Back to the Future Part 2

Saw Back to the Future Part 2, the one where they go forward in time. Being a Robert Zemeckis film, it makes heavy use of neat camera tricks that allow the same actors to interact with themselves in other roles. It's very neat and, wonder of wonders, doesn't get in the way of the story which is to say it doesn't get in the way of the action. Most of the film is taken up with running breathlessly from place to place, always just one step away from creating a paradox or from letting the future become some Pottersville, crypto-Trump-ruled hell-hole. The result is a ripping film that keeps the fun coming. There's little in the way of trenchant observations on the fraught human condition but what, of course, did you expect?

The most fun part for me was the curiously VHS-tinted future, where we have computers that take our fast-food orders but they jitter and stutter like Max Headroom. We have fake windows that look out on to sunny beaches, until we turn the projector off. It's funny how this stuff is totally possible now but also kind of tacky and off-putting (except for the hover boards which are cool but will never happen. We'll never have hover boards.) You'll notice they have auto-fit clothing, but they also have a lot of leotards.

Anyway, retro-future aside, the film is good fun. As deep as a pancake but they don't all have to be Jeanne Dielman. If nothing else, I'll never get sick of watching Christopher Lloyd's Doc Brown scream and react and just sometimes stand there with his jaw held askew. I also notice just what a heavy debt Rick and Morty owes this series. I mean, I knew there were similarities but Rick and Morty is essentially this film but with burping (and also with better and darker jokes. Sorry, Back to the Future franchise, I find robots in the throws of existential crisis way funnier.) Anyway, a solid fun film.

The Beast

Saw The Beast (thanks, Basil!) It was a sort of erotic version of Beauty and The Beast. The plot concerns a dying but prestigious family which has fallen on hard times. Only a father, son, and doddering uncle remain, They hope to save the family/name by marring the son off to some sexy American woman who comes from a rich family. The film opens on a pair of horses breeding. The son of the family is presiding over this but is called away to get ready to meet his new fiancee. He's shaved and pomaded and told (in a sort of scolding tone) that his future wife is a good Christian woman. She, meanwhile, has been arriving with her spinsterish, chaperon aunt. They have gotten lost on the way to the manor house and have wound up at the stables, where the wife-to-be is eagerly snapping Polaroids of the horses in action. Her aunt puts her hand in front of the camera lens, saying "what will your husband think?" This pair of scenes forms the crux of this film. The man and woman are filthy human animals after all, but they are kept in line out of shyness of each other, their polite society a lie barely covering the rude nature within.

This film comes from the 70s, an era rich with films skewering polite bourgeois society. Society, this film argues, is an absurd and damaging lie. The Beast here is nature, Beauty is society, and the Beast more or less has his way with polite society who merely pretends not to be into it. This theme comes up again and again of the naughty lewdness barely sublimated under society's veneer.

So that's the philosophical underpinning of this film. The actual stuff happening on screen however, is fairly filthy. Don't watch this with anyone else in the room. Also, be prepared for the plot to come screeching to a halt for five uninterrupted minutes of a close-up of a lady masturbating. This is the sort of art film people snickeringly allude to when they talk about "art" films. The symbols here are rich and interesting, I just wish it weren't so frank about it. It's purpose (partly anyway,) was clearly to ruffle a few feathers and I'm chicken enough to be ruffled. Be prepared for rubber Beast dong however, if you do see this, but be prepared also for this image from a book by Voltaire.

Rambo III

Saw Rambo III. Whereas the last Rambo film was a horror movie, this one was a travel show. Rambo does the series-mandated song and dance about how he doesn't want to get involved again, oh but he has to? Oh well, I guess if he has to... After this business is done with, we are then treated to Rambo the tourist visiting Afghanistan. He tours the caves on horseback, regaled by his colorful ethnic guide with stories of Afghani history and folk songs. Eventually they arrive at a freedom-fighter camp and Rambo meets all the Mujahideens and makes friends with a child soldier. I thought this was neat and funny but the Russians (oh those crafty Russians!) are up to their usual tricks and must be dealt a one-man lesson by El Rambonito.

So, with forty-five minutes or so left in the film, we finally get to the battle scenes and what was once almost educational becomes grim and violent. Ho hum. Series fans will no doubt like this bit but I am watching this series joylessly, compulsively, and found it to be kind of tedious. The nuclear-tipped arrows from the last episode make another appearance though, which I enjoyed. Kind of a schlocky, dumb movie, but what did you expect? If you go in wanting explosions, vague patriotism, and absolutely no female characters at all, you won't be disappointed.

My Brilliant Career

Saw My Brilliant Career, an Australian romance set in the Edwardian period. It's about Sybylla, a pretentious but self-assured girl vs the world. This being the late 1800s, the issue of marriage looms heavy in the sky, providing a comfortable, unchallenging, acceptable ending. Therefore, it's not exactly a romance but the push and pull of self vs society, self vs another is the heart of this film. Romance is the subject here, not the goal.

It's a very interesting film. It defies easy classification as anything other than a drama. There's little in the way of action and a lot of restrained people gasping at the protagonist's refusal to compromise (especially to compromise a part of herself.) The film also doesn't celebrate the protagonist. She's sometimes foolish and mean. It's as though someone from modern times were born into Edwardian society. Normally I consider that to be a deep fault in a period piece because often when you have some character righteously shouting about slavery or sexism or what have you, they don't suffer for it. In this film, meanwhile, Sybylla is plagued with quiet self-doubt (or if she is not, we the viewer are let to be.) Is she really being selfish? Is she being honest or cruel?

A complex little film, I think I haven't fully got it nailed down yet. At any rate, I think if you love the historical romantic movies based on Jane Austen, you should check this out. It's an interestingly fresh perspective.

The 39 Steps

Saw The 39 Steps, another Hitchcock film. It was one of his early ones I think. It's a bit vague around the edges but there is a man who is innocent and who knows of a terrible plot to smuggle British secrets out to The Enemy. Pursuing him are the forces of English law who believe him to be guilty. It reminds me of the Fugitive a bit (although that TV show post-dates this film by a few decades) or the play Escape (which is closer to the date of this film.) The edges, as I say are vague, but what the film is really about is the lone man eternally running, the armed pursuers eternally pursuing.

I was at first quite happy about how the film treats women. At one point the protagonist hides from the cops in a lady's train carriage. "Just go along with this, I promise I'm innocent" he shouts before smooching her. The cops pop their heads in and, leering, say "seen any strange men come by?" The woman cocks a gimlet eye at the hero and says "I expect this is the man who you're looking for, he just barged in here a moment ago." This is, of course, what any woman or human being would do in this circumstance. Unfortunately, later the hero runs into this woman again in order to show her how very wrong she was to ever doubt his innocence or, of course, the word of a man. Sigh.

The film has the usual Hitchcock cleverness. Social convention, wit, and hastily assembled performances (such as an impromptu make-out session) serve as the tools of the wily protagonist to out-wit his evil enemies. It feels a bit episodic and strains the credulity a bit at times, which is why I say this is probably an early work. It lacks the Swiss-watch-style masterwork of Vertigo, Rear Window, and North by Northwest. There is a moment, however, when a woman screams only to be inter-cut with the piercing sound of a steam engine whistle and you know, sure enough, this is a Hitchcock.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Saw Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, a film from the Kevin Smith's ever-genial askewniverse. This feels like a very lazy film, involving broad pop-culture references, random titillating scenes, and even a cheeky monkey, but I enjoyed it anyway. It seems winking. It just involves too many pitch-perfect lame comedy references (the monkey, I feel, was intentional.) On top of that, the film is actually clever and sweet and funny. I keep expecting myself to start hating the boorish and foul-mouthed Jay but he's just such a naif. For all his goofy talk about sex, he is most likely a virgin, a holy idiot.

The film has cameos from a lot of comedians: George Carlin, Will Farrell, and (a very young-looking) John Stewart. The plot is that Jay + Silent Bob are trying to stop a film from being made so they steal a monkey from a research center under the direction of a quartet of sexy lady jewel-thieves, drawing the ire of a bumbling federal fish and wildlife officer (etc etc etc.) The film is just dumb as rocks but I frankly liked it anyway. I feel like it knows it's dumb which doesn't make it smart or anything just... a film that embraces its own shortcomings. Smith made it after Dogma and, I guess, just wanted to make a big, dumb, stupid movie that challenged nothing for anyone and that everyone could either laugh at or eye-roll at or, like I guess I'm doing here, do both.