Saw Thirst, a Korean vampire movie. A priest volunteers for an immunology experiment which en-vamps him. The film is most interested in his increasingly compromised morals. At first he decides he would rather die than feed on blood, then rationalizes it by only taking, like, a little blood. Soon he is killing people and contemplating taking on a bride because, as ever, there is a dame. The broad outlines of the plot are fairly boilerplate but the details are very interesting.
I definitely get the sense that something is going on but I'm not sure just what. For example, in the beginning of the film, he councils a suicidal nurse to seek god's love in antidepressants (these are his exact words, if the subtitles are to be trusted.) Later, he seems to be pushing a wheel-chair-bound man but it turns out the man's wheelchair is motorized. The priest is unnecessary. Clearly something is being quietly said about faith and science, but I'm not sure if one has supplanted the other or are they working in harmony. Then again, the priest contracts the vampirism from a lab which is essentially a science temple. I don't know.
The film also involves a lot of purposefully messy plot-points and other allusions. There is a cult which worships the priest as a risen-again saint, a weekly mahjong game, a blind priest, and a paralyzed mother. The priest is seen enforcing his vow of chastity by slapping his thighs with a flute (it makes more sense in the film, I assure you) and the dame is revealed to have been abused by her husband who stabs her in her thighs. When they have sex, breaking the priest's vow, it is on Easter Sunday, a Christian celebration of Jesus rising from the dead, but also a pagan fertility festival. Post-coitus, the dame eats an egg. Many times the priest is symbolically linked to Jesus. Perhaps an argument for the antichrist could be made?
I may be reading too hard into the film, but it seems so deliberate sometimes. Perhaps this film is more allusive than evocative. Perhaps the references were added in afterward just to arbitrarily stitch things together, to provide a little maze for symbol-hunters? Anyway, although the film is not terribly original it is well-made, fairly funny in parts, and artistic. It was interesting enough that I spent most of the time looking for coherence in the references, rather than being annoyed.
Jan 31, 2015
Jan 28, 2015
Two or Three Things I Know About Her...
Saw Two or Three Things I Know About Her..., the Godard-iest Godard film I've ever seen. It follows an actress/prostitute named Juliette for a day. The film immediately connects Juliette and the city of Paris (this connection is quickly reinforced by an image of her in bed, her red night-shirt and blue sheets forming the French flag.) This sets up the theme of connections between the very intimate and the very large and impersonal. A child dreams of North and South Korea's reunion, smoke blown on a radio's capacitors is connected with the bombing of distant cities. Extras look directly into the camera and talk recite mundane, personal details. Several times the quiet action of the film is contrasted with the ear-splitting noise of construction, gunfire, or otherwise large and loud things.
The film is oddly prescient with its dual obsession with personal details and with noise. In this information age we are constantly inundated with both. In the film, Godard draws an odd line of contrast between the noisy and the personal. The noisy is always obnoxious, overwhelming. The personal is always quiet but also overwhelming in its furious dissemination of trivia. The film is obsessively narrated, the narrator nervously prattling on about the meaning of words, perception, commercialism, self, etc. The thesis of the film seems to be that everything is connected but the film also concedes that these connections are very small and messy and hard to detect or even define.
There's a genius scene in a coffee shop where the foam in a cup of coffee briefly resembles a spiral galaxy, and then some single-celled organism. Eventually a bubble in the center of the foam pops, leaving the vanishing image of a woman's lips. Amazing. The film ends with night-fall. It focuses in on the tiny tip of a lit cigarette which looks like a vast star dying. Lovely.
The film is very dense and numbing with its information overload. I was only able to grab meaning out of it by chance and I suspect there's a lot of good thought to be extracted on many themes. The film is also very mannered and confusing. There's evocative images where I'm not sure exactly what is being evoked. A tough film.
The film is oddly prescient with its dual obsession with personal details and with noise. In this information age we are constantly inundated with both. In the film, Godard draws an odd line of contrast between the noisy and the personal. The noisy is always obnoxious, overwhelming. The personal is always quiet but also overwhelming in its furious dissemination of trivia. The film is obsessively narrated, the narrator nervously prattling on about the meaning of words, perception, commercialism, self, etc. The thesis of the film seems to be that everything is connected but the film also concedes that these connections are very small and messy and hard to detect or even define.
There's a genius scene in a coffee shop where the foam in a cup of coffee briefly resembles a spiral galaxy, and then some single-celled organism. Eventually a bubble in the center of the foam pops, leaving the vanishing image of a woman's lips. Amazing. The film ends with night-fall. It focuses in on the tiny tip of a lit cigarette which looks like a vast star dying. Lovely.
The film is very dense and numbing with its information overload. I was only able to grab meaning out of it by chance and I suspect there's a lot of good thought to be extracted on many themes. The film is also very mannered and confusing. There's evocative images where I'm not sure exactly what is being evoked. A tough film.
Jan 27, 2015
Gamer
Saw Gamer. It was really dumb. It wasn't playfully dumb, like some other action films. It was insultingly dumb. The plot is that in the future (and for some reason known only to the writers) people have grown tired of playing games starring virtual people and have moved on to playing with real-life humans as their avatars. The human-avatars have been given some kind of implant that controls their motions from afar. Ok? So the protagonist is a jailbird who is an avatar in some FPS-game which is exactly as stupid as shit. One battle takes place in a dirt-bike course, where people are riding bikes around... WHILE ON FIRE!!! His wife, meanwhile, is in some Second Life-style game where (and this is actually fairly accurate and intelligent) mostly people go to have simulated sex. So, this sets up the dual affront on the viewer's mind: either we are watching growling men shoot at each other or we're watching fluorescent-haired skinny people having sex. There's a lot of tits in this film.
The film is clearly a derivative of Death Race. Both have the same distasteful Mountain-Dew-ification of video games coupled with a complete lack of faith in the human race, idiotically assuming that what are essentially WWE events would take the world by storm and somehow become important in some sociopolitical sense. (Also bewildering that so much credit and adulation would be heaped onto the jailbird. Surely he's the avatar, right? I mean, we all love Mario but we give credit the the player for killing Bowser, right? But I digress.) It also has a leader of La Resistance who stutters and gibbers in a style clearly inspired by Max Headroom's obnoxious shenanigans.
La Resistance, by the way, is lead by this Malcolm X sort of Angry Black Man. The film has three black characters with speaking roles and they are all Angry Black Men. There's the la-resistence-leader, who (stutteringly) speaks in a declamatory way to us, his "brothas and sistas," there's an angry, threatening cop (played by the voice-actor for Goliath,) and another player-avatar played by Terry Crews (the Old Spice guy) who seems to be channeling some kind of bear for most of his scenes. I suspect this film is kind of racist. That's not that surprising however. The rest of the film displays an utter disinterest in treating people like human beings and not like tit and explosion delivery systems. Everyone is fairly obnoxious. I don't know who we're supposed to root for. Literally everyone in the film is straight-up obnoxious or just devoid of personality.
I don't want to write off the film completely, because I very obviously was not the intended audience for all of this. Then again, I don't really know who the intended audience was meant to be. 12-year-old boys perhaps? Unhappy men? I think it's safe to say that if you enjoy professional wrestling, then you might like this film. If you can ignore or enjoy the creepy, cartoon masculinity on display then maybe you'd dig it. I just hated it.
The film is clearly a derivative of Death Race. Both have the same distasteful Mountain-Dew-ification of video games coupled with a complete lack of faith in the human race, idiotically assuming that what are essentially WWE events would take the world by storm and somehow become important in some sociopolitical sense. (Also bewildering that so much credit and adulation would be heaped onto the jailbird. Surely he's the avatar, right? I mean, we all love Mario but we give credit the the player for killing Bowser, right? But I digress.) It also has a leader of La Resistance who stutters and gibbers in a style clearly inspired by Max Headroom's obnoxious shenanigans.
La Resistance, by the way, is lead by this Malcolm X sort of Angry Black Man. The film has three black characters with speaking roles and they are all Angry Black Men. There's the la-resistence-leader, who (stutteringly) speaks in a declamatory way to us, his "brothas and sistas," there's an angry, threatening cop (played by the voice-actor for Goliath,) and another player-avatar played by Terry Crews (the Old Spice guy) who seems to be channeling some kind of bear for most of his scenes. I suspect this film is kind of racist. That's not that surprising however. The rest of the film displays an utter disinterest in treating people like human beings and not like tit and explosion delivery systems. Everyone is fairly obnoxious. I don't know who we're supposed to root for. Literally everyone in the film is straight-up obnoxious or just devoid of personality.
I don't want to write off the film completely, because I very obviously was not the intended audience for all of this. Then again, I don't really know who the intended audience was meant to be. 12-year-old boys perhaps? Unhappy men? I think it's safe to say that if you enjoy professional wrestling, then you might like this film. If you can ignore or enjoy the creepy, cartoon masculinity on display then maybe you'd dig it. I just hated it.
Jan 26, 2015
Ocean's Eleven
Saw Ocean's Eleven (thanks, Paul!) (That's the modern one, by the way. According to imdb, the 60s version is spelled "Ocean's 11") It was very fun. A heist movie, it does not transcend its genre. Rather, it wallows in it. Every touchstone is hit. The double-fake-out, the cute patter, the mixed-bag team of specialists, the dame, the rival, etc etc. There's a colossal crowd of people involved in this heist (well 11, anyway) but the film never feels confusing or overstuffed. It keeps itself rushing about at a good clip, never stopping long for any reason at all. It was fun.
So, this was a silly movie. I mean, obviously. It wasn't particularly believable and the people communicate almost exclusively through quips, one-liners, and strutting walks (which makes me believe them to be high-functioning sociopaths.) But of course the entire point of the film is to give us something glitzy to look at, something clever to imagine we'd said or done. There's no meat, but sometimes popcorn is good too. An indulgent and disposable film, I doubt it would hold up to repeat-viewings but, as I keep repeating, it's pretty fun and very good at what it does, so how can you fault it for being a really good version of what it is?
So, this was a silly movie. I mean, obviously. It wasn't particularly believable and the people communicate almost exclusively through quips, one-liners, and strutting walks (which makes me believe them to be high-functioning sociopaths.) But of course the entire point of the film is to give us something glitzy to look at, something clever to imagine we'd said or done. There's no meat, but sometimes popcorn is good too. An indulgent and disposable film, I doubt it would hold up to repeat-viewings but, as I keep repeating, it's pretty fun and very good at what it does, so how can you fault it for being a really good version of what it is?
Jan 25, 2015
Higher Ground
Saw Higher Ground, a religious film about a woman undergoing a crisis of faith. I don't know what denomination she is exactly, but there's immersion baptism and talk of elders, so maybe this tells you something. Anyway, religion is very rarely treated honestly and seriously by films. Mostly religious films are preaching to the choir about problems whose solution is always more sacrifice and faith. Every so often you get a film which lazily uses religion as a scape-goat for the world's problems, portraying religious folks as deluded at best and dangerously evil at worst. This film, then, is immensely refreshing.
It portrays a woman in a community which is deeply religious. It's not a cheerleader for this community but neither does it portray the members as cultists or lunatics. They are people who are goofy and friendly, judgmental but supremely sincere. There's talk of a literal hell but also of endless compassion. The central woman begins to feel talked-down to and repressed by her church. She begins to regard the parables and metaphors as overly simplistic and manipulative. At one point a pastor (or elder or something) asks her if she wants to go to heaven with her husband and kids, or if she wants to be left out in the cold with the dogs. She (very appropriately) rolls her eyes at this.
The film is ultimately a drama about a woman who is unsure if she can stay in the family that she's built around herself. It's essentially A Doll's House all over again, but through the lens of faith this time. It's very focused on characters and emotions and although I believe it's trying to walk the tightrope of appealing to both secular and religious audiences, I don't think it succeeds very well. The central woman is sometimes selfish and sometimes stupid. There are unflattering names for stupid, selfish woman which an uncharitable viewer might be eager to apply to her (but of course we are all stupid sometimes. We are all selfish.) This film valiantly attempts to be honest in an area where there is much deception (and most of it self-deception, I believe.) I found the film very touching, very honest, and completely impossible to recommend to anyone.
It portrays a woman in a community which is deeply religious. It's not a cheerleader for this community but neither does it portray the members as cultists or lunatics. They are people who are goofy and friendly, judgmental but supremely sincere. There's talk of a literal hell but also of endless compassion. The central woman begins to feel talked-down to and repressed by her church. She begins to regard the parables and metaphors as overly simplistic and manipulative. At one point a pastor (or elder or something) asks her if she wants to go to heaven with her husband and kids, or if she wants to be left out in the cold with the dogs. She (very appropriately) rolls her eyes at this.
The film is ultimately a drama about a woman who is unsure if she can stay in the family that she's built around herself. It's essentially A Doll's House all over again, but through the lens of faith this time. It's very focused on characters and emotions and although I believe it's trying to walk the tightrope of appealing to both secular and religious audiences, I don't think it succeeds very well. The central woman is sometimes selfish and sometimes stupid. There are unflattering names for stupid, selfish woman which an uncharitable viewer might be eager to apply to her (but of course we are all stupid sometimes. We are all selfish.) This film valiantly attempts to be honest in an area where there is much deception (and most of it self-deception, I believe.) I found the film very touching, very honest, and completely impossible to recommend to anyone.
Jan 24, 2015
Threads
Saw Threads, a film from the 80s about what might happen if an atomic bomb attack were to hit Great Britain. The film is essentially anti-nuclear-war propaganda (a point which you'd think scarcely needs to be made anymore, although...) As such, its primary focus is on horrifying us. During the immediate fallout of the bomb, the film is truly horrifying. It was difficult to watch in a way that Philosophy of a Knife wishes it was. After the fallout, the film morphs into speculative fiction about what life and society would be like without gasoline or electricity, and with 90% of the population dead. It's interesting if a bit odd at parts. Ultimately however, the film is most interested in sounding the alarm-bell, warning us that if a nuclear war breaks out, that there can be no future.
Again and again we are shown the image of a woman holding a dead baby, an obvious symbol of a dead future. To begin with, society is directed by a team of officials in a bunker under city hall. Although they are in charge, they are also buried under three floors of rubble, and will probably die. The film's morbidity makes it a bit monotonous. We are hammered with the nukes = death message so often and so heavily that that's all the film becomes. It is harrowing and a very emotional roller-coaster, but don't look for deep characters or plot here, and don't expect subtlety at all. I mean, the film has both expository text-crawls and a narrator, so a smooth plot was not on the agenda. Also, by its nature, it kind of a downer (to put it lightly.)
The film is interesting. It sometimes serves up ghastly, train-wreck-like images, but it always held my attention. It's very grim and very good at being grim (for example: the film shows us a post-bomb montage of dead people, but also of dying pets. This is a low blow, I feel.) whether you're ever going to be in the mood for such a grim film, I don't know. I supposed this film could best be sold to the general public as a sort of what-if sci-fi. Really though, I'd stay away from this unless you're a masochist or insane.
Again and again we are shown the image of a woman holding a dead baby, an obvious symbol of a dead future. To begin with, society is directed by a team of officials in a bunker under city hall. Although they are in charge, they are also buried under three floors of rubble, and will probably die. The film's morbidity makes it a bit monotonous. We are hammered with the nukes = death message so often and so heavily that that's all the film becomes. It is harrowing and a very emotional roller-coaster, but don't look for deep characters or plot here, and don't expect subtlety at all. I mean, the film has both expository text-crawls and a narrator, so a smooth plot was not on the agenda. Also, by its nature, it kind of a downer (to put it lightly.)
The film is interesting. It sometimes serves up ghastly, train-wreck-like images, but it always held my attention. It's very grim and very good at being grim (for example: the film shows us a post-bomb montage of dead people, but also of dying pets. This is a low blow, I feel.) whether you're ever going to be in the mood for such a grim film, I don't know. I supposed this film could best be sold to the general public as a sort of what-if sci-fi. Really though, I'd stay away from this unless you're a masochist or insane.
Jan 23, 2015
The Bride of Frankenstein
Saw The Bride of Frankenstein. It was a lot of pulpy fun. In this one James Whale was apparently much more free to do as he wished and wished to make things much more morbid. The first film was overwhelmingly ominous and oppressive. This one is more fun, with a screaming old baggage of a hand-maid and the monster enjoying the smooth filtered flavor of a Winston. There's a lot more screaming, running around, and camera tricks. A new character is introduced who expresses a fondness for the devil. The Faustian overtones remain strong.
I've read before about this film being an allegory for homosexual life in the 30s. The monstrous creation being some demonic act of procreation between the two evil scientists. It's easy to see this interpretation if you're looking for it. Several times the monster stumbles into a group of wholesome families or children and everyone instantly runs away, screaming in horror. The monster is obviously the other who, because we spend so much time with him, we see as being not that bad. If this is intentional, then the film is completely subliminal about it (of course) so it could be argued either way. An interesting perspective anyway. With a monster demanding that a scientist construct him a wife, unnatural sex is definitely on the film's mind at any rate.
The film is really a lot of fun. It's far less dour than the first film. This time there's a lot more grisly gleeful stuff going on and a climax which is amazing.
I've read before about this film being an allegory for homosexual life in the 30s. The monstrous creation being some demonic act of procreation between the two evil scientists. It's easy to see this interpretation if you're looking for it. Several times the monster stumbles into a group of wholesome families or children and everyone instantly runs away, screaming in horror. The monster is obviously the other who, because we spend so much time with him, we see as being not that bad. If this is intentional, then the film is completely subliminal about it (of course) so it could be argued either way. An interesting perspective anyway. With a monster demanding that a scientist construct him a wife, unnatural sex is definitely on the film's mind at any rate.
The film is really a lot of fun. It's far less dour than the first film. This time there's a lot more grisly gleeful stuff going on and a climax which is amazing.
Jan 22, 2015
Escape From the Planet of the Apes
Saw Escape From the Planet of the Apes. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Escape. The third film in the franchise. This time three of the ape-scientists have somehow traveled back in time to the present day (of 1971.) Then the intelligent chimps are at first treated like interesting anomalies until it is discovered that they can talk. They are questioned by officials and then treated as celebrities. But of course, in this paranoid age of 1970, all cannot remain well. Sure enough, one scientist catches wind that they are from a terrible future where humans are treated like animals and he decides they must die. I don't know why he thinks this. It's explained that he believes the course of the future can be changed but I'm not really sold on the idea that the future-apes have to die for this to happen. One of them is an archaeologist. Surely he's an invaluable resource for information on our possible future, or at least for really long-range bar-bets if nothing else.
That evil scientist later explains time and God as being like a painter painting a painting of a painter, so I think he might just be supposed to be insane. This is no jab at science either, by the way. Several scientists are sympathetic and kind. Just that one guy is nuts. Anyway, that one dude's poor motivations aside, the rest of the film is fairly thoughtful. The human society is rather callous toward the apes, but understandably so. I think the humans are actually shown in a fairly charitable light throughout the film. For example, when the president is called upon to kill the ape-folk he sagely responds that "we don't kill beings who have committed no crime." I think if this movie were made today the president would be totally cool with that and that they'd be shipped straight off to Guantanamo. In this film, the apes are treated as celebrities, being talked to by scientists and politicians. Very classy.
Anyway, due to the machinations of the evil scientist, about halfway through the film it becomes a sort of chase film, the apes always one step ahead of Johnny Law. At this point the film becomes a bit less fun as the film works towards a climax. The climax and following reveals fell a bit silly to me, but then this is a silly film series.
That evil scientist later explains time and God as being like a painter painting a painting of a painter, so I think he might just be supposed to be insane. This is no jab at science either, by the way. Several scientists are sympathetic and kind. Just that one guy is nuts. Anyway, that one dude's poor motivations aside, the rest of the film is fairly thoughtful. The human society is rather callous toward the apes, but understandably so. I think the humans are actually shown in a fairly charitable light throughout the film. For example, when the president is called upon to kill the ape-folk he sagely responds that "we don't kill beings who have committed no crime." I think if this movie were made today the president would be totally cool with that and that they'd be shipped straight off to Guantanamo. In this film, the apes are treated as celebrities, being talked to by scientists and politicians. Very classy.
Anyway, due to the machinations of the evil scientist, about halfway through the film it becomes a sort of chase film, the apes always one step ahead of Johnny Law. At this point the film becomes a bit less fun as the film works towards a climax. The climax and following reveals fell a bit silly to me, but then this is a silly film series.
Jan 21, 2015
Prometheus
Saw Prometheus (thanks, Basil!) It was the prequel to all of the Aliens films and, in keeping with the other installments of that series, it has nothing to do with anything come before except for the universe, aesthetic, and the famous aliens. This one follows a band of broadly characterized scientists (with a broad spectrum of accents which is probably thematic) who follow a star-map they found in some hieroglyphics to a distant planet. They land to find roughly breathable air, constructed buildings, and a new breed of alien(!) Of course, it is not long before the real staples of the series show up: paranoia about a mega-corporation and lots of body horror.
The whole film is wrapped up in intense religious allegory. The female lead describes the aliens as gods and wants to question them about the nature of our lives, the manner of our creation. After her cross-necklace is removed, an alien (sort of) bursts forth from her. This could be read as the antichrist being born. There is much talk of purpose, creators, creations, and even this miraculous birth. The religion angle is not central, but present enough to color the proceedings with an interesting hue.
Spectacle, rather than religion, is the centerpiece of this film and it delivers in spades. There's almost always something twinkling, writhing, blinking to look at. The soundtrack is caked with hollow booms and metallic whines, horns and synth, all to impress upon the viewer the weird majesty of what they're seeing. The visuals are often quite majestic. The film opens with one of the new aliens committing some kind of suicide by drinking some magical fluid in front of a waterfall. The familiar might of the waterfall is contrasted with the alien, CGI flash of the fluid which glistens and writhes like ferro-fluid.
I enjoyed the film. The religion angle seemed a bit incongruous but so long as it was kept relatively in the background (and it... mostly was) then all was well. The main point of the film is to overwhelm and amaze and even on my 1-foot-square screen, it overwhelmed me. There's an elegant contrast of the simple and grand with the complex and intricate. Notice how the futuristic spaceship seems almost work-a-day and dull, more neat than stunning. Meanwhile, the spectacle I'll most remember is of a sandstorm, created by simple air-pressure differences, but capable of forcing us humans to cower inside of our metal ships. An artistic sci-fi.
The whole film is wrapped up in intense religious allegory. The female lead describes the aliens as gods and wants to question them about the nature of our lives, the manner of our creation. After her cross-necklace is removed, an alien (sort of) bursts forth from her. This could be read as the antichrist being born. There is much talk of purpose, creators, creations, and even this miraculous birth. The religion angle is not central, but present enough to color the proceedings with an interesting hue.
Spectacle, rather than religion, is the centerpiece of this film and it delivers in spades. There's almost always something twinkling, writhing, blinking to look at. The soundtrack is caked with hollow booms and metallic whines, horns and synth, all to impress upon the viewer the weird majesty of what they're seeing. The visuals are often quite majestic. The film opens with one of the new aliens committing some kind of suicide by drinking some magical fluid in front of a waterfall. The familiar might of the waterfall is contrasted with the alien, CGI flash of the fluid which glistens and writhes like ferro-fluid.
I enjoyed the film. The religion angle seemed a bit incongruous but so long as it was kept relatively in the background (and it... mostly was) then all was well. The main point of the film is to overwhelm and amaze and even on my 1-foot-square screen, it overwhelmed me. There's an elegant contrast of the simple and grand with the complex and intricate. Notice how the futuristic spaceship seems almost work-a-day and dull, more neat than stunning. Meanwhile, the spectacle I'll most remember is of a sandstorm, created by simple air-pressure differences, but capable of forcing us humans to cower inside of our metal ships. An artistic sci-fi.
Jan 20, 2015
War Horse
Saw War Horse. It was treacly and saccharine but also quite sweet. It opens like a Rockwell painting, full of cute ugliness. A proud drunk pisses his family's savings away on a purely decorative horse. He goes home to his shrewish wife, hounded by his cruel landlord. This is the stuff domestic abuse is made of, but there is also a bossy goose, and a stunningly pretty sunset, and somehow the whole thing feels quaint and cute. This is what Spielberg does: spin ugliness into schmaltz. His films annoy me because I feel they are convincing lies. When I watch his films, I feel fooled. I've written before in this blog about the power of dreams and lies to transform, but something about Spielberg's films rubs me the wrong way. I feel like I'm watching a ceremony, not a drama. I feel like I'm being brought somewhere, not led somewhere. Anyway, enough of this pretentious blather.
The film stars a noble horse who is raised by the drunk's son who is the only good thing about the farm-house: a dude who is constantly adorable, supremely competent, and always wearing tight pants. He almost saves the farm when (wham, bam) WW1 starts. This introduces the sub-theme of the film (the super-theme being schmaltz and lots of it) of old fashions being supplanted by the crass new. The horse especially is put in opposition to motorcars. At one point, a stable-boy drops a harness on the ground, only for a motor-car to run over it (SYMBOLISM!!) Later on, the horse has some kind of face-off with an actual tank (why is the tank chasing a perfectly ordinary horse? No one knows.) These comparisons are sometimes subtle, but not usually. At one point a German force has cut down the twittish English cavalry with machine guns. As the captain sits aloft on his horse, surrounded by guns, a German shouts at him "who do you think you are?!" The reign of the noble individual is over. The Germans are the cruel harbingers of things to come.
The film is episodic, following the horse as it is captured and recaptured by the different sides of the war. Some episodes are truly winning, like the nearly magical sequence with the sickly French girl. A lot of the film is extremely indulgent however. It's effective, don't get me wrong, but it's really obvious. At one point, the adorable French girl stands exactly between two horses. "This is Francois, and this Claude," she declares "I named them after two boys who broke my heart last summer." I laughed out loud at this inhuman cuteness. Of course you did, sweetheart. Of course you did. The film is calculatedly adorable but adorable none the less.
The film stars a noble horse who is raised by the drunk's son who is the only good thing about the farm-house: a dude who is constantly adorable, supremely competent, and always wearing tight pants. He almost saves the farm when (wham, bam) WW1 starts. This introduces the sub-theme of the film (the super-theme being schmaltz and lots of it) of old fashions being supplanted by the crass new. The horse especially is put in opposition to motorcars. At one point, a stable-boy drops a harness on the ground, only for a motor-car to run over it (SYMBOLISM!!) Later on, the horse has some kind of face-off with an actual tank (why is the tank chasing a perfectly ordinary horse? No one knows.) These comparisons are sometimes subtle, but not usually. At one point a German force has cut down the twittish English cavalry with machine guns. As the captain sits aloft on his horse, surrounded by guns, a German shouts at him "who do you think you are?!" The reign of the noble individual is over. The Germans are the cruel harbingers of things to come.
The film is episodic, following the horse as it is captured and recaptured by the different sides of the war. Some episodes are truly winning, like the nearly magical sequence with the sickly French girl. A lot of the film is extremely indulgent however. It's effective, don't get me wrong, but it's really obvious. At one point, the adorable French girl stands exactly between two horses. "This is Francois, and this Claude," she declares "I named them after two boys who broke my heart last summer." I laughed out loud at this inhuman cuteness. Of course you did, sweetheart. Of course you did. The film is calculatedly adorable but adorable none the less.
Jan 19, 2015
Saam Gaang Yi
Saw Saam Gaang Yi which is, recall, the sequel to the film known in the US as Three Extremes 2. This is confusing. I know. As before, the film is composed of three short horror films so, without further ado, on to the shorts:
Dumplings:
I liked this one. As in the previous Three Extremes, it's not horrifying in a conventional manner, but it is revolting and very evocative which winds up being pretty horrifying anyway. The plot is this: an aging actress, obsessed with regaining her youth, contacts a cook whose dumplings can make you young again. The secret ingredient is revealed fairly early, but I still don't want to spoil the surprise. If you're curious, the secret ingredient is human fetuses(!) This leads immediately to all kinds of obvious social commentary (although, of course, it doesn't add meaningfully to the social issue, just uses it for disgust points.) The cook is clearly some kind of witch. She's very young but has scraggly hair, a slightly husky voice, and dresses in loud, skin-tight prints. She is always smiling and merry. She is the demon of female sexual vitality and youth. She is last seen in the film waltzing merrily away from any kind of danger, singing an old-fashioned song. I enjoyed it greatly, although it is also repulsive.
Cut:
A bit weaker, this one. It opens on a rich vampire-woman sucking the blood of an old man. She plays piano and calls her friends and (psyche!) it turns out it's just a movie. The film director goes home to his wife. They are both captured by a deranged extra and forced to play some cat-n-mouse game where if the director doesn't play along, his wife loses fingers. The short is very theatrical and goofy. It uses the trappings of comedy (unhappy marriages, men in dresses, outrageous costumes and funny faces) to tell a horror story. The result is very strange and not always in a nice, uncomfortable way. Sometimes it's like a cowboy on the moon: incongruous, but not scary. Also, the main antagonist has some nice little De Sade-esque ravings about money, power, and morality. It's interesting but what most interested me was this stylistic schizophrenia between comedy and horror. Very goofy, but interesting.
Box:
Directed by Takashi Miike, I was expecting a lot more ugliness. It has a sexualized creepiness to it that I've come to associate (however incorrectly) with Miike. The plot follows an ex-circus-contortionist girl who used to preform with her sister until her sister died in a tragic accident. The short circuitously exposes this story, sliding between dreams, memories, visions, and the circus act. It's very confusing and deeply icky at parts. Its most effective horror is its most prosaic: the repeated symbolic allusions to rape. A miniature Bunraku doll is repeatedly contorted and stuffed into boxes. The image is creepy, but the work of making the connections to the plot is left to you. Not an accessible film.
This trilogy was better than the first. It was also much more artistic and much more stylized. Mostly this worked, with only some parts of Cut not quite hitting the high-water mark. Again, nothing particularly scary, but plenty of creepiness and ominous slowness. Once again, not a bad collection.
Dumplings:
I liked this one. As in the previous Three Extremes, it's not horrifying in a conventional manner, but it is revolting and very evocative which winds up being pretty horrifying anyway. The plot is this: an aging actress, obsessed with regaining her youth, contacts a cook whose dumplings can make you young again. The secret ingredient is revealed fairly early, but I still don't want to spoil the surprise. If you're curious, the secret ingredient is human fetuses(!) This leads immediately to all kinds of obvious social commentary (although, of course, it doesn't add meaningfully to the social issue, just uses it for disgust points.) The cook is clearly some kind of witch. She's very young but has scraggly hair, a slightly husky voice, and dresses in loud, skin-tight prints. She is always smiling and merry. She is the demon of female sexual vitality and youth. She is last seen in the film waltzing merrily away from any kind of danger, singing an old-fashioned song. I enjoyed it greatly, although it is also repulsive.
Cut:
A bit weaker, this one. It opens on a rich vampire-woman sucking the blood of an old man. She plays piano and calls her friends and (psyche!) it turns out it's just a movie. The film director goes home to his wife. They are both captured by a deranged extra and forced to play some cat-n-mouse game where if the director doesn't play along, his wife loses fingers. The short is very theatrical and goofy. It uses the trappings of comedy (unhappy marriages, men in dresses, outrageous costumes and funny faces) to tell a horror story. The result is very strange and not always in a nice, uncomfortable way. Sometimes it's like a cowboy on the moon: incongruous, but not scary. Also, the main antagonist has some nice little De Sade-esque ravings about money, power, and morality. It's interesting but what most interested me was this stylistic schizophrenia between comedy and horror. Very goofy, but interesting.
Box:
Directed by Takashi Miike, I was expecting a lot more ugliness. It has a sexualized creepiness to it that I've come to associate (however incorrectly) with Miike. The plot follows an ex-circus-contortionist girl who used to preform with her sister until her sister died in a tragic accident. The short circuitously exposes this story, sliding between dreams, memories, visions, and the circus act. It's very confusing and deeply icky at parts. Its most effective horror is its most prosaic: the repeated symbolic allusions to rape. A miniature Bunraku doll is repeatedly contorted and stuffed into boxes. The image is creepy, but the work of making the connections to the plot is left to you. Not an accessible film.
This trilogy was better than the first. It was also much more artistic and much more stylized. Mostly this worked, with only some parts of Cut not quite hitting the high-water mark. Again, nothing particularly scary, but plenty of creepiness and ominous slowness. Once again, not a bad collection.
Jan 18, 2015
Last Tango in Paris
Saw Last Tango in Paris. The film opens with a long credit sequence set to jazz, against a backdrop of impressionist paintings. The credits roll for about five minutes and then the film opens with Marlon Brando screaming "Fuck!" into the camera. This sets up the central theme of the film: of art and sophistication vs authenticity and brutishness. Brando plays a recently windowed man whose wife killed herself. She had apparently had several lovers, all of whom Brando knew about. He becomes disgusted with himself and then with the world for having fooled himself into thinking that accepting his wife's lovers was a mark of progressive sophistication. Seemingly resolved to never fall into the trap of sophistication again, he becomes incredibly self-indulgent and tries to turn into a kind of beautiful-animal-style of man.
Meanwhile, Jeanne, a young woman with a film-making boyfriend tries to make some kind of relationship with Brando. She is natural and sweet. She tries to find out more about Brando's thoughts and feelings, but either out of fear of intimacy or out of a desire for further brutishness, he mocks her and teases her. She becomes his sort-of toy. He confuses and annoys her, pulling her back with sweetness whenever she gets fed up. He seems to be trying to get her to join him in his squalor. She is completely intoxicated by his brutish, brutal honesty (in comparison to which her boyfriend seems hopelessly boyish and pretentious) but simultaneously repulsed by his flippant cruelty and infrequent but frank abuse; abuse which she projects upon her film-making boyfriend. (She has conflated emotional exploitation for physical exploitation.)
The film presents this art vs nature conflict in a very subtle manner however, full of contradictions and reversals (and mirrors, which provide hints for all of this.) For example: Jeanne is very genuine throughout the relationship. Her desire for intimacy is of course perfectly natural and it is Brando's supposed brutally honest pose which shuts her down. Her boyfriend talks fussily of art and maturity but is, in his own way, far less pretentious than Brando whose every action is calculated and perversely unnatural.
It is my interpretation of the film that Brando's reaction against intellectual sophistication throws out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, he rejects pleasant-sounding idealism, but he also rejects the polite lies that make society function. By rejecting idealism, he paradoxically becomes the greatest idealist in the film: an idealist who believes that he can function without ideas, without dreams, without love.
The film is fairly listless, giving off the feeling of talking with an interesting but sort of disagreeable roommate on a rainy day. I get a claustrophobic feeling of being trapped against ideas I don't really like thinking about. The film is also centrally focused on the relationship between Brando and Jeanne. It is abusive at parts and kind of hard to watch, but it is also fascinating to watch them as they push and pull each other, parting and rejoining. Seen in retrospect, at the end of the film, it is a kind of dance.
Edit: Ho ho! What could have been!
Meanwhile, Jeanne, a young woman with a film-making boyfriend tries to make some kind of relationship with Brando. She is natural and sweet. She tries to find out more about Brando's thoughts and feelings, but either out of fear of intimacy or out of a desire for further brutishness, he mocks her and teases her. She becomes his sort-of toy. He confuses and annoys her, pulling her back with sweetness whenever she gets fed up. He seems to be trying to get her to join him in his squalor. She is completely intoxicated by his brutish, brutal honesty (in comparison to which her boyfriend seems hopelessly boyish and pretentious) but simultaneously repulsed by his flippant cruelty and infrequent but frank abuse; abuse which she projects upon her film-making boyfriend. (She has conflated emotional exploitation for physical exploitation.)
The film presents this art vs nature conflict in a very subtle manner however, full of contradictions and reversals (and mirrors, which provide hints for all of this.) For example: Jeanne is very genuine throughout the relationship. Her desire for intimacy is of course perfectly natural and it is Brando's supposed brutally honest pose which shuts her down. Her boyfriend talks fussily of art and maturity but is, in his own way, far less pretentious than Brando whose every action is calculated and perversely unnatural.
It is my interpretation of the film that Brando's reaction against intellectual sophistication throws out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, he rejects pleasant-sounding idealism, but he also rejects the polite lies that make society function. By rejecting idealism, he paradoxically becomes the greatest idealist in the film: an idealist who believes that he can function without ideas, without dreams, without love.
The film is fairly listless, giving off the feeling of talking with an interesting but sort of disagreeable roommate on a rainy day. I get a claustrophobic feeling of being trapped against ideas I don't really like thinking about. The film is also centrally focused on the relationship between Brando and Jeanne. It is abusive at parts and kind of hard to watch, but it is also fascinating to watch them as they push and pull each other, parting and rejoining. Seen in retrospect, at the end of the film, it is a kind of dance.
Edit: Ho ho! What could have been!
Jan 17, 2015
Nineteen Eighty Four (1984)
Sawthe 1984 version of Nineteen Eighty Four (cute, huh?) It was pretty miserable. The story is supposed to be a cautionary tragedy about the power of totalitarian governments to actually destroy the spirit of mankind. The miserable tone therefore makes sense but of course does not make it any less miserable. The warning to us the audience is not complete unless the government wins and therefore, once we know what's up, we know Winston must be destroyed utterly. The plot follows Winston, a newspaper editor who looks like a starving, depression-era farmer. He keeps a secret and illegal diary where he records his thoughts and, worst of all, falls in love with a woman. Soon they are eating illicit jam and talking with her about how the government might yet fall (deeply seditious stuff, of course.)
In the climactic torture scenes, the interrogator monologues grimly and drops some of the film's best lines and some of the film's core arguments ("If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." also "Power is not a means, it's an end.") It is here that the film becomes most perfect. The preceding stuff is shockingly naturalistic, leading to a contrast between the weird, empty sets dominated by giant televisions and the characters who behave fairly normally in these strange surroundings. During the torture, the film sort of wallows in the misery it's been promising us all along.
the film is slightly, slightly more optimistic than the book (the ending, I felt was left sufficiently ambiguous that hope could be seen if you wanted to see it.) The film is very good. It's incredibly restrained for a film set in the future and made in the clunky, junky excesses of the 80s. There are a few artistic visual flourishes but these are never allowed to contaminate the bleak and chilly real world. The music was almost done by David Bowie (which would have been horrendous. Can you imagine?) So, all-in-all a miserable film, but a good one.
In the climactic torture scenes, the interrogator monologues grimly and drops some of the film's best lines and some of the film's core arguments ("If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." also "Power is not a means, it's an end.") It is here that the film becomes most perfect. The preceding stuff is shockingly naturalistic, leading to a contrast between the weird, empty sets dominated by giant televisions and the characters who behave fairly normally in these strange surroundings. During the torture, the film sort of wallows in the misery it's been promising us all along.
the film is slightly, slightly more optimistic than the book (the ending, I felt was left sufficiently ambiguous that hope could be seen if you wanted to see it.) The film is very good. It's incredibly restrained for a film set in the future and made in the clunky, junky excesses of the 80s. There are a few artistic visual flourishes but these are never allowed to contaminate the bleak and chilly real world. The music was almost done by David Bowie (which would have been horrendous. Can you imagine?) So, all-in-all a miserable film, but a good one.
Jan 16, 2015
Jazz Daimyo (unsubtitled)
Saw Jazz Daimyo (AKA Dixieland Daimyo) (thanks Cate!) It was very confusing. The film opens with a traditional stage, complete with black-clad stage hands. The story is set shortly after the civil war where four slaves decide to return to their homeland of Africa. Unfortunately, they run afoul of Indians and their ship goes off course, landing them in Japan. They are taken in by some kind of official who is perhaps at war with his neighbor. They then play some music which takes over the film more and more unto a full-blown absurdist romp, with everyone profusely sweating, maniacally playing music, singing, dancing, more and more and more in an Armageddon of music.
The film was very difficult for me to watch because I could find absolutely no subtitles for the film which is nearly entirely in Japanese (of which I understand about ten words.) The film was completely opaque to me. It was clearly supposed to be some kind of unconventional comedy. There was much, much ado about the official. There was a woman with a sword that everyone called Hime (princess.) She coolly skateboarded through the official's house on an abacus. The idea is absurd but presented in an understated way. Is this Japanese reserve? Or art-house cool? Or blank-faced satire? Who knows. My confusion extends beyond the tone, of course. I still have no idea who exactly the official is or why a princess is living with him. I don't know if he was supposed to be a respectable hero or just a proud stuffed-shirt. And also is the warrior princess supposed to be cool or goofy or mannish? Why the civil war? Why slaves?
Over at imdb someone proposes the theory that the slaves' landing in Japan represents an influx of foreign influence which results in a heady, exciting, but also chaotic and weird mess. I suppose that could be true. The film played like an absurdist film for me, like something Švankmajer or Buñuel would produce. It was surreal and bewildering, eventually wearing me down under endless incomprehensibility. Of course this is mainly my own fault for being unable to find subtitles (open offer: if anyone can find me subtitles, I'll re-watch this and review it again.) All the same the experience was not positive for me. My inability to understand frustrated me, prompting a lengthy internet search half an hour into the film. I don't know how to review this fairly. Bewildering.
The film was very difficult for me to watch because I could find absolutely no subtitles for the film which is nearly entirely in Japanese (of which I understand about ten words.) The film was completely opaque to me. It was clearly supposed to be some kind of unconventional comedy. There was much, much ado about the official. There was a woman with a sword that everyone called Hime (princess.) She coolly skateboarded through the official's house on an abacus. The idea is absurd but presented in an understated way. Is this Japanese reserve? Or art-house cool? Or blank-faced satire? Who knows. My confusion extends beyond the tone, of course. I still have no idea who exactly the official is or why a princess is living with him. I don't know if he was supposed to be a respectable hero or just a proud stuffed-shirt. And also is the warrior princess supposed to be cool or goofy or mannish? Why the civil war? Why slaves?
Over at imdb someone proposes the theory that the slaves' landing in Japan represents an influx of foreign influence which results in a heady, exciting, but also chaotic and weird mess. I suppose that could be true. The film played like an absurdist film for me, like something Švankmajer or Buñuel would produce. It was surreal and bewildering, eventually wearing me down under endless incomprehensibility. Of course this is mainly my own fault for being unable to find subtitles (open offer: if anyone can find me subtitles, I'll re-watch this and review it again.) All the same the experience was not positive for me. My inability to understand frustrated me, prompting a lengthy internet search half an hour into the film. I don't know how to review this fairly. Bewildering.
Jan 15, 2015
Terri
Saw Terri, a touching and funny coming-of-age film. Its protagonist, Terri, is a hugely fat kid with incongruously nice hair. He is mocked by his classmates and has retreated from the world behind a wall of apathy and indifference. His family is composed only of an ancient, doddering old man he calls "Uncle." The film is a series of events which slowly penetrate his bulky shell. The film does a good job of conveying his feeling of utter indifference and vague suspicion that a good life is not for him. At one point he spies on a pretty girl from behind a literal wall of food (which is a bit on-the-nose, I feel.) Unusually for a coming-of-age film, the adults are mostly competent and knowing. When Terri deflects teasing away from a girl by purposefully making a fool of himself, the teacher calms the class and smiles at his back. One teacher is visibly upset with herself for not standing up for Terri when he's being bullied. The exception however is the goofy but fairly competent guidance councilor who Terri befriends.
The guidance councilor is very funny. At one point Terri feels bad for eating meat and ponders becoming a vegetarian. "Let's not go crazy here!" the councilor cautions. The film is full of understated bits of humor. Another example: at a funeral, the priest reads the eulogy all the way to the amen and then suddenly looks down at his bible as though he'd never seen it before and then toddles off. It's not a big setup/punchline joke, but it's wry and funny. The film is a mix of comedy and angst, erring usually on the comedy side but giving the angst its due. I usually find comedies too glib and pat to be really enjoyable and I didn't feel that way for this film. Its a little too highschool-y for me to really enjoy, but I dug this film. It's not bad.
The guidance councilor is very funny. At one point Terri feels bad for eating meat and ponders becoming a vegetarian. "Let's not go crazy here!" the councilor cautions. The film is full of understated bits of humor. Another example: at a funeral, the priest reads the eulogy all the way to the amen and then suddenly looks down at his bible as though he'd never seen it before and then toddles off. It's not a big setup/punchline joke, but it's wry and funny. The film is a mix of comedy and angst, erring usually on the comedy side but giving the angst its due. I usually find comedies too glib and pat to be really enjoyable and I didn't feel that way for this film. Its a little too highschool-y for me to really enjoy, but I dug this film. It's not bad.
Jan 14, 2015
Saam Gaang
Saw Saam Gaang, known better as 3 Extremes II (the film confusingly precedes its better-known sequel "Three... Extremes". The cause of this naming stupidity is the usual culprit: the sequel was released to American audiences first, so the anglicized names are now backward.) It was a trilogy of three mini-horror films. I'll review them individually:
Memories:
A man and his wife are both suffering from amnesia. He's talking to a psychiatrist but his wife has woken up in the road, seemingly haven fallen or something. Both slowly remember the creepy course of actions which brought them to this point. The film starts with some generic creepiness: a doll, a lank-haired woman rocking back and forth. Later we graduate to more sophisticated stuff (I loved the inventive storytelling that happens in the bathroom scene, for example,) but the opening is the wrong kind of ominous. The film is set in a brand new development neighborhood. Its lack of history mirrors the protagonists' lack of memory. The banner over the town reads "where all of your dreams come true!" Very ominous considering the recurring nightmares of the husband. By the end of the film, the banner is hanging in tatters, proclaiming a newness which is ancient. The imagery is not logical but it is evocative and poetic. Several times this film stops short of a full explanation and is stronger for it. My common pet peeve with horror films is unnecessary over-explanation and this avoids that. The film lacks a firm grounding in prosaic, real fears, relying instead on the central amnesia gimmick. This leaves it feeling a bit meaningless and fluffy.
The Wheel:
This one had a very traditional feel to it. The plot followed the greedy manager of a theater troupe. They come upon some puppets which are their ticket to the good life (puppeteers being more highly paid than dancers I guess.) The puppets are cursed but, what the heck, free puppets, right? I think I would have understood more if I were more familiar with the characters in traditional Thai puppetry. There's a few scenes where it's obvious characters are acting out scenes from the play (to disastrous effect) or taking on the persona of some puppet. The film is not a traditional horror in that fear and pain are not the focus so much as righteous vengeance is. It has the feel of a morality fable, full of nastiness which is almost gleefully fun. It was not very scary (there was not a single jump-scare, no gore to speak of, and no tension whatsoever. Very tame.) but fairly morbid. A very interesting short but more for reasons of cultural tourism. Interesting.
Going Home:
The longest of the three, this one follows a policeman who moves in, with his son, to a soon-to-be-demolished and therefore almost-entirely-empty apartment building. The only other people are this deeply creepy family whose apartment is always full of steam and whose little daughter is always watching the son. Again, this is not really horrifying. It's morbid and sad but not scary in a modern sense. This one was very classy and restrained. Although dead bodies and ghosts are involved, it was more interested in getting to know a lunatic. I didn't identify any themes or anything in this one. There's inexplicable stuff which is explained alter but it's not really thematic or symbolic or anything.
So, all in all, not very scary stuff. This is a relief to me of course, but also perversely disappointing. Then again, I've noticed directors don't really give their all in these omnibus films. These seem more like interesting small ideas which were tossed off to clear out some space for better ones. They're all interesting in their own ways, but nothing really amazing. I don't know what I was anticipating, but this was a lot drier than I expected.
Memories:
A man and his wife are both suffering from amnesia. He's talking to a psychiatrist but his wife has woken up in the road, seemingly haven fallen or something. Both slowly remember the creepy course of actions which brought them to this point. The film starts with some generic creepiness: a doll, a lank-haired woman rocking back and forth. Later we graduate to more sophisticated stuff (I loved the inventive storytelling that happens in the bathroom scene, for example,) but the opening is the wrong kind of ominous. The film is set in a brand new development neighborhood. Its lack of history mirrors the protagonists' lack of memory. The banner over the town reads "where all of your dreams come true!" Very ominous considering the recurring nightmares of the husband. By the end of the film, the banner is hanging in tatters, proclaiming a newness which is ancient. The imagery is not logical but it is evocative and poetic. Several times this film stops short of a full explanation and is stronger for it. My common pet peeve with horror films is unnecessary over-explanation and this avoids that. The film lacks a firm grounding in prosaic, real fears, relying instead on the central amnesia gimmick. This leaves it feeling a bit meaningless and fluffy.
The Wheel:
This one had a very traditional feel to it. The plot followed the greedy manager of a theater troupe. They come upon some puppets which are their ticket to the good life (puppeteers being more highly paid than dancers I guess.) The puppets are cursed but, what the heck, free puppets, right? I think I would have understood more if I were more familiar with the characters in traditional Thai puppetry. There's a few scenes where it's obvious characters are acting out scenes from the play (to disastrous effect) or taking on the persona of some puppet. The film is not a traditional horror in that fear and pain are not the focus so much as righteous vengeance is. It has the feel of a morality fable, full of nastiness which is almost gleefully fun. It was not very scary (there was not a single jump-scare, no gore to speak of, and no tension whatsoever. Very tame.) but fairly morbid. A very interesting short but more for reasons of cultural tourism. Interesting.
Going Home:
The longest of the three, this one follows a policeman who moves in, with his son, to a soon-to-be-demolished and therefore almost-entirely-empty apartment building. The only other people are this deeply creepy family whose apartment is always full of steam and whose little daughter is always watching the son. Again, this is not really horrifying. It's morbid and sad but not scary in a modern sense. This one was very classy and restrained. Although dead bodies and ghosts are involved, it was more interested in getting to know a lunatic. I didn't identify any themes or anything in this one. There's inexplicable stuff which is explained alter but it's not really thematic or symbolic or anything.
So, all in all, not very scary stuff. This is a relief to me of course, but also perversely disappointing. Then again, I've noticed directors don't really give their all in these omnibus films. These seem more like interesting small ideas which were tossed off to clear out some space for better ones. They're all interesting in their own ways, but nothing really amazing. I don't know what I was anticipating, but this was a lot drier than I expected.
Jan 12, 2015
Peeping Tom
Saw Peeping Tom, a fairly fun 1960s psychodrama. The protagonist is a perpetually clenched German guy who films couples smooching in the park and kills a prostitute in the opening sequence. It's not very realistic but fairly lurid, so it's not dull. The protagonist reveals that his father researched the psychological effects of fear on children, using him (the protagonist) as a guinea pig. Refreshingly, the film reveals this via a monologue delivered in tight close-up. In modern films, a flashback would be almost mandatory (as would be imagery of creepy children, broken dolls, and (oh I dunno) butterfly collections or something.) Stripped of all of this cheap imagery, only hysterical performances remain. I prefer the hysteria and the change from easy visuals is refreshing.
The protagonist's house-mate (he lives in a boarding house) is a children's book author. She tries to "save" him with her love but of course, in her sweet naiveté, she has no idea what she's getting into. Only her mother, a bitter, blind, alcoholic, sister monster, can see through his facade. This leads to an amazing showdown late in the film, where the lighting is a very modern set of harsh whites, blues, and deep blacks. The film anticipates the garish, high-contrast colors of Suspiria. Near the final scenes, the protagonist's girlfriend is talking to him over his shoulder. Her face is brilliantly lit, but her mouth and jaw is in silhouette, her black lips whispering into his ear.
Actually, now that I think about it, the visual tone of the film is extremely modern. There's the sharp contrast between the mundane "real" world and the scary nightmare times. There's grainy old home-movies and a film-developer room that's obviously cave-like and lair-like. The bright colors of the time make it look a bit dated, but the film could easily have been written last year.
Going into the film, I was pretty sure it was going to be some kind of sleazy leer into the life of some poor, crazy, mixed-up kid who just wants to film people and is obviously pants-on-head crazy. There might be some stab at post-modern deconstruction, but mostly there would be tits, hunched shoulders, and wild gesticulating. And to be fair, there's a fair deal of gesticulation and a voyeur angle (which I would explore if I weren't so tired) but the film is also well put together, hysterical, and a lot of fun.
Edit: the same director created The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, all of which I loved. It's little wonder I liked this one.
The protagonist's house-mate (he lives in a boarding house) is a children's book author. She tries to "save" him with her love but of course, in her sweet naiveté, she has no idea what she's getting into. Only her mother, a bitter, blind, alcoholic, sister monster, can see through his facade. This leads to an amazing showdown late in the film, where the lighting is a very modern set of harsh whites, blues, and deep blacks. The film anticipates the garish, high-contrast colors of Suspiria. Near the final scenes, the protagonist's girlfriend is talking to him over his shoulder. Her face is brilliantly lit, but her mouth and jaw is in silhouette, her black lips whispering into his ear.
Actually, now that I think about it, the visual tone of the film is extremely modern. There's the sharp contrast between the mundane "real" world and the scary nightmare times. There's grainy old home-movies and a film-developer room that's obviously cave-like and lair-like. The bright colors of the time make it look a bit dated, but the film could easily have been written last year.
Going into the film, I was pretty sure it was going to be some kind of sleazy leer into the life of some poor, crazy, mixed-up kid who just wants to film people and is obviously pants-on-head crazy. There might be some stab at post-modern deconstruction, but mostly there would be tits, hunched shoulders, and wild gesticulating. And to be fair, there's a fair deal of gesticulation and a voyeur angle (which I would explore if I weren't so tired) but the film is also well put together, hysterical, and a lot of fun.
Edit: the same director created The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, all of which I loved. It's little wonder I liked this one.
Jan 11, 2015
Avalon
Saw Avalon, an odd team-up of a Japanese writer and director and a Polish cast. The two work fairly well together however and, confusing language issues aside, the dual nationality hardly registers. The title refers to a war-themed MMORPG which players can somehow earn a living playing. The real world is a socialist nightmare of soup-kitchens and bread lines. The protagonist is a female top-ranked player who is trying to achieve greater feats of mastery, ultimately leading to a sort of transcendence (in typical Japanese fashion.) The film frequently brings up the original meaning of "Avalon" which is the ultimate resting place for warriors in Arthurian legend. This hints at the transcendence to come.
The film contains many explicit and thematic references to other cyberpunk-ish films. The opening letters reminded me of The Matrix, the Basset hound reminded me of Ghost in the Shell. Much like those two films, this film puts flash and dazzle front and center, but sprinkles a few pockets of interesting ideas here and there. The flash is the focus however and it's pretty good. The majority of the film is in this very annoying sepia-tone, but this allows the film to do cute things, like make the protagonist's eyes sparkle, so okay I guess.
The film deals, of course, with the idea of a virtual reality which is more rewarding than the real reality. Near the end of the film a player even argues that reality is subjective anyway, so how is the game not real reality? There's also other bits which I was unable to make any sense of however: the protagonist takes books out of the library. A big deal is made about how they contain information which can't be found on the internet. When the books are opened, they are blank. Eh? Most of the time I'm able to follow the film's philosophical discursions however (and so can you.)
Mostly, as I say, the film is about a pretty woman shooting at things. The themes of transcendence and real-reality vs virtual-reality are used mostly as interesting set-dressing. This allows us to touch on these ideas without actually, tediously, dealing with them and for that I applaud the film. The film is entertaining and, despite being a bit on the slow side, quite good. There's a feel of mystery which keeps us hooked, there's neat ideas to keep us interested, and there's also a pretty woman blowing things up. What more you ask for?
Edit: actually, this director also directed Ghost in the Shell, so there you go.
The film contains many explicit and thematic references to other cyberpunk-ish films. The opening letters reminded me of The Matrix, the Basset hound reminded me of Ghost in the Shell. Much like those two films, this film puts flash and dazzle front and center, but sprinkles a few pockets of interesting ideas here and there. The flash is the focus however and it's pretty good. The majority of the film is in this very annoying sepia-tone, but this allows the film to do cute things, like make the protagonist's eyes sparkle, so okay I guess.
The film deals, of course, with the idea of a virtual reality which is more rewarding than the real reality. Near the end of the film a player even argues that reality is subjective anyway, so how is the game not real reality? There's also other bits which I was unable to make any sense of however: the protagonist takes books out of the library. A big deal is made about how they contain information which can't be found on the internet. When the books are opened, they are blank. Eh? Most of the time I'm able to follow the film's philosophical discursions however (and so can you.)
Mostly, as I say, the film is about a pretty woman shooting at things. The themes of transcendence and real-reality vs virtual-reality are used mostly as interesting set-dressing. This allows us to touch on these ideas without actually, tediously, dealing with them and for that I applaud the film. The film is entertaining and, despite being a bit on the slow side, quite good. There's a feel of mystery which keeps us hooked, there's neat ideas to keep us interested, and there's also a pretty woman blowing things up. What more you ask for?
Edit: actually, this director also directed Ghost in the Shell, so there you go.
Jan 10, 2015
The Great Waldo Pepper
Saw The Great Waldo Pepper (thanks, Paul!) It was essentially a show-biz film, the show in this case being biplane acrobatics. The protagonist is a World-War-1-era flying instructor who was cheated of his chance to fight and, in his mind, show what he could really do. He spends his time risking his life for the entertainment of small-town hicks and recounting famous war-stories as though they were his own. He is a man consumed by the dream of being the greatest pilot in the world. This dream costs him dearly, however, as disaster after disaster strikes, rendering him plane-less, friend-less, licence-less. He has the misfortune of being alive at the exact moment that "flyer" was becoming an occupation like "driver." (There's a touch of 70s-era individualism in the film, particularly in the scene where The Man is demanding that he have a piece of paper to do what he's been doing for years. "Are you gonna license the rain and the clouds?" he demands. Man the beautiful animal rears his head.)
Anyway, this film is mainly about the power of dreams to transcend and uplift. As one character points out, they are all lies anyway, but they are beautiful lies and perhaps even lies which become truths merely through faith and belief. It's like a kind of religion. The flying ace has never proven his worth and may even suspect, in his darker moments, that there may be no worth there after all. His dream of somehow showing, perhaps even just to himself, that he's the best at flying, gives him purpose even as it strips his life away. It's never put in terms quite this stark by the film, but his madness keeps him sane.
The plot of the film and attendant mindset is the focus here. This is a fairly accessible and crowd-pleasing film, but it's fundamentally philosophical in tone. The characters are realistic but not the focus, neither is the camera-work, nor the visuals in general. The film's venerating depiction of the protagonist's quest is very 70s-ish and very seductive. I'm personally more of a dream-rejecter by nature and thus the protagonist's sacrifice of conventional comfort for unconventional satisfaction seems silly to me. But even I have to admit, the film succeeds in putting this idea in a noble and beautiful light. Perhaps there is worth in dreaming the impossible dream. Dulce et decorum est, perhaps.
Anyway, this film is mainly about the power of dreams to transcend and uplift. As one character points out, they are all lies anyway, but they are beautiful lies and perhaps even lies which become truths merely through faith and belief. It's like a kind of religion. The flying ace has never proven his worth and may even suspect, in his darker moments, that there may be no worth there after all. His dream of somehow showing, perhaps even just to himself, that he's the best at flying, gives him purpose even as it strips his life away. It's never put in terms quite this stark by the film, but his madness keeps him sane.
The plot of the film and attendant mindset is the focus here. This is a fairly accessible and crowd-pleasing film, but it's fundamentally philosophical in tone. The characters are realistic but not the focus, neither is the camera-work, nor the visuals in general. The film's venerating depiction of the protagonist's quest is very 70s-ish and very seductive. I'm personally more of a dream-rejecter by nature and thus the protagonist's sacrifice of conventional comfort for unconventional satisfaction seems silly to me. But even I have to admit, the film succeeds in putting this idea in a noble and beautiful light. Perhaps there is worth in dreaming the impossible dream. Dulce et decorum est, perhaps.
Jan 8, 2015
Into the Abyss
Saw Into the Abyss, Werner Herzog's look at capital punishment. The film revolves around a central crime where two boys murdered a woman for her car and then her son and his friend. One of the boys got 40 years in prison where he lives a strange sort of half-life. He gets married, for example, but has never hugged his wife. The other boy gets death row and when he is interviewed he is days away from execution. Consumed by his imminent demise, he is utterly uninterested in introspection or repeating the crime once more. So, without this central object for the documentary, Hetzog goes wider, interviewing the woman-victims' only surviving relative, probing her about what the boy's death will mean (and later on in the film) had meant to her. He interviews a state executioner who had killed hundreds of people, by his own admission. He recounts a sort of emotional breakdown he underwent when one of the death-row inmates thanked him for his service.
The film is troubling and interesting, full of little glimpses into lives. One of the people who are interviewed has two tear-drops tattooed by his left eye. He is interviewed in a playground and speaks movingly about the wasted life of his brother and of his own life which is being wasted. One man recounts his friendship with one of the boys (this friendship ended up in several fights to near-death, btw) spits constantly with a sound like a fist hitting a thick book. Herzog is showing us ugly people, but people indeed, Herzog seems to say, as deserving of life as anyone else. Later, Herzog shows us the car which was the motive for the murders. It sits mouldering in a police evidence lot, falling apart next to other cars which are bullet-riddled, torched, or otherwise destroyed. Each of these cars represents a story as rich and as fraught as this one.
The film has the feel of a This American Life episode only even more wandering and discursive. The central crime is told in a rapid, confusing manner, leaving only young criminals and grieving women talking about death. Their interviews have an isolated feel, not illuminating the central crime as I had expected, but illuminating the more general reaction of humans to death. Specifically, to deaths which have been planned out in advance, in cold blood.
The film is troubling and interesting, full of little glimpses into lives. One of the people who are interviewed has two tear-drops tattooed by his left eye. He is interviewed in a playground and speaks movingly about the wasted life of his brother and of his own life which is being wasted. One man recounts his friendship with one of the boys (this friendship ended up in several fights to near-death, btw) spits constantly with a sound like a fist hitting a thick book. Herzog is showing us ugly people, but people indeed, Herzog seems to say, as deserving of life as anyone else. Later, Herzog shows us the car which was the motive for the murders. It sits mouldering in a police evidence lot, falling apart next to other cars which are bullet-riddled, torched, or otherwise destroyed. Each of these cars represents a story as rich and as fraught as this one.
The film has the feel of a This American Life episode only even more wandering and discursive. The central crime is told in a rapid, confusing manner, leaving only young criminals and grieving women talking about death. Their interviews have an isolated feel, not illuminating the central crime as I had expected, but illuminating the more general reaction of humans to death. Specifically, to deaths which have been planned out in advance, in cold blood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)