident. Soon the remaining family begins hearing creaks and bangs, begins seeing shadowy figures in their photographs. They begin investigating the death of their daughter and her life which is not all it seems.
The mood reminded me a lot of David Lynch (spoiler) particularly Twin Peaks (/spoiler). It's not homage-y or even very clearly borrowing, but when it tries to be creepy, it achieves this very Lynchian other-worldliness. There's only one conventional jump-scare but the bulk of the film is talking heads and voice-overs narrating slow pans down perfectly ordinary hallways, made creepy by lighting and mood. An oppressive tension mounts during these crawls. The filmmakers don't keep an iron grip on this tension, however, and they let the tension curdle into confusion and unease. This works thematically as the film is really not interested anyway in the easy scariness of the haunting, but in the complex scariness of small-town secrets and the madness of grief.
Every character you meet in the film is corrupt and flawed in some way. When the machinery behind the ghost is explained, it disappointed me (as usual.) The film would have been much better is the ghost had literally been a manifestation of mental problems, instead of just symbolically. Not a bad film. Not as scary as a horror fan might want, but it has mood and atmosphere.
The mood reminded me a lot of David Lynch (spoiler) particularly Twin Peaks (/spoiler). It's not homage-y or even very clearly borrowing, but when it tries to be creepy, it achieves this very Lynchian other-worldliness. There's only one conventional jump-scare but the bulk of the film is talking heads and voice-overs narrating slow pans down perfectly ordinary hallways, made creepy by lighting and mood. An oppressive tension mounts during these crawls. The filmmakers don't keep an iron grip on this tension, however, and they let the tension curdle into confusion and unease. This works thematically as the film is really not interested anyway in the easy scariness of the haunting, but in the complex scariness of small-town secrets and the madness of grief.
Every character you meet in the film is corrupt and flawed in some way. When the machinery behind the ghost is explained, it disappointed me (as usual.) The film would have been much better is the ghost had literally been a manifestation of mental problems, instead of just symbolically. Not a bad film. Not as scary as a horror fan might want, but it has mood and atmosphere.
Jul 27, 2014
The Spirit of the Beehive
Saw The Spirit of the Beehive. It was one of those films where I can tell something's going on but it's too austere and oblique for me to figure out. The plot follows two sisters who are shaken by the scene in Jimmy Whales' version of Frankenstein when the monster throws the little girl into the water, killing her. One girl whispers to the other "why did he kill her?" She is really asking the larger question of "why did she have to die?" In a childish attempt at a power-grab, the other sister replies that she knows but won't tell. This sends both girls on a morbid journey of coming to terms with death. They do this in a childish way, frustrated and bored, via games and make-believe.
The film is told in a non-sensational, oblique way. For example, we see the girls' mother mail a letter and, based only on her furtiveness and the leering looks of men on a train, we suspect that she is writing to a lover. But there's nothing concrete, only this suspicion that's built up. Their father is much more accessible. He is a gentleman of some kind who teaches the girls about thematically poisonous mushrooms and keeps the titular beehive. To him, the busy activity of the hive is a mocking mirror for human affairs. As the bees' actions are of no consequence, so too, he concludes, is that of humans.
The film is excellent at being evocative. There's a scene at school when one of the girls puts in the eyes of an anatomical doll and is kind of freaked out. I don't know why, but somehow in that moment the doll is indeed freaky. You are thrust back into the madness of childhood when fantasy was so much stronger. There's a brilliant sequence where one of the girls is walking by a black steam. Is it the styx or is it the river that the monster threw the little girl into?
The subtler points of the film's plot are kind of lost on me (I don't know, for example, who their mother was writing to although I think it was explained) and a lot of action I had to just accept more than understand. That said, it is quite evocative and deliberate. I was sort of falling asleep through the first half (I use the word "deliberate" as a flattering was of saying "slow") but then the following occurred to me, which kept me alert through the rest of the film: if the film is about death, then surely one of the girls has to die. I won't tell if I guessed right or wrong.
The film is told in a non-sensational, oblique way. For example, we see the girls' mother mail a letter and, based only on her furtiveness and the leering looks of men on a train, we suspect that she is writing to a lover. But there's nothing concrete, only this suspicion that's built up. Their father is much more accessible. He is a gentleman of some kind who teaches the girls about thematically poisonous mushrooms and keeps the titular beehive. To him, the busy activity of the hive is a mocking mirror for human affairs. As the bees' actions are of no consequence, so too, he concludes, is that of humans.
The film is excellent at being evocative. There's a scene at school when one of the girls puts in the eyes of an anatomical doll and is kind of freaked out. I don't know why, but somehow in that moment the doll is indeed freaky. You are thrust back into the madness of childhood when fantasy was so much stronger. There's a brilliant sequence where one of the girls is walking by a black steam. Is it the styx or is it the river that the monster threw the little girl into?
The subtler points of the film's plot are kind of lost on me (I don't know, for example, who their mother was writing to although I think it was explained) and a lot of action I had to just accept more than understand. That said, it is quite evocative and deliberate. I was sort of falling asleep through the first half (I use the word "deliberate" as a flattering was of saying "slow") but then the following occurred to me, which kept me alert through the rest of the film: if the film is about death, then surely one of the girls has to die. I won't tell if I guessed right or wrong.
Jul 26, 2014
Hardware
Saw Hardware, a lurid 90s scifi set in some nondescript post-apocalypse. Humans have over-populated and radiation is rampant (as are goats, for some reason.) The main character is a female artist who produces creepy industrial sculptures and dates some dude who finds a nifty robot skull in the desert. But oh no! The robo-skull is part of some evil machine that can self-repair! It creepily ogles the artist and her boyfriend as they have sex (as does another, human voyeur. Like I say, this all gets pretty lurid.) There's a lot of symbolism floating around as well. The evil robot is spray-painted with stars and stripes. When it inevitably tries to kill the artist, it uses a phallic drill that, of course, is headed right between her legs.
There's some other business going on as well. The boyfriend is named Moses and reads passages from the bible. There's talk of a government sterilization program (hence the stars and stripes on the robot.) All of these provide little hints and clues toward a larger mythos but unfortunately all of this plays second fiddle to the morbid "fun" of watching this woman grapple with her big mechanical enemy. My interest in mining the ideas of this film is further dampened by the general creepiness outlined in the preceding paragraph. I feel like this would have made a pretty solid comic book. As it is, it's a bit too juvenile, self-referential, and smugly satisfied with just being gritty to interest me much. Alas, this one didn't grab me.
There's some other business going on as well. The boyfriend is named Moses and reads passages from the bible. There's talk of a government sterilization program (hence the stars and stripes on the robot.) All of these provide little hints and clues toward a larger mythos but unfortunately all of this plays second fiddle to the morbid "fun" of watching this woman grapple with her big mechanical enemy. My interest in mining the ideas of this film is further dampened by the general creepiness outlined in the preceding paragraph. I feel like this would have made a pretty solid comic book. As it is, it's a bit too juvenile, self-referential, and smugly satisfied with just being gritty to interest me much. Alas, this one didn't grab me.
Jul 25, 2014
Funny Bones
Saw Funny Bones (thanks, Basil!) It was a humorous non-comedy about the show business of comedy. It follows a comedian trying to make it in the enormous shadow of his father. The comedian is dying we presume because he keeps repeating that he doesn't have long to live. In an attempt to reignite his creative juices and to connect with something meaningful, he returns to his childhood home. It is a fading land full of fat, gaudily-dressed housewives and the remnants of an ancient comedy underground. The film uses clownish slapstick as the symbol of "real" comedy and therefore embraces the inherent grotesquerie and pathos of clowns. One of the characters profoundly explains that all of comedy comes from pain and that comedy is the alchemical spinning of gold from this dross.
It's an idea I used to be obsessed with and one I find very interesting. With such a neat idea to chew over, I just wish the film had been a bit better. It leans on the show-biz stuff of crowds cheering in slow motion and over-the-top histrionics. The effect is nicely artificial and hysterical-feeling and kind of merrily ghoulish, as all good circus acts should be, but it also has a circus act's quality of frivolity. To be blunt, I never felt like anything mattered. We never get to really know the protagonist and his hopes and dreams are never as interesting to me as, say, an inexplicable side-plot involving a mumu-clad Oliver Reed. That said, the film does deliver on many other fronts. It's visually splendid, delightfully melodramatic, and moody. The film seems like a darker version of Moulin Rouge! with less glam and more grotesques.
Overall the film is definitely interesting. It deals with ideas a bit too lightly for my taste, but I perhaps only feel this way because the film has had the misfortune of hitting on one of my pet obsessions (namely that comedy IS pain, man.) I would have loved this in high school. Now, in my jaded advanced years, I'm a bit too distracted by the goofy lightness of the plot to be sucked into the delightful ugly whimsy of the film.
It's an idea I used to be obsessed with and one I find very interesting. With such a neat idea to chew over, I just wish the film had been a bit better. It leans on the show-biz stuff of crowds cheering in slow motion and over-the-top histrionics. The effect is nicely artificial and hysterical-feeling and kind of merrily ghoulish, as all good circus acts should be, but it also has a circus act's quality of frivolity. To be blunt, I never felt like anything mattered. We never get to really know the protagonist and his hopes and dreams are never as interesting to me as, say, an inexplicable side-plot involving a mumu-clad Oliver Reed. That said, the film does deliver on many other fronts. It's visually splendid, delightfully melodramatic, and moody. The film seems like a darker version of Moulin Rouge! with less glam and more grotesques.
Overall the film is definitely interesting. It deals with ideas a bit too lightly for my taste, but I perhaps only feel this way because the film has had the misfortune of hitting on one of my pet obsessions (namely that comedy IS pain, man.) I would have loved this in high school. Now, in my jaded advanced years, I'm a bit too distracted by the goofy lightness of the plot to be sucked into the delightful ugly whimsy of the film.
Jul 24, 2014
Planet Earth, Episodes 1 and 2
Saw the first two episodes of the BBC series Planet Earth, a lush and lavish nature documentary. It's extremely beautiful and heady. It's narrated by the kindly, classy, and slightly kooky voice of David Attenborough. Every so often he'll throw a weird pronunciation at you, just to see if you're paying attention. "Avalanche," for example, is pronounced in a (perhaps more correct?) French manner.
The main point of the series is to entrance and mesmerize and on this count it succeeds admirably. Overwhelming aerial shots pornographically revel in the sweep and majesty of tundra and mountain and veldt. Giant herds of caribou and colossal flocks of birds are used to admirable effect. It's films like this which make me hunger for an HD TV. The images are consistently spectacular and the narration is warm and cozy and just informative enough for me to be able to flatter myself with how very clever I must be, to watch such enriching stuff.
Occupied as the series is with visual splendour, it is not overly careful about intellectual rigour. It falls into a few little problems which are common to a lot of nature shows. If you watch carefully, you'll notice that implied close-ups of predator and prey are actually different animals. Creative editing only makes it seem like a tense chase. There's other visual manipulation on display as well, such as when David tells us that a certain crane must brave fast winds to migrate, juxtaposing this information with a shot of turbulent clouds that are actually sped up. There's also of course the usual personification of the animals. The noble prey is struggling to survive, the non-photogenic predator is opportunistic and "evil." Pretty predators are feeding their cubs. Mothers always care about their babies.
These are of course very minor complaints however and can be levelled at any nature documentary. Yes, the shots and the words are chosen to manipulate your emotions and goose the action, but isn't it better to say "the mountains seethe with smoky rage" than "the mountains express methane?" Anyway, on to the episodes.
Episode 1 - Pole to Pole
We travel latitude by latitude down the earth, from north to south. There's a breathtaking flock of birds very near the beginning which tells us what visual treats we're in for. The northern-most forests were very pretty and if David hadn't pointed out that there were no tracks, I wouldn't have noticed. There's a wonderfully entertaining bunch of shots of birds of paradise putting on courting displays (which, I noticed with amusement, are always shut down by the females.) The elephants' sequence was very touching and nice. (Let this episode review serve as a warning: these reviews will not have much depth. In my defence there are no characters or plot to these shows. It's hard to provide insight into a series of pretty images.)
Episode 2 - Mountains
We tour the earth's mountains. I noticed some awkward narration here. David mentions that the Rockies are shrinking. The implication then is that erosion is acting faster than the mountains are being pushed up by tectonic forces, but he goes on to say that all mountains are being worn away by wind and rain, implying that no, all mountains are shrinking. Later on he says Mt Everest is growing. Nothing incorrect, just a tad confusing I feel. The mountains, oddly, are personified in this episode quite a bit. They "seethe" and "smoulder," they are "battling" the wind and are "inhospitable." Fitting, I suppose, as they are the stars of this episode. A lot of nice background on many famous mountains. We are told if they're growing or shrinking and where they came from. There's also a good helping of the animals which are the show's bread and butter. Mountain cats and monkeys are the stars here. Another mama-bear with cubs. In the polar episode there was a mama-polar-bear. I hope this trend continues with a bear in every episode. Let's keep a look out!
The main point of the series is to entrance and mesmerize and on this count it succeeds admirably. Overwhelming aerial shots pornographically revel in the sweep and majesty of tundra and mountain and veldt. Giant herds of caribou and colossal flocks of birds are used to admirable effect. It's films like this which make me hunger for an HD TV. The images are consistently spectacular and the narration is warm and cozy and just informative enough for me to be able to flatter myself with how very clever I must be, to watch such enriching stuff.
Occupied as the series is with visual splendour, it is not overly careful about intellectual rigour. It falls into a few little problems which are common to a lot of nature shows. If you watch carefully, you'll notice that implied close-ups of predator and prey are actually different animals. Creative editing only makes it seem like a tense chase. There's other visual manipulation on display as well, such as when David tells us that a certain crane must brave fast winds to migrate, juxtaposing this information with a shot of turbulent clouds that are actually sped up. There's also of course the usual personification of the animals. The noble prey is struggling to survive, the non-photogenic predator is opportunistic and "evil." Pretty predators are feeding their cubs. Mothers always care about their babies.
These are of course very minor complaints however and can be levelled at any nature documentary. Yes, the shots and the words are chosen to manipulate your emotions and goose the action, but isn't it better to say "the mountains seethe with smoky rage" than "the mountains express methane?" Anyway, on to the episodes.
Episode 1 - Pole to Pole
We travel latitude by latitude down the earth, from north to south. There's a breathtaking flock of birds very near the beginning which tells us what visual treats we're in for. The northern-most forests were very pretty and if David hadn't pointed out that there were no tracks, I wouldn't have noticed. There's a wonderfully entertaining bunch of shots of birds of paradise putting on courting displays (which, I noticed with amusement, are always shut down by the females.) The elephants' sequence was very touching and nice. (Let this episode review serve as a warning: these reviews will not have much depth. In my defence there are no characters or plot to these shows. It's hard to provide insight into a series of pretty images.)
Episode 2 - Mountains
We tour the earth's mountains. I noticed some awkward narration here. David mentions that the Rockies are shrinking. The implication then is that erosion is acting faster than the mountains are being pushed up by tectonic forces, but he goes on to say that all mountains are being worn away by wind and rain, implying that no, all mountains are shrinking. Later on he says Mt Everest is growing. Nothing incorrect, just a tad confusing I feel. The mountains, oddly, are personified in this episode quite a bit. They "seethe" and "smoulder," they are "battling" the wind and are "inhospitable." Fitting, I suppose, as they are the stars of this episode. A lot of nice background on many famous mountains. We are told if they're growing or shrinking and where they came from. There's also a good helping of the animals which are the show's bread and butter. Mountain cats and monkeys are the stars here. Another mama-bear with cubs. In the polar episode there was a mama-polar-bear. I hope this trend continues with a bear in every episode. Let's keep a look out!
Jul 23, 2014
Last Night
Saw Last Night, a film about the literal last night of the planet earth. An unspecified (although apparently sun-related) disaster is coming at midnight. Various inter-connected characters rush about Toronto tying up loose ends and predictably learning lessons and making connections and so forth. This film is short on spectacle and long on over-thought dialogues and weird inflection. There's very few rioting crowds and a lot less rape than you'd think. This is an essentially existential film, so hedonism, although respected as an alternate choice, is condemned as empty. Human interaction and the horror of being alone in the end is the primary motivator.
The film is very literary. It's full of little vignettes that cleverly mirror outside events. The dialogue is stiff stuff that sounds better on paper: "you may as well be cumming, as long as you're going." and is anyway delivered in a flat, ironic, bored way. I feel like it was adapted from a short story and suffers from over-adherence to the source. I dunno, it felt stiff. Its cleverness is often rewarding but is also sometimes a bit too cute. I'm thinking particularly of the fate of the woman in the bus here.
Anyway, the film has interesting ideas and characters which learn and grow and are organic and lovely. The action and acting are a bit stiff and deliberate. Ultimately I feel like I just somehow watched a book on tape.
The film is very literary. It's full of little vignettes that cleverly mirror outside events. The dialogue is stiff stuff that sounds better on paper: "you may as well be cumming, as long as you're going." and is anyway delivered in a flat, ironic, bored way. I feel like it was adapted from a short story and suffers from over-adherence to the source. I dunno, it felt stiff. Its cleverness is often rewarding but is also sometimes a bit too cute. I'm thinking particularly of the fate of the woman in the bus here.
Anyway, the film has interesting ideas and characters which learn and grow and are organic and lovely. The action and acting are a bit stiff and deliberate. Ultimately I feel like I just somehow watched a book on tape.
Jul 21, 2014
Jalsaghar
Saw Jalsaghar (AKA The Music Room) It followed the tragic tale of a rich nobleman who loved music in a desperate, morbid, decadent way. He is in financial trouble, we know, but he keeps throwing lavish concerts, clearly hoping to bury his anxiety over the future under showy displays of wealth. His family and even his servants beg him to leave off this self-destructive behaviour, but it slowly becomes his only refuge. Meanwhile, next door the future is arriving in the form of a nouveau riche farmer who interrupts the protagonist's music with his electric generators and his automobile and his fleet of tractors.
The film's heart is entirely on the side of the decadent aristocrat. It is not always kind to him, but it is completely sympathetic to him. He is not a contemptible figure but a tragic one. Very nice use of symbolism and the main character is filmed (especially as he gets older) is beautiful. The film is a bit dry, dealing as it does with the archetype of the rich dude who tragically goes broke and something something old ways are best ways, something something march of progress, and so on.
I am still too young and unsentimental to not really care about preserving traditions yet and thus this doesn't really hit as poignantly for me as I think it should. I felt the protagonist was usually being more childish than grand and though I feel I understand his motivations, I don't really accept them. Perhaps we are meant to reject the wallow in tragedy and instead view the film as a cautionary tale against an inability to change? Either way, I think this film would be age very well. It's very stirring at the end, very well plotted, and well characterized. A good movie.
The film's heart is entirely on the side of the decadent aristocrat. It is not always kind to him, but it is completely sympathetic to him. He is not a contemptible figure but a tragic one. Very nice use of symbolism and the main character is filmed (especially as he gets older) is beautiful. The film is a bit dry, dealing as it does with the archetype of the rich dude who tragically goes broke and something something old ways are best ways, something something march of progress, and so on.
I am still too young and unsentimental to not really care about preserving traditions yet and thus this doesn't really hit as poignantly for me as I think it should. I felt the protagonist was usually being more childish than grand and though I feel I understand his motivations, I don't really accept them. Perhaps we are meant to reject the wallow in tragedy and instead view the film as a cautionary tale against an inability to change? Either way, I think this film would be age very well. It's very stirring at the end, very well plotted, and well characterized. A good movie.
Jul 20, 2014
Freejack
Saw Freejack, a sci-fi film set 18 years in the future, in distant year of 2009(!) when people are able to live on by uploading their brains into computers and hijacking another person's body (apparently minds can't last inside of computers indefinitely because reasons.) Bodies from 2009 are for some reason unsuitable for this process, so they teleport someone from the past moments before their own death. Our hero is a plucky race-car driver who is summoned by this process and must deal with a super-violent future where social stratification is so severe that the rich live in a Fritz-Lang's-Metropolis-style city of glass and steel while the lower depths live in Escape-From-LA-style squalor.
The film follows the racer's adventures fleeing from the forces of body-snatchery. The usual business takes place: some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends, an evil mega-corp is involved as well as a punk/leather club where the hero is almost caught (everyone in the future wears only revealing fetish gear to clubs. This is established fact. Free film idea: people in techno clubs in the future wear only heavy, ornate coats and florid wigs.)
The film covers up any interesting ideas with breathless chase sequences and elaborate double-crosses. This is fine, I guess, but I wish they'd done more world-building. Why, for example, is the evil mega-corp's logo clearly a jack? And how are the riff-raff kept away from the richies? These questions don't really matter of course, but I'm not very captivated by yet another car chase. There's a lot in the film that's good anyway though, so don't think too badly of it. There's a swearing nun who is hilarious for example, and a wonderful bunch of imagery is spilled out during the climax of the film. So all in all this film, like a lot of films, is not bad, just unimportant and fluffy. Not boring but not very entertaining either, it's kind of a meh film for me.
The film follows the racer's adventures fleeing from the forces of body-snatchery. The usual business takes place: some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends, an evil mega-corp is involved as well as a punk/leather club where the hero is almost caught (everyone in the future wears only revealing fetish gear to clubs. This is established fact. Free film idea: people in techno clubs in the future wear only heavy, ornate coats and florid wigs.)
The film covers up any interesting ideas with breathless chase sequences and elaborate double-crosses. This is fine, I guess, but I wish they'd done more world-building. Why, for example, is the evil mega-corp's logo clearly a jack? And how are the riff-raff kept away from the richies? These questions don't really matter of course, but I'm not very captivated by yet another car chase. There's a lot in the film that's good anyway though, so don't think too badly of it. There's a swearing nun who is hilarious for example, and a wonderful bunch of imagery is spilled out during the climax of the film. So all in all this film, like a lot of films, is not bad, just unimportant and fluffy. Not boring but not very entertaining either, it's kind of a meh film for me.
Jul 19, 2014
Mood Indigo
Saw Mood Indigo (thanks, Nina!) It was a film by Michel Gondry, a man who usually creates very childish, whimsical films. This one is no different, opening on a factory where typewriters move across rows of people who switch off typing on them. They are writing the whimsical and disjointed story of the film we are about to see. Gondry employs his usual delightful visuals of low-fi special effects, eschewing CGI where haywire tape-and-string contraptions or chunky stop-motion and rear projection will suffice. It is true that Gondry prizes experiment over refinement, and that his films are often more raw and childish than clever or insightful. Sometimes this childishness bubbles over into preciousness or treacly sentiment, as I feel it does sometimes in Be Kind Rewind. In this film however he keeps his tendency for the twee largely in check, matching a sufficiently broad story of love and loss with his overwhelming visuals. The plot, of course, is not really the point of this film.
The film follows the romance of Colin and Chloe. He is friends with Chick, who is addicted to the writings of the philosopher Jean Sol-Partre (addicted to the point of huffing and injecting his books.) Colin's house-mate, Nicholas is a cook/lawyer who worships a TV-cook who responds to his questions on TV and points out what spices he should use next. It's all very fun and silly, but then money problems rear their head and soon Colin is growing gun-barrels at the proton-gun factory, Chloe is sick with water-lilies, Chick's addiction costs him his job, and Nicholas becomes an old man. I'm fond of saying that David Lynch directs nightmares. Michel Gondry directs sweet dreams. This dream is deeply tragic in a few parts, but the tragedy is as absurd and mirror-logical as the rest of the film. That the dream makes no sense in the harsh light of day does not make the dream any less beautiful however, or any less tragic.
You have to be willing to play along with this film. I am willing to make that effort, but I understand that not everyone is. It bewilders me that people who will readily defend a goofy action film by pointing out that it's "only" fluffy entertainment will often condemn an equally silly film only because it wears its silliness on its sleeve. Don't worry, you grumps! This film is also meaningless. It certainly means no harm and primarily aims to entertain. It approaches the world with childish dream-logic and so long as you are willing to surrender your cerebrum and do the same, the film will reward you. This is a kind fantasy, one in which I would not mind living.
The film follows the romance of Colin and Chloe. He is friends with Chick, who is addicted to the writings of the philosopher Jean Sol-Partre (addicted to the point of huffing and injecting his books.) Colin's house-mate, Nicholas is a cook/lawyer who worships a TV-cook who responds to his questions on TV and points out what spices he should use next. It's all very fun and silly, but then money problems rear their head and soon Colin is growing gun-barrels at the proton-gun factory, Chloe is sick with water-lilies, Chick's addiction costs him his job, and Nicholas becomes an old man. I'm fond of saying that David Lynch directs nightmares. Michel Gondry directs sweet dreams. This dream is deeply tragic in a few parts, but the tragedy is as absurd and mirror-logical as the rest of the film. That the dream makes no sense in the harsh light of day does not make the dream any less beautiful however, or any less tragic.
You have to be willing to play along with this film. I am willing to make that effort, but I understand that not everyone is. It bewilders me that people who will readily defend a goofy action film by pointing out that it's "only" fluffy entertainment will often condemn an equally silly film only because it wears its silliness on its sleeve. Don't worry, you grumps! This film is also meaningless. It certainly means no harm and primarily aims to entertain. It approaches the world with childish dream-logic and so long as you are willing to surrender your cerebrum and do the same, the film will reward you. This is a kind fantasy, one in which I would not mind living.
Jul 9, 2014
The Brood
Saw The Brood, a straightforward Cronenberg film. The plot follows a man whose wife is undergoing some kind of therapy at the hands of a deeply creepy therapist who practices an experimental form of therapy which produces stigmata and cancerous growths, in typical Cronenberg fashion. The man is fighting with his wife (by proxy of the therapist) for custody of his daughter. Meanwhile, horrid little creatures are killing the man's family. the two are connected of course, and this is revealed in a spectacular body-horror sequence near the end of the film.
The daughter, either due to the limitations of the child-actress, or due to directorial intent, remains almost completely blank-faced throughout the proceedings. She inscrutably watches some of the murders, gazing impassively and then crying, again for inscrutable reasons. The film, I believe, is exploiting fears of fatherhood. A mysterious creature is manifested from a woman who is so strange that in this film she is literally insane.
The film is fairly short and, like I say, mostly typical Cronenberg. There's body horror, mysterious figures of authority, a put-upon protagonist and an ambiguously gay assistant at one point (or if not gay, then at any rate he has that weird super-calm going on that a lot of artsy directors like. I got a gay vibe, I dunno.) It is unsurprising (well, the plot has reveals, but they're not so shocking.) The film's not scary so much as creepy and weird. About what I expected. Not bad, mind you, just not Cronenberg's best work.
The daughter, either due to the limitations of the child-actress, or due to directorial intent, remains almost completely blank-faced throughout the proceedings. She inscrutably watches some of the murders, gazing impassively and then crying, again for inscrutable reasons. The film, I believe, is exploiting fears of fatherhood. A mysterious creature is manifested from a woman who is so strange that in this film she is literally insane.
The film is fairly short and, like I say, mostly typical Cronenberg. There's body horror, mysterious figures of authority, a put-upon protagonist and an ambiguously gay assistant at one point (or if not gay, then at any rate he has that weird super-calm going on that a lot of artsy directors like. I got a gay vibe, I dunno.) It is unsurprising (well, the plot has reveals, but they're not so shocking.) The film's not scary so much as creepy and weird. About what I expected. Not bad, mind you, just not Cronenberg's best work.
Jul 7, 2014
Eden Lake
Saw Eden Lake, an ugly and cruel horror film. The plot follows a couple of yuppies as they go camping at a back-woods lake. Their idyllic holiday is interrupted by sulky, sullen local teenagers who ogle the lady and sneer at the man. At one point the couple goes to a diner and complain about the teens to a waitress who immediately becomes defensive. On the back of the Welcome to Lake Eden sign is graffiti reading "Fuck off yuppie cunts!" This class and generational warfare is the heart of the film and the reason I call it ugly.
We are supposed to understand that the suffering of the yuppies is punishment for the callous way in which they breeze into the back yards and into the literal homes of the rural folk, daring to take offence when they aren't respectfully welcomed. That the antagonists are (unbelievably evil) children is (I think) sort of the point of this film. The next generation learns from the cruelties of the old, the evil compounds and festers, etc. The woman is a kindergarten teacher and on the ride to the lake the radio is constantly murmuring about children and education. The future of children is on this film's mind and I feel there's a real point to be made here but horror really isn't the genre to do it in.
Horror, especially this Haneke-inspired cinema of cruelty, is really a genre best suited for creating anger, frustration, for polarizing thinking and for agitation. The corruption of innocence and the cruelty of children is a real thing and it really sucks but it inspires despair more than anger for me. Trying to work myself into a rage just seems counterproductive and retrograde. I'm now more in apt to condemn than to help anyone.
Anyway the whole message of the film is slathered under a thick, divisive layer of glorious class conflict. It's such nonsense. I hated the yuppies for interfering and not just leaving well enough alone (they approach the teens often, snapping impotent rebukes at them) and later on for just being pathetic (oh your hoodie is caught on a tree branch? Better tug at it for a minute instead of unhooking it in a second.) I hated the film for trying to make me identify with them. The film makes small-town poor people out to be unanimously evil, trashy, and physically unattractive to boot. The yuppies it makes out to be useless and suffering twits. This film is petty and small-minded, dealing in shock value and ideas that are not explored so much as exploited.
That said, it clearly upset and troubled me. I obviously felt some strong feelings. Maybe it's doing something right then, but watching this is like wearing wet underwear. Just increasingly unpleasant and uncomfortable. You can tell where the film is going after an hour and what are supposed to be terrible gut-punches are just hassle-y impositions.
We are supposed to understand that the suffering of the yuppies is punishment for the callous way in which they breeze into the back yards and into the literal homes of the rural folk, daring to take offence when they aren't respectfully welcomed. That the antagonists are (unbelievably evil) children is (I think) sort of the point of this film. The next generation learns from the cruelties of the old, the evil compounds and festers, etc. The woman is a kindergarten teacher and on the ride to the lake the radio is constantly murmuring about children and education. The future of children is on this film's mind and I feel there's a real point to be made here but horror really isn't the genre to do it in.
Horror, especially this Haneke-inspired cinema of cruelty, is really a genre best suited for creating anger, frustration, for polarizing thinking and for agitation. The corruption of innocence and the cruelty of children is a real thing and it really sucks but it inspires despair more than anger for me. Trying to work myself into a rage just seems counterproductive and retrograde. I'm now more in apt to condemn than to help anyone.
Anyway the whole message of the film is slathered under a thick, divisive layer of glorious class conflict. It's such nonsense. I hated the yuppies for interfering and not just leaving well enough alone (they approach the teens often, snapping impotent rebukes at them) and later on for just being pathetic (oh your hoodie is caught on a tree branch? Better tug at it for a minute instead of unhooking it in a second.) I hated the film for trying to make me identify with them. The film makes small-town poor people out to be unanimously evil, trashy, and physically unattractive to boot. The yuppies it makes out to be useless and suffering twits. This film is petty and small-minded, dealing in shock value and ideas that are not explored so much as exploited.
That said, it clearly upset and troubled me. I obviously felt some strong feelings. Maybe it's doing something right then, but watching this is like wearing wet underwear. Just increasingly unpleasant and uncomfortable. You can tell where the film is going after an hour and what are supposed to be terrible gut-punches are just hassle-y impositions.
Jul 6, 2014
Nema-ye Nazdik
Saw Nema-ye Nazdik, an Iranian docufiction almost entirely about fiction. It revolves around the true story of a man who impersonated the Iranian director Makhmalbaf. He befriends a family of film enthusiasts who feed him and lend him money until they realize it's just an act. The bulk of the film takes place during the trial. Composed equal parts of candid moments and reenacted scenes, it's always difficult to understand the true reality of the situation. the actual people involved in the case play themselves but there are many time we know they are reenacting something for our benefit. Are we being fooled or is a deeper truth being revealed?
At the trial, the impersonator's defence consists of the argument that in exchange for the food and money, he provided the family with a moment when they felt like they were friends with someone famous. This, he argues, is a gift worth food and money. He argues that he never meant for things to get this out of hand, but the family fires back that he lying. He is only playing the part of contrite penitent, they cry, just as he played the part of the famous director. Again, the nature of deception and fiction butt heads. The impersonator sheepishly admits that he was always interested in being an actor.
The best scene by far is the ending scene, which has the impersonator meeting up with the actual famous director. This is filmed from far off, from inside a car whose windows are cracked, obscuring that which is already obscure. The sound is captured with old lapel-mics whose sound fades in and out (though sometimes this is a bit too convenient.) We silently follow the director and the impersonator as they ride together on a motorcycle. The imitation in the back, embracing the original. The lie and the truth are cheek to cheek for just a moment. We see them speaking, but do not hear what passes between them. A deeply evocative scene.
The film is very deliberately paced. It's often slow and I sometimes had to struggle to pay attention. Many scenes are recreated by the actual people, but those people are not actors and some scenes have a half-baked, amateurish feel to them. For all of that, though, it's a tremendously thoughtful film. Rarely does form and content so perfectly mesh. I suspect the film lies to us a few times, but then it has provided an interesting story in exchange for the lies. Have we been cheated? Is the film guilty of gross misrepresentation or has it simply told a lie through which it tells the truth?
At the trial, the impersonator's defence consists of the argument that in exchange for the food and money, he provided the family with a moment when they felt like they were friends with someone famous. This, he argues, is a gift worth food and money. He argues that he never meant for things to get this out of hand, but the family fires back that he lying. He is only playing the part of contrite penitent, they cry, just as he played the part of the famous director. Again, the nature of deception and fiction butt heads. The impersonator sheepishly admits that he was always interested in being an actor.
The best scene by far is the ending scene, which has the impersonator meeting up with the actual famous director. This is filmed from far off, from inside a car whose windows are cracked, obscuring that which is already obscure. The sound is captured with old lapel-mics whose sound fades in and out (though sometimes this is a bit too convenient.) We silently follow the director and the impersonator as they ride together on a motorcycle. The imitation in the back, embracing the original. The lie and the truth are cheek to cheek for just a moment. We see them speaking, but do not hear what passes between them. A deeply evocative scene.
The film is very deliberately paced. It's often slow and I sometimes had to struggle to pay attention. Many scenes are recreated by the actual people, but those people are not actors and some scenes have a half-baked, amateurish feel to them. For all of that, though, it's a tremendously thoughtful film. Rarely does form and content so perfectly mesh. I suspect the film lies to us a few times, but then it has provided an interesting story in exchange for the lies. Have we been cheated? Is the film guilty of gross misrepresentation or has it simply told a lie through which it tells the truth?
Jul 5, 2014
Escape from LA
Saw Escape from LA, a fun and silly action film. Snake MacPlisskin does his Clint-Eastwood imitation and skulks around kicking ass, as action heroes are wont to do. This one has an evil theocratic government manipulating Snake. Shades of a nascent culture war there I think. Their at-the-time-ridiculous portrayal of a theocratic USA is a bit more fraught in this day and age. I think, for example, that we were meant to laugh at the idea of a President saying that he has to pray on a matter.
We follow Snake through the prison-state of LA as he hunts for a magical CD-ROM and also the President's daughter. There's a few lines which make me think that there's something going on on an allegorical level. Characters often talk about LA as though it consumes those who enter it. This is literally true in this film's case, but I think they're trying to make some kind of show-biz joke.
Anyway, the film is about what you'd expect: bad-ass posturing, very little going on in the film's rugged snarling head, a vague anti-authoritarian streak. Unfortunately, the filmmakers had discovered computers by this film. This manifests in a lot of unacceptably plastic-looking vehicles and egregious green-screen that often shows its age. It also unfortunately manifests as a desire to make a comment about technology. Filmmakers not being the most tech-savvy of people, it of course identifies computers as a tool of our collective enslavement (which, to be fair, they kind of are, but no more than, say, paper is and anyway computers are tools which are only as evil as their users, etc etc, insert computer-science-motivated apologetics here)
So, dumb but fun. If you liked Escape From NY, you'll dig this. If you're looking for philosophy that's too intricate to fit on a bumper sticker, you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for a pleasant way to waste two hours, here's your film. Exciting, funny, engaging, not a bad a film.
We follow Snake through the prison-state of LA as he hunts for a magical CD-ROM and also the President's daughter. There's a few lines which make me think that there's something going on on an allegorical level. Characters often talk about LA as though it consumes those who enter it. This is literally true in this film's case, but I think they're trying to make some kind of show-biz joke.
Anyway, the film is about what you'd expect: bad-ass posturing, very little going on in the film's rugged snarling head, a vague anti-authoritarian streak. Unfortunately, the filmmakers had discovered computers by this film. This manifests in a lot of unacceptably plastic-looking vehicles and egregious green-screen that often shows its age. It also unfortunately manifests as a desire to make a comment about technology. Filmmakers not being the most tech-savvy of people, it of course identifies computers as a tool of our collective enslavement (which, to be fair, they kind of are, but no more than, say, paper is and anyway computers are tools which are only as evil as their users, etc etc, insert computer-science-motivated apologetics here)
So, dumb but fun. If you liked Escape From NY, you'll dig this. If you're looking for philosophy that's too intricate to fit on a bumper sticker, you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for a pleasant way to waste two hours, here's your film. Exciting, funny, engaging, not a bad a film.
Jul 4, 2014
The Tall Man
Saw The Tall Man (thanks, Basil!) It was a very interesting movie. It revolves around a big twist which is infuriating because the post-twist film is the only thing worth talking about. The pre-twist film is as follows: There's a little rural town where kids are disappearing. The populace blames a mysterious figure known as "The Tall Man." A kinldy nurse is introduced as the protagonist along with her adorable moppet of a son (who has "victim" written aaaalll over him.)
The film is busily trying to trick you into believing it's an action-horror. It gives a news-coverage montage introducing the back-woods mythology of The Tall Man, there's useless, panicky females, hatchet-faced FBI agents, sudden loud noises, and all of the other trappings of a cliche horror. And yet the film soft-peddles all of these elements. The jump-scares are never really jumpy, the townspeople make ominous reference to a mysterious altar built in the forest but when it's finally shown, it's only glimpsed out of the corner of the screen and is anyway not so much scary as just strange.
I thought the film would turn out to be merely the tamest horror ever made, but the Big Twist Reveal shows that the film's heart was never really in the horror. The twist reveals that what's really going on is grotesque and kind of horrifying but you kind of understand the motives of the bad guys. They are monstrous, but perhaps they are not monsters. This film makes an interesting and very political conversation-starter. It relies on a big central gimmick (ie the twist (although honestly, it doesn't completely blind-side you. You can sense that something is definitely up after about half an hour in)) and so might not bear up under repeat viewings, but it's good the first time around. An interesting film.
The film is busily trying to trick you into believing it's an action-horror. It gives a news-coverage montage introducing the back-woods mythology of The Tall Man, there's useless, panicky females, hatchet-faced FBI agents, sudden loud noises, and all of the other trappings of a cliche horror. And yet the film soft-peddles all of these elements. The jump-scares are never really jumpy, the townspeople make ominous reference to a mysterious altar built in the forest but when it's finally shown, it's only glimpsed out of the corner of the screen and is anyway not so much scary as just strange.
I thought the film would turn out to be merely the tamest horror ever made, but the Big Twist Reveal shows that the film's heart was never really in the horror. The twist reveals that what's really going on is grotesque and kind of horrifying but you kind of understand the motives of the bad guys. They are monstrous, but perhaps they are not monsters. This film makes an interesting and very political conversation-starter. It relies on a big central gimmick (ie the twist (although honestly, it doesn't completely blind-side you. You can sense that something is definitely up after about half an hour in)) and so might not bear up under repeat viewings, but it's good the first time around. An interesting film.
Jul 3, 2014
Island of Lost Souls
Saw Island of Lost Souls, an amazing old film (circa 1932) which is an adaptation of The Island of Doctor Moreau. The doctor, when he is revealed, is amazing. Fat and effeminate, he minces and giggles. The beast-men are a bit lacking in makeup (you can see why someone would want to remake this) but they're suitably feral and menacing, most effective as dark shadows flitting around the edges of a campfire. There's one amazing scene where the beast-men display their servility toward Moreau, colouring it with a creepily religious tinge.
Much of the plot revolves around a lurid plot to have a cat-woman mate with a hapless dude who is shipwrecked on the island. The perversity of the situation is mined alternately for horror and pathos. The film is grand, grotesque, and perverse. I loved it. Especially for an older film, the punches land well and strong. There's a bit of 30s-era silliness spread around and the whole thing is in questionable taste, but the film is captivating and weird.
Much of the plot revolves around a lurid plot to have a cat-woman mate with a hapless dude who is shipwrecked on the island. The perversity of the situation is mined alternately for horror and pathos. The film is grand, grotesque, and perverse. I loved it. Especially for an older film, the punches land well and strong. There's a bit of 30s-era silliness spread around and the whole thing is in questionable taste, but the film is captivating and weird.
Jul 2, 2014
Open Water
Saw Open Water, a shark-based horror movie. Shot on smeary digital film, it's a lo-fi/no-fi film, almost a mumblecore horror. The plot follows two young yuppies who go on a scuba-diving vacation, only to be left behind at sea due to an unfortunate counting accident. The sharks, fortunately, are not really the main antagonists. That honour is left to much more realistic elements of the cold ocean and the beating sun. The duo's attempts at survival are chillingly realistic, at first optimistic and talking eagerly of litigation but later ashen-faced and talking wistfully of surviving.
The film's use of cheap digital film is clever in that it looks a lot like family vacation video. The establishing shots of the ocean are generically beautiful, in the way tourism DVD videos are. There's a cruel third-act montage of tourists bovinely eating and wandering among picturesque fire-pits. This bucolic vision of exotic tropics is contrasted with the harsh, vast indifference of nature. The sharks, when they come, are not personified and do not seem evil. They seem Hertzog-ianly opportunistic, dumb, and bored.
An interesting movie, it lacks the punch to really be captivating but yields a lot of horrible situation for your investment. Little in the way of viscera but high in existential dread, it's sort of a thinking-person's horror. Not particularly horrifying, just horrible.
The film's use of cheap digital film is clever in that it looks a lot like family vacation video. The establishing shots of the ocean are generically beautiful, in the way tourism DVD videos are. There's a cruel third-act montage of tourists bovinely eating and wandering among picturesque fire-pits. This bucolic vision of exotic tropics is contrasted with the harsh, vast indifference of nature. The sharks, when they come, are not personified and do not seem evil. They seem Hertzog-ianly opportunistic, dumb, and bored.
An interesting movie, it lacks the punch to really be captivating but yields a lot of horrible situation for your investment. Little in the way of viscera but high in existential dread, it's sort of a thinking-person's horror. Not particularly horrifying, just horrible.
Jul 1, 2014
Late Spring
Saw Late Spring, an old Japanese film directed by Yasujiro Ozu about the tension between the old and the new. The protagonist is an adult, single woman who values tradition. Even her father calls her "old fashioned." She wrinkles her nose at her father's widower friends remarrying, calling them impure and unclean, although smiling fixedly while doing so. Throughout much of the movie she has a strange frozen smile on her face. I believe the smile is supposed to be sort of artificially picturesque and mannered although it comes off a bit more rigid and weird in this modern time.
Everyone urges her to get married. Her love of tradition extends to a horror of change and she confides in her father that she wishes she could live like this (alone, taking care of her widowed father,) forever. Her struggle mirrors the cultural struggle of Japan during the setting of this film. The woman bicycles past a sign urging her (in English) to drink Coca-Cola, but in a later scene she consults a match-maker about possibly arranging a marriage. The film even opens with a train station sign, written in both Japanese and English. The juxtaposition of the two languages is a nod to this friction. The central woman's best friend, who urges her most stridently to marry, is so alarmingly modern that she lives in a western-style house (complete with grandfather clock and baroque furniture) and supports herself as a stenographer. "If you don't like him, you can always get a divorce!" she tells the protagonist.
The repeated urges of her friends and family to get married and move out of her father's house seem to indicate an urging on the film's behalf for Japan to move on and get with the modern, post-surrender, post-Imperial times, but the woman's steadfast refusal indicates the film's sympathy with and nostalgia for the traditional. Initially in the film, she ambiguously flirts with her father's male secretary. The secretary is already affianced, we discover, but I believe the woman is flirting, in a way, with the idea of change and growth. The film is most interesting (for me) when viewed as a struggle between old and new. That said, this is not a terribly interesting idea for me to grapple with. Several times I had to struggle to stay awake through the film, particularly during an extended episode of Noh theatre. I'm not the most astute of viewers and am really better at enduring movies than engaging with them, so this may be one of my weaknesses manifesting, but watch it with some coffee on hand anyway. Just in case.
Everyone urges her to get married. Her love of tradition extends to a horror of change and she confides in her father that she wishes she could live like this (alone, taking care of her widowed father,) forever. Her struggle mirrors the cultural struggle of Japan during the setting of this film. The woman bicycles past a sign urging her (in English) to drink Coca-Cola, but in a later scene she consults a match-maker about possibly arranging a marriage. The film even opens with a train station sign, written in both Japanese and English. The juxtaposition of the two languages is a nod to this friction. The central woman's best friend, who urges her most stridently to marry, is so alarmingly modern that she lives in a western-style house (complete with grandfather clock and baroque furniture) and supports herself as a stenographer. "If you don't like him, you can always get a divorce!" she tells the protagonist.
The repeated urges of her friends and family to get married and move out of her father's house seem to indicate an urging on the film's behalf for Japan to move on and get with the modern, post-surrender, post-Imperial times, but the woman's steadfast refusal indicates the film's sympathy with and nostalgia for the traditional. Initially in the film, she ambiguously flirts with her father's male secretary. The secretary is already affianced, we discover, but I believe the woman is flirting, in a way, with the idea of change and growth. The film is most interesting (for me) when viewed as a struggle between old and new. That said, this is not a terribly interesting idea for me to grapple with. Several times I had to struggle to stay awake through the film, particularly during an extended episode of Noh theatre. I'm not the most astute of viewers and am really better at enduring movies than engaging with them, so this may be one of my weaknesses manifesting, but watch it with some coffee on hand anyway. Just in case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)