This is one of Clint Eastwood's best films. I consider it to be better than some of the more celebrated of his movies, such as Million Dollar Baby or Mystic River. This is a movie whose premise looks simple: a jailbreak, a fugitive on the run, a hostage, and a manhunt; however the way these commonly-found-in-the-movies themes are handled make it go a lot deeper than the things on display.
The plot of A Perfect World revolves around Butch (Kevin Costner) who escapes from prison with the help of another convict. Soon after they take a little boy named Phillip hostage and are on the run. The manhunt to try and catch these men is being led Texas Ranger Chief Red Garret (Clint Eastwood), and in his team are two more interesting characters: a criminologist Sally (Laura Dern) and a sinister FBI man Bobby (Bradley Whitford). The opening scenes of the movie work in establishing each of these main characters, and giving us a few hints as to what each of these people is about and what their equations are with the people that they are working with: It is obvious that Butch doesn't like nor trust his partner-in-crime; good-looking Sally has a hard time getting settled into a man's World, while Red goes about showing who's boss; and the child gradually begins to trust the stranger Butch. The rest of the movie is about the chase and the relationship between the child and Butch.
As I said before Eastwood and writer John Lee Hancock are working in cliche-territory but avoid it with skill and take the story to whole new dimensions. In a way they have willfully set us up in the opening scenes so that we begin to expect a certain kind of film and then once we are in that mode of thinking they begin pushing boundaries and start challenging our pre-conceived notions and in that way succeed in finding moments of truth, of great meaning and social commentary while all the time continuing the basic plot.
A number of things are done to avoid falling into these cliche-traps. In the relationship that develops between Butch and the kid it is never very clear what the dynamics are, and although we are given some hints that the boy may eventually take-off with the convict (at one critical moment in the film he has a choice to stay behind but chooses to go with Butch) we quickly realize that this is a 7-8 year old boy who really misses his home (a reason why he chose to go with Butch at that critical point is revealed to us later, although that may not be the only thing playing on the kid's mind). It is clear that the kid begins to trust this man, partly because he has never had a father-figure before (his father left when the child was very young) and partly because it seems that Butch is much more understanding than the mother who the kid has to deal with most of the time (Butch lets him go trick-or-treating and other things like that); however, it is also clear that the kid has a strong sense of right and wrong and that leads him to constantly doubt Butch and even to an extent be afraid of him. It is certainly true that Phillip learns a lot from the older man which conventionally happens in such a movie, but then so does Butch learn a lot from the kid (and this may seem conventional also but the way that this happens is far from conventional). Moreover, the movie does not provide us with mandatory scenes of Butch's reformation, if someone is saved from being shot by him it is because of Phillip's ingenuity. On the other hand, there does seem to be redemption for Butch, this is a very subtle point and the way it is handled is one of the good things about the film-making here.
The title of the film comes to us in many ways, but at one point a character says that in a perfect world they could have nabbed the convict very quickly because there would be so many people in pursuit, roadblocks, etc that escape would not be possible. This is a critical point, because then Sally says that in a perfect world there would be no such situation. This then is the central idea of the film in that an imperfect world made Butch the way he is. This seems true because on the whole we find that Butch is not as bad a man as his partner-in-crime. However the question arises how good a person is he. We are told he is a fairly intelligent man, but wouldn't such a man be able to see through what he is doing? Or does he see what he is doing but is unable to stop? What happened in his past that made him this way? Some of these questions will be answered, others not so much. But the pace of the movie gives us ample opportunity to consider these at length and others. At two and one quarter hours the film is long but is never slow, boring or less than intriguing-to-watch. There is also ample humor throughout that keeps it consistently interesting and the way that it is done through dialogue and through visual moments, makes you not want to miss anything. The cinematography also keeps the film visually very interesting throughout and the closing shots are particularly impressive. The dialogue consistently rings true and there is great subtlety in the exchanges involving Butch / Phillip and Red / Sally in particular.
There are other things going on as well. We come to know that Red had a hand in sending Butch to a reform center (which in turn may have pushed him into the world of crime, although his upbringing before that has been far from perfect). Therefore, Red has invested more than just a man-hunt into this equation. Butch speaks of going to Alaska and reaching there in 3-4 days but doesn't really seem to be going anywhere. To me, it seemed that after-a-while he just wants to hang out with the kid going nowhere in particular: his curiosity, his need for companionship and his need for mentoring are all being served in this way, as is a need to command over someone (he certainly thinks he manages that with the kid, though he may not be entirely right). Towards the end of the movie all of these different things come together in a beautiful way and it generates an emotional reaction in unexpected ways (again the cliches are avoided skillfully). Nothing more really needs to be said except that in a perfect world, this movie would have been much more well-received.
I give it 9.5. The only flaw for me are the implications of what is done to the kid (and I mean the actor as well as the character). Now I leave that for all of you to ponder.
Thank God for the fact that the film gets a PG-13 rating because this is a film that both teenagers and adults can see and derive different meanings from. I first saw this movie more than 10 years ago, it was rated A (only for Adults) in India but I remember it had a profound effect on me.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Lost in Translation (2003) - 8.5/10
Although the title of the movie is Lost in Translation and set in Japan it consistently showing us the cultural differences between Japan and the US, this movie is really not about meaning getting lost in translation between two languages or cultures. That is more the subject of the movie's comedic elements. Instead this is a movie about the meaning of life as perceived by certain characters where-in it gets lost in translation or the very act of living it (consider how translation could mean the act of forwarding, that of forwarding one's own life). True, that such a meaning of the title (or specifically the word translation) is not necessarily the defined meaning, but then any kind of artistic effort is in some ways about redefining meanings. And before I get lost in the translation of my thoughts to this page I will get back to the task at hand.
The story follows Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) as they spend some time in Japan. They are both lost in translation in the sense that I described before. They really have no idea where they are going, why they are doing what they are doing (if they are doing anything at all) and how they are going to get out of this situation that they find themselves in. Bob's suggestion that they should leave the hotel, then the city and then the country seems like a good one. But since the problem is within, it is not really going to be a fruitful solution in the long run. In a way, we can see that both of them have indeed taken this trip to Japan as a sort of changing-the-scenery but that hasn't done anything for them. In fact, now in these foreign locales they are more lost than ever. That is until fate lends them a hand by making the two of them meet.
Their meetings, and their relationship as they talk through their respective issues (and what those issues exactly are is not necessary to be discussed here, it is more rewarding for them to be discovered in the movie and it should be said that they are not particularly anything Earth-shattering - something along the lines of growing up for Charlotte, mid-life crisis for Bob and marriage issues for both) is interesting both as an observation of a budding relationship between two lonely lost souls, and also as the hint of a romantic possibility. Add to the suggestion of experience versus fresh-thought, and watching accomplished versus budding actor and the film really grows to be much more. That is one of the things for me that I believe in time this is going to be one of those films that people will watch as a cornerstone for both Murray's and Johansson's respective careers, and that thought is so very interesting. That means of course that they have really put in wonderful performances here: searching, haunting, mature are some of the words that come to mind.
Tokyo, some Kyoto, and modern Japanese culture stand as a backdrop to this and it is interesting in the sense that it works at the level of putting us on unfamiliar ground as well so that we ourselves are doing a little bit of that searching all the time. This is a brilliant thing about this movie, because especially the opening shots with Bob Harris in the car waking up in a foreign city and the unusual (and might I say beautiful) first shot of Johansson's back puts us immediately on foreign ground and we are interested if a little anxious of what is to come.
That Sofia Coppola (daughter of the great Francis Ford Coppola) is able to find this second layer is her greatest achievement. She uses a camera that frequently goes in and out of focus as the characters look at things around them and captures interesting images of modern Japan (a game arcade and the players there including one who dances in rhythm with the game, a karaoke party, etc) add to the feeling and all of this is underscored by a wonderful soundtrack.
She does other things well too in a conventional sense, keeps the camera on Bill Murray giving him the opportunity to use it to complete effect (watch him especially in the closing moments of the movie, and you'll see why this is one of his best performances; his restraint in the movie's comic scenes adds to that). Johansson on the other hand is given a slightly different treatment and that helps her grow (blossom?) into her role. She allows for this movie to be much more than a comedy (which it could easily have been, and it is very funny) or worse a romantic comedy (that their relationship pushes into romance is not surprising, but the way that it is handled is critical to the success of the movie). The setting of the tone and mood throughout the story with slightly pale colours (always giving the feeling of jet-lag/insomnia) is particularly striking, as is the almost taste-able Santory whiskey. This is an achievement not only of Coppola's but the cinematography and art direction.
Ultimately, the meeting of Bob and Charlotte gives them an opportunity to consider their life as it is (and more importantly to talk about it). This in effect results in their internal conversation reaching fruition (although this is not shown explicitly but becomes clear in the closing shots where Bob whispers something to Charlotte - we are not a party to this conversation and that is a good thing).
I give the movie 8.5. The biggest shortcoming is that the editing could have been tighter, some of the observations of Japanese-isms could have been curtailed. Consider the ending which starts of with the Bob's ride through Tokyo and is a montage of shots of the city but goes on for too long (I would have liked to see it end as they went up a flyover/bridge - both on a cinematic and musical note, but it continues for at least another 20-30 seconds) and that underscores for me the limitation of this movie.
The story follows Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) as they spend some time in Japan. They are both lost in translation in the sense that I described before. They really have no idea where they are going, why they are doing what they are doing (if they are doing anything at all) and how they are going to get out of this situation that they find themselves in. Bob's suggestion that they should leave the hotel, then the city and then the country seems like a good one. But since the problem is within, it is not really going to be a fruitful solution in the long run. In a way, we can see that both of them have indeed taken this trip to Japan as a sort of changing-the-scenery but that hasn't done anything for them. In fact, now in these foreign locales they are more lost than ever. That is until fate lends them a hand by making the two of them meet.
Their meetings, and their relationship as they talk through their respective issues (and what those issues exactly are is not necessary to be discussed here, it is more rewarding for them to be discovered in the movie and it should be said that they are not particularly anything Earth-shattering - something along the lines of growing up for Charlotte, mid-life crisis for Bob and marriage issues for both) is interesting both as an observation of a budding relationship between two lonely lost souls, and also as the hint of a romantic possibility. Add to the suggestion of experience versus fresh-thought, and watching accomplished versus budding actor and the film really grows to be much more. That is one of the things for me that I believe in time this is going to be one of those films that people will watch as a cornerstone for both Murray's and Johansson's respective careers, and that thought is so very interesting. That means of course that they have really put in wonderful performances here: searching, haunting, mature are some of the words that come to mind.
Tokyo, some Kyoto, and modern Japanese culture stand as a backdrop to this and it is interesting in the sense that it works at the level of putting us on unfamiliar ground as well so that we ourselves are doing a little bit of that searching all the time. This is a brilliant thing about this movie, because especially the opening shots with Bob Harris in the car waking up in a foreign city and the unusual (and might I say beautiful) first shot of Johansson's back puts us immediately on foreign ground and we are interested if a little anxious of what is to come.
That Sofia Coppola (daughter of the great Francis Ford Coppola) is able to find this second layer is her greatest achievement. She uses a camera that frequently goes in and out of focus as the characters look at things around them and captures interesting images of modern Japan (a game arcade and the players there including one who dances in rhythm with the game, a karaoke party, etc) add to the feeling and all of this is underscored by a wonderful soundtrack.
She does other things well too in a conventional sense, keeps the camera on Bill Murray giving him the opportunity to use it to complete effect (watch him especially in the closing moments of the movie, and you'll see why this is one of his best performances; his restraint in the movie's comic scenes adds to that). Johansson on the other hand is given a slightly different treatment and that helps her grow (blossom?) into her role. She allows for this movie to be much more than a comedy (which it could easily have been, and it is very funny) or worse a romantic comedy (that their relationship pushes into romance is not surprising, but the way that it is handled is critical to the success of the movie). The setting of the tone and mood throughout the story with slightly pale colours (always giving the feeling of jet-lag/insomnia) is particularly striking, as is the almost taste-able Santory whiskey. This is an achievement not only of Coppola's but the cinematography and art direction.
Ultimately, the meeting of Bob and Charlotte gives them an opportunity to consider their life as it is (and more importantly to talk about it). This in effect results in their internal conversation reaching fruition (although this is not shown explicitly but becomes clear in the closing shots where Bob whispers something to Charlotte - we are not a party to this conversation and that is a good thing).
I give the movie 8.5. The biggest shortcoming is that the editing could have been tighter, some of the observations of Japanese-isms could have been curtailed. Consider the ending which starts of with the Bob's ride through Tokyo and is a montage of shots of the city but goes on for too long (I would have liked to see it end as they went up a flyover/bridge - both on a cinematic and musical note, but it continues for at least another 20-30 seconds) and that underscores for me the limitation of this movie.
Reservoir Dogs (1992) - 7.5/10
Tarantino's first film is well-known and generally fairly well-acclaimed, so it doesn't really need my approval. However it is instructive (at least for me personally) to examine the reasons why it is regarded as a fairly good movie and especially instructive to examine its shortcomings.
Reservoir Dogs open with the camera circling a group of men seated at a dinner and having a conversation (which in the decade and a half since its making has come to be known as almost Tarantinoesque, which is not small praise for any director/screenwriter). The conversation is about many things but not about what is going to happen in the film. In a sense, it is there to fill in space. In other senses it is a lot more than that and works to not only set up the rest of the movie but on close observation it also helps to establish character. The classic Steve Buscemi induced tipping conversation has implications which will be picked up at the end of the movie. Dialogue is one of the strong points of this movie (as it is with any Tarantino movie - but now I am going to refrain from saying that, because I am trying to review this movie separately from Tarantino's work thereafter). However, in a way dialogue is also a shortcoming of this movie. Not in that it is necessarily used to no effect. Rather, that it is used for too much effect. After a while (say 2/3rds of the way in) one gets the feeling of watching talking heads, with not too much to recommend them. A series of flashbacks, which should serve as character development end up being more opportunities for said talking heads. And this is a pity because you have a wonderful cast who have assembled and it seems geed themselves up for a spirited performance. Unfortunately, their chaperone lets them down.
Consider for example, what happens to the character of Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), who lies bleeding for most of the time at the warehouse, but suddenly comes alive at some stage and speaks some nonsense (and I do not use the word lightly). Or consider Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr. Pink's (Steve Buscemi) first conversation at the warehouse, when a guy lies their bleeding. The thing that eventually gets to me is that Tarantino starts off so well, both with the opening dialogue and the moments immediately following (and this movie could have easily gone on to become a classic from there). The movie is rescued somewhat by Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen, in a career-making role, even if that is not always a good thing considering the rest of his career after RD) from time to time. But again the movie insists on too many flashbacks for the effect to be carried through and through to what it could have.
In the end, therefore, this movie becomes a classic could've-been and not a classic (and I am willing to argue with those who think otherwise - and by the way cult-classic phenomenon is questionable, since I have read recently that Chaos has attained cult status). Tighter editing would have helped, so would a couple of re-writes, less flashback and a control on the number of words spoken by a person at a time (see the initial realism created in the opening sequences is lost because people who are apparently in panic or injured speak volumes, and it is far from hysterical chattering, more like caffeine-induced monologues).
All this is not to say that the film is bad. Far from it, it is still recommended viewing for anyone but the weakest of stomachs (the gore/violence quotient though is less than typical Tarantino). It is great to watch the first effort of a director, who spent a lot of time and energy in getting the project to fruition in the first place. Most importantly it is great to see the lessons that the Tarantino learns from the short-comings of this movie. Despite what people may think, one thing that Tarantino has in all his other movies is restraint (though on the scale of Tarantino it differs greatly from what it means for you or me). For a guy who is way-out-there it means that he keeps it enough under control for it to be useful to his object and consitently interesting. Critics such as Ray Carney who think that a director like Tarantino has no place among good film-makers (but then he thinks that there is no place for Kubrick, Scorsese either) don't realize in a way what this kind of film-maker brings to the movies, he pushes boundaries (even if primarily stylistically and plot-development) and that is always of great benefit. Yes, it is a pity that he does not take up more serious subjects. But then again who is to say that a Pulp Fiction will not stand the test of time. What is that film about, well that is the subject of a completely different kind of piece. Suffice to say, that it is essential watching.
Reservoir Dogs also has great camera-work by Andrzej Sakula. The moving-camera Scorsese influence can be seen although it is not desperately obvious and the long (and often moving) shots are also great. Action sequences are filmed with urgency and somehow the wonderful shot of Mr. Pink running along the pavement, being roughly at the center of the frame throughout is reminiscent of the shots at the end of Truffaut's The 400 Blows with the character of Antoine running away from his reform school. I always wonder about how a shot like that was managed, more so for Truffaut's film which was made in 1959 than this one, and also if anyone else sees the similarity.
Michael Madsen is at the center of this movie with a glowing performance, although the rest of the cast is very good: Harvey Keitel as usual, Chris Penn shows us some of the darkness which will see him get cast in Altman's Short Cuts a year later, Steve Buscemi is hyper and anxious as ever and Tim Roth actually brings a couple of different sides to his character. The line of the movie for me is, "Are you gonna talk all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?" from Mr. Blonde. Madsen has one sequence in this movie which oozes with so much sheer coldbloodedness that nothing can be said about it except: watch it! It is a pity that in a way this role type-cast him and he really never got too many more roles that were of the same calibre (not even Tarantino could give him one in Kill Bill, though he tried).
The movie gets 7.5. It is rated R with good reason. It is reported that it uses fuck or a variant 269 times and ain't that a beauty.
Reservoir Dogs open with the camera circling a group of men seated at a dinner and having a conversation (which in the decade and a half since its making has come to be known as almost Tarantinoesque, which is not small praise for any director/screenwriter). The conversation is about many things but not about what is going to happen in the film. In a sense, it is there to fill in space. In other senses it is a lot more than that and works to not only set up the rest of the movie but on close observation it also helps to establish character. The classic Steve Buscemi induced tipping conversation has implications which will be picked up at the end of the movie. Dialogue is one of the strong points of this movie (as it is with any Tarantino movie - but now I am going to refrain from saying that, because I am trying to review this movie separately from Tarantino's work thereafter). However, in a way dialogue is also a shortcoming of this movie. Not in that it is necessarily used to no effect. Rather, that it is used for too much effect. After a while (say 2/3rds of the way in) one gets the feeling of watching talking heads, with not too much to recommend them. A series of flashbacks, which should serve as character development end up being more opportunities for said talking heads. And this is a pity because you have a wonderful cast who have assembled and it seems geed themselves up for a spirited performance. Unfortunately, their chaperone lets them down.
Consider for example, what happens to the character of Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), who lies bleeding for most of the time at the warehouse, but suddenly comes alive at some stage and speaks some nonsense (and I do not use the word lightly). Or consider Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr. Pink's (Steve Buscemi) first conversation at the warehouse, when a guy lies their bleeding. The thing that eventually gets to me is that Tarantino starts off so well, both with the opening dialogue and the moments immediately following (and this movie could have easily gone on to become a classic from there). The movie is rescued somewhat by Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen, in a career-making role, even if that is not always a good thing considering the rest of his career after RD) from time to time. But again the movie insists on too many flashbacks for the effect to be carried through and through to what it could have.
In the end, therefore, this movie becomes a classic could've-been and not a classic (and I am willing to argue with those who think otherwise - and by the way cult-classic phenomenon is questionable, since I have read recently that Chaos has attained cult status). Tighter editing would have helped, so would a couple of re-writes, less flashback and a control on the number of words spoken by a person at a time (see the initial realism created in the opening sequences is lost because people who are apparently in panic or injured speak volumes, and it is far from hysterical chattering, more like caffeine-induced monologues).
All this is not to say that the film is bad. Far from it, it is still recommended viewing for anyone but the weakest of stomachs (the gore/violence quotient though is less than typical Tarantino). It is great to watch the first effort of a director, who spent a lot of time and energy in getting the project to fruition in the first place. Most importantly it is great to see the lessons that the Tarantino learns from the short-comings of this movie. Despite what people may think, one thing that Tarantino has in all his other movies is restraint (though on the scale of Tarantino it differs greatly from what it means for you or me). For a guy who is way-out-there it means that he keeps it enough under control for it to be useful to his object and consitently interesting. Critics such as Ray Carney who think that a director like Tarantino has no place among good film-makers (but then he thinks that there is no place for Kubrick, Scorsese either) don't realize in a way what this kind of film-maker brings to the movies, he pushes boundaries (even if primarily stylistically and plot-development) and that is always of great benefit. Yes, it is a pity that he does not take up more serious subjects. But then again who is to say that a Pulp Fiction will not stand the test of time. What is that film about, well that is the subject of a completely different kind of piece. Suffice to say, that it is essential watching.
Reservoir Dogs also has great camera-work by Andrzej Sakula. The moving-camera Scorsese influence can be seen although it is not desperately obvious and the long (and often moving) shots are also great. Action sequences are filmed with urgency and somehow the wonderful shot of Mr. Pink running along the pavement, being roughly at the center of the frame throughout is reminiscent of the shots at the end of Truffaut's The 400 Blows with the character of Antoine running away from his reform school. I always wonder about how a shot like that was managed, more so for Truffaut's film which was made in 1959 than this one, and also if anyone else sees the similarity.
Michael Madsen is at the center of this movie with a glowing performance, although the rest of the cast is very good: Harvey Keitel as usual, Chris Penn shows us some of the darkness which will see him get cast in Altman's Short Cuts a year later, Steve Buscemi is hyper and anxious as ever and Tim Roth actually brings a couple of different sides to his character. The line of the movie for me is, "Are you gonna talk all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?" from Mr. Blonde. Madsen has one sequence in this movie which oozes with so much sheer coldbloodedness that nothing can be said about it except: watch it! It is a pity that in a way this role type-cast him and he really never got too many more roles that were of the same calibre (not even Tarantino could give him one in Kill Bill, though he tried).
The movie gets 7.5. It is rated R with good reason. It is reported that it uses fuck or a variant 269 times and ain't that a beauty.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Being There (1979) - 9/10
What a great film this is: beautiful, thought-provoking, sensitive and full of wonder. Being There is usually billed as a comedy, but it is so much more than that. The story follows the events in the life of a gardener, who works in a small house in Washington, D.C., after the death of his employer (although it is not clear whether he was actually employed by the dead old man or if he was related to the old man in some way). The gardener's name is Chance (Peter Sellers) and after the old man's death, the house-maid Louise (Ruth Attaway) must leave (she used to bring Chance his meals), this appears to be a problem but we are not given a chance to consider this as two attorneys from the law firm representing the dead man's estate turn up and ask Chance to leave. It appears Chance has always lived in this house, he was not allowed to leave the house and has therefore never been in an automobile (a theme which will return later in the film as a wonderful comic moment) and the clothes he wears are essentially from the old man's wardrobe (they are a good fit) and therefore Chance always appears dapper in great suits. This has implications for the rest of the story.
As for what kind of person Chance is, from early conversations with Louise and his matter-of-fact reaction to the old man's death suggest that he is either retarded or just kind of slow. His main interest in life is watching the TV set, he spends his time watching the TV (even when he is next to the dead man), he usually carries around a remote so that he can easily change channels. Chance also cannot read and write, he apes actions that he sees on the TV set and it seems that most (if not all) of his education has been through that medium. Therefore when he is asked to move out we have already been supplied with enough anticipation for what's to come once he moves into the outside world. However, anything we can think of is far from what's really to come, and how the story unfolds is one of the joys of the movie for me. As Chance walks out of the house with a suitcase, the soundtrack plays a rocking remix / improvization based on Richard Strauss's "Thus Spake Zarathustra and coupled with the shots of Washington, D.C. as Chance discovers it the effect is fantastic (it also works at a subliminal level to inform the viewer of the fact that something big is about to come - as a vision of 2001: A Space Odyssey flashes through the mind - the remix perhaps suggesting the unexpected nature of it), but I'll say more about the soundtrack later.
How much of Chance's experience is TV-related becomes apparent when he gets confronted by a gang of black kids. What does he do? He tries to change the channel using the remote. He gets off the hook by promising to deliver a message to Raphael (whoever that is). This again is a small plot point which returns as good laughs later on. This and many other small things like that show how wonderful the writing is. The screenplay was adapted by Jerry Kosinski (and Robert C. Jones) from his novel.
The remote also leads to an accident when Chance is confronted by a TV set in shop window displaying passers by and while trying to change the channel in earnest he crashes against a backing car and hurts his leg. This leads to him being taken into the household of Benjamin Rand(Melvyn Douglas) and his wife Eve (Shirley Maclaine). Ben is ill and they have a Doctor living at the house and it is thought that he would be best-suited to take care of Chance's injury. Chance is asked to stay for a few days by the Doctor (Richard Dysart) so that he can observe Chance's progress, is it any wonder that Chance agrees?
Through some mis-understandings Chance comes to be known as Mr. Chauncey Gardener and is thought of as a wealthy business (certainly his appearance confirms that view, even if his manners are a little out of the ordinary). Ben and Eve grow fond of Mr. Gardener and so do some of the minor characters such as a lift-man. The only person who doubts Chance is the Doctor who begins a personal investigation about the money. The next few days unfold as a sort of dream in which we expect that Chance's deception to be discovered at any moment and the dream shattered. But Chance is not intentionally deceiving anybody and this holds him in good stead.
Ben's good friend the President visits and is introduced to Mr. Gardener. The President is surprised by the man's allegory - when asked about growth Chance speaks of gardening the only thing he knows, but the other two men find a much deeper meaning in this. The President goes on to repeat this on TV and overnight Chance becomes a much sought-after figure. Now in addition to the Doctor there are many more people who investigate his past but they all come up with nothing and in the meantime his stature only rises. More importantly, Eve falls in love with Chance (and maybe he falls in love with her) and Ben accepts that this is so and in fact is happy and it seems because of Chance's appearance he is now content and no longer afraid of dying.
I think the basic premise of the story is how adults can be easily taken in by a simple-minded and straight-talking person such as Chance, as most of what he says is based on his immediate reaction to what he hears (and knows from TV experience) and this works in a wonderful way for the listener. Of course, his being named Chance is no co-incidence because chance is working overtime to make all this possible. But ultimately, the movie grows to be much more than that, as all the supporting characters are written with pitch perfection and we begin to understand why Ben and Eve would easily accept Chance in this situation. Again the dialogue is phenomenal and this is one of those movies where every word is placed near perfectly.
I was reminded of Forrest Gump as I watched Chance. It appears that they have much the same IQ and respond with the same sort of honesty and earnestness when spoken to (as such Forrest is a much more interesting character, because he does have thoughts of his own and displays a lot more emotion). In fact, that idea of working within one's limitations and therefore achieving a lot more than one hopes is also a crucial idea of this film. It is true that this is a plot driven by appearances but as I said before Chance is not actively participating in the deception (he is not completely aware of what is happening) and therefore there is nothing morally questionable about it. In any case, most of the time Chance just makes a good attempt of listening to the people talking to him and responding as best as he can. That this is what the people meeting him need the most is just a matter of chance, but then again there is a lesson for everybody about what is important in human interaction. Both Chance and Forrest Gump at some level understand this better than most people who are much more gifted intellectually, and it appears they are rewarded for that.
Peter Sellers is fascinating to watch in this movie because of his restraint through the part. Whenever you see his name in a movie there is always the possibility of something quite over-the-top, but his poise here demonstrates why he was considered such a dramatic talent (even if he rarely chose to use it to its fullest extent going rather for effect most often - much like our very own Jim Carrey). Shirley Maclaine is once again looking gorgeous (at 45?) and turns in another of those wonderful performances that She has demonstrated herself to be more than apt at (consider Terms of Endearment). She has great subtlety in her role here, which involves even a masturbation sequence at one point (since Chance likes to watch - but he meant the TV; the scene has been called embarrassing for Maclaine and I am sure that it was, but in the context of the film and a particular conversation that follows some time later it is apt). The rest of the supporting cast delivers very good performances and everyone is helped along by the exactness of the dialogue. Melvyn Douglas won an Academy Award for his role as the dying man.
The soundtrack is wonderful and after the initial fanfare of the "Thus Spake Zarathustra" mix it almost recedes into the background, but is really always there to highlight the right moments. But even here there is a restraint shown that makes the soundtrack less of an emotional aid (for the right cues) and more of an enhancing element to the visuals (as any good soundtrack should be). The closing shots of the movie are wonderful in the combination of visuals and music as well as our thought-process as we summarize what we have seen. The cinematography throughout is actually very good and is able to convey the beauty of the D.C. surroundings better than I can remember in any other movie, but that maybe because it tries to see it from the perspective of Chance.
I give it 9 out of 10. The major negative point being the outtakes that appear in the movies end credits, after the wonderful closing moments which elevates the movie to yet another plane altogether (the last words of the movie are "Life is a state of mind" and its juxtaposition with the closing image is just something else and needs to be discovered for itself by each viewer). I thought this was unnecessary and detracted from my experience of watching the movie. I know people will say that this is a comedy, but as I said before I have perceived this to be more than that (imagine Forrest Gump with similar outtakes and you'll know what I mean). Sometimes movies are just not content with brilliant closing moments, remember Donnie Brasco. I wonder why that is. It could be that they want to deliberately bring down the movie at the end. Another negative was that the pace of the movie could have been a little quicker although I cannot really fault it. Thankfully, sense reigns and this movie is rated PG. However, thematic elements really don't lend it as interesting viewing for kids.
As for what kind of person Chance is, from early conversations with Louise and his matter-of-fact reaction to the old man's death suggest that he is either retarded or just kind of slow. His main interest in life is watching the TV set, he spends his time watching the TV (even when he is next to the dead man), he usually carries around a remote so that he can easily change channels. Chance also cannot read and write, he apes actions that he sees on the TV set and it seems that most (if not all) of his education has been through that medium. Therefore when he is asked to move out we have already been supplied with enough anticipation for what's to come once he moves into the outside world. However, anything we can think of is far from what's really to come, and how the story unfolds is one of the joys of the movie for me. As Chance walks out of the house with a suitcase, the soundtrack plays a rocking remix / improvization based on Richard Strauss's "Thus Spake Zarathustra and coupled with the shots of Washington, D.C. as Chance discovers it the effect is fantastic (it also works at a subliminal level to inform the viewer of the fact that something big is about to come - as a vision of 2001: A Space Odyssey flashes through the mind - the remix perhaps suggesting the unexpected nature of it), but I'll say more about the soundtrack later.
How much of Chance's experience is TV-related becomes apparent when he gets confronted by a gang of black kids. What does he do? He tries to change the channel using the remote. He gets off the hook by promising to deliver a message to Raphael (whoever that is). This again is a small plot point which returns as good laughs later on. This and many other small things like that show how wonderful the writing is. The screenplay was adapted by Jerry Kosinski (and Robert C. Jones) from his novel.
The remote also leads to an accident when Chance is confronted by a TV set in shop window displaying passers by and while trying to change the channel in earnest he crashes against a backing car and hurts his leg. This leads to him being taken into the household of Benjamin Rand(Melvyn Douglas) and his wife Eve (Shirley Maclaine). Ben is ill and they have a Doctor living at the house and it is thought that he would be best-suited to take care of Chance's injury. Chance is asked to stay for a few days by the Doctor (Richard Dysart) so that he can observe Chance's progress, is it any wonder that Chance agrees?
Through some mis-understandings Chance comes to be known as Mr. Chauncey Gardener and is thought of as a wealthy business (certainly his appearance confirms that view, even if his manners are a little out of the ordinary). Ben and Eve grow fond of Mr. Gardener and so do some of the minor characters such as a lift-man. The only person who doubts Chance is the Doctor who begins a personal investigation about the money. The next few days unfold as a sort of dream in which we expect that Chance's deception to be discovered at any moment and the dream shattered. But Chance is not intentionally deceiving anybody and this holds him in good stead.
Ben's good friend the President visits and is introduced to Mr. Gardener. The President is surprised by the man's allegory - when asked about growth Chance speaks of gardening the only thing he knows, but the other two men find a much deeper meaning in this. The President goes on to repeat this on TV and overnight Chance becomes a much sought-after figure. Now in addition to the Doctor there are many more people who investigate his past but they all come up with nothing and in the meantime his stature only rises. More importantly, Eve falls in love with Chance (and maybe he falls in love with her) and Ben accepts that this is so and in fact is happy and it seems because of Chance's appearance he is now content and no longer afraid of dying.
I think the basic premise of the story is how adults can be easily taken in by a simple-minded and straight-talking person such as Chance, as most of what he says is based on his immediate reaction to what he hears (and knows from TV experience) and this works in a wonderful way for the listener. Of course, his being named Chance is no co-incidence because chance is working overtime to make all this possible. But ultimately, the movie grows to be much more than that, as all the supporting characters are written with pitch perfection and we begin to understand why Ben and Eve would easily accept Chance in this situation. Again the dialogue is phenomenal and this is one of those movies where every word is placed near perfectly.
I was reminded of Forrest Gump as I watched Chance. It appears that they have much the same IQ and respond with the same sort of honesty and earnestness when spoken to (as such Forrest is a much more interesting character, because he does have thoughts of his own and displays a lot more emotion). In fact, that idea of working within one's limitations and therefore achieving a lot more than one hopes is also a crucial idea of this film. It is true that this is a plot driven by appearances but as I said before Chance is not actively participating in the deception (he is not completely aware of what is happening) and therefore there is nothing morally questionable about it. In any case, most of the time Chance just makes a good attempt of listening to the people talking to him and responding as best as he can. That this is what the people meeting him need the most is just a matter of chance, but then again there is a lesson for everybody about what is important in human interaction. Both Chance and Forrest Gump at some level understand this better than most people who are much more gifted intellectually, and it appears they are rewarded for that.
Peter Sellers is fascinating to watch in this movie because of his restraint through the part. Whenever you see his name in a movie there is always the possibility of something quite over-the-top, but his poise here demonstrates why he was considered such a dramatic talent (even if he rarely chose to use it to its fullest extent going rather for effect most often - much like our very own Jim Carrey). Shirley Maclaine is once again looking gorgeous (at 45?) and turns in another of those wonderful performances that She has demonstrated herself to be more than apt at (consider Terms of Endearment). She has great subtlety in her role here, which involves even a masturbation sequence at one point (since Chance likes to watch - but he meant the TV; the scene has been called embarrassing for Maclaine and I am sure that it was, but in the context of the film and a particular conversation that follows some time later it is apt). The rest of the supporting cast delivers very good performances and everyone is helped along by the exactness of the dialogue. Melvyn Douglas won an Academy Award for his role as the dying man.
The soundtrack is wonderful and after the initial fanfare of the "Thus Spake Zarathustra" mix it almost recedes into the background, but is really always there to highlight the right moments. But even here there is a restraint shown that makes the soundtrack less of an emotional aid (for the right cues) and more of an enhancing element to the visuals (as any good soundtrack should be). The closing shots of the movie are wonderful in the combination of visuals and music as well as our thought-process as we summarize what we have seen. The cinematography throughout is actually very good and is able to convey the beauty of the D.C. surroundings better than I can remember in any other movie, but that maybe because it tries to see it from the perspective of Chance.
I give it 9 out of 10. The major negative point being the outtakes that appear in the movies end credits, after the wonderful closing moments which elevates the movie to yet another plane altogether (the last words of the movie are "Life is a state of mind" and its juxtaposition with the closing image is just something else and needs to be discovered for itself by each viewer). I thought this was unnecessary and detracted from my experience of watching the movie. I know people will say that this is a comedy, but as I said before I have perceived this to be more than that (imagine Forrest Gump with similar outtakes and you'll know what I mean). Sometimes movies are just not content with brilliant closing moments, remember Donnie Brasco. I wonder why that is. It could be that they want to deliberately bring down the movie at the end. Another negative was that the pace of the movie could have been a little quicker although I cannot really fault it. Thankfully, sense reigns and this movie is rated PG. However, thematic elements really don't lend it as interesting viewing for kids.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Coffee and Cigarettes (2003) - 7.5/10
Jim Jarmusch first made a short film called Coffee and Cigarettes in 1986 with Roberto Benigni and Steven Wright. Then over the next 17 years he made two more installments, part II with Joi and Cinque Lee and Steve Buscemi and part III with Tom Waits and Iggy pop that went on to win the Golden Palm (Best Short Film) at the Cannes Film Festival 1993.
In 2003, he collected these three and eight other vignettes as part of the 2003 release of a full-length film Coffee and Cigarettes. This is a must see for anyone who enjoys Coffee (or for that matter Tea, at least one vignette substitutes Tea for Coffee, and another well it does away with any caffeine altogether that is until Bill Murray walks in with a pot and starts drinking directly from it) or cigarettes or both. This is also recommended for people who don't enjoy any of those things but enjoy brilliant dialogue and comedy. This is a very funny film and also at times has acute observation of human nature. The way people who have become successful in their lives behave (especially in the Alfred Molina / Steve Coogan segment, the Cate Blanchett segment, the Iggy Pop / Tom Waits segment) and how others perceive them to be (Cate Blanchett has a double role as herself and a jealous cousin in one segment). There are some classic conversation moments such as when Steve Buscemi explains his theory about how Elvis is still alive and a wonderful discussion about Nikola Tesla. All this ends up making the film fascinating and entertaining at the same time. People will argue that there is no real point to all this, but any caffeine-junkie (and I can't speak for smokers, because I am not one) will know that that's the point: That caffeine is a great conversation aid (and creative aid, you can see JJ and co. sitting together guzzling infinite cups of Coffee and Tea as they made this), and who says conversation needs to really be about something.
All of the vignettes are good but a couple of them seem to lose direction half-way through, but even that seems like a deliberate reflection of real conversations. My favourites are the Alfred Molina / Steve Coogan, the Cate Blanchett double, the Alex Descas / Isaach De Bankole and the Roberto Benigni / Steven Wright one. Some of the later vignettes refer to some of the earlier ones (which one should know that at the time of the final making where already out and perhaps well-known and therefore part of the conversation of the people in question?) and this adds to the experience of watching the series.
I give it 7.5 for being eminently watchable but lacking anything more than that, and as I said before a couple of the vignettes could use some help. The camera-work is interesting, especially in shots of the coffee-tables from above, and the editing is generally good except in parts. The movie gets an R-rating, for no better reason than the use of fuck and other associated words. Ah! More material for my censorship-bashing. Unless the censors were thinking about the pervasive smoking and matter-of-fact approach to it, but that is a whole another story.
In 2003, he collected these three and eight other vignettes as part of the 2003 release of a full-length film Coffee and Cigarettes. This is a must see for anyone who enjoys Coffee (or for that matter Tea, at least one vignette substitutes Tea for Coffee, and another well it does away with any caffeine altogether that is until Bill Murray walks in with a pot and starts drinking directly from it) or cigarettes or both. This is also recommended for people who don't enjoy any of those things but enjoy brilliant dialogue and comedy. This is a very funny film and also at times has acute observation of human nature. The way people who have become successful in their lives behave (especially in the Alfred Molina / Steve Coogan segment, the Cate Blanchett segment, the Iggy Pop / Tom Waits segment) and how others perceive them to be (Cate Blanchett has a double role as herself and a jealous cousin in one segment). There are some classic conversation moments such as when Steve Buscemi explains his theory about how Elvis is still alive and a wonderful discussion about Nikola Tesla. All this ends up making the film fascinating and entertaining at the same time. People will argue that there is no real point to all this, but any caffeine-junkie (and I can't speak for smokers, because I am not one) will know that that's the point: That caffeine is a great conversation aid (and creative aid, you can see JJ and co. sitting together guzzling infinite cups of Coffee and Tea as they made this), and who says conversation needs to really be about something.
All of the vignettes are good but a couple of them seem to lose direction half-way through, but even that seems like a deliberate reflection of real conversations. My favourites are the Alfred Molina / Steve Coogan, the Cate Blanchett double, the Alex Descas / Isaach De Bankole and the Roberto Benigni / Steven Wright one. Some of the later vignettes refer to some of the earlier ones (which one should know that at the time of the final making where already out and perhaps well-known and therefore part of the conversation of the people in question?) and this adds to the experience of watching the series.
I give it 7.5 for being eminently watchable but lacking anything more than that, and as I said before a couple of the vignettes could use some help. The camera-work is interesting, especially in shots of the coffee-tables from above, and the editing is generally good except in parts. The movie gets an R-rating, for no better reason than the use of fuck and other associated words. Ah! More material for my censorship-bashing. Unless the censors were thinking about the pervasive smoking and matter-of-fact approach to it, but that is a whole another story.
Grindhouse (2007) - 6 and 7.5
Last night I went out and saw Grindhouse at Brew and View (which is the Vic Theatre's alter-ego as they call it) and it is always an interesting experience watching a movie there because of the bar and the great German red beer that they serve. In fact it is perfect (and perhaps the only right) setting for a movie like Grindhouse. I have seen Kill Bill (both volumes) there before, which are also movies that are perfectly suited to the Brew and View experience.
Grindhouse is actually the pet project of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. They grew up watching and loving grindhouse movies and decided that it was time that they made their own exploitation film. And exploit they do. Grindhouse has everything as listed in wikipedia except forbidden sex.
Rodriguez writes and directs the segment called Planet Terror, it is gruesome, gross, despicable and filthy to say the least. But if you are as seasoned a movie-goer as I, it is also extremely funny. I will not say much more about this (perhaps revisit this entry sometime in the future) except to say that there are a few cameos by none other than Bruce Willis and Tarantino himself, and also that there is an extremely well-placed missing reel.
Tarantino writes and directs Deathproof. He is also in charge of Cinematography. Tarantino once again proves why he is so good, because he makes an exploitation film but elevates it to Tarantinoesque levels (some might argue that Tarantino has only made exploitation films but those are not the right people that one should hang out with). This is a movie (or segment) that I will watch again and again. It has a car chase, a car crash (shown from three different angles, one after another), some fantastic surprises, beautiful women, signature soundtrack (the film's musical theme which runs through both segments as a unifier is also very good and we are treated to several different treatments of the seen) and Tarantino dialogue, need I say more. The action sequences are so good that it is in effect exhilarating to watch. There is also the mandatory Reservoir Dogs style setup conversation at a diner and the missing reel of the first segment makes a return at a crucial juncture. For certain International audiences who are going to have the benefit of a separate release of each segment, I recommend Deathproof but not the first.
There are also short segments, fake trailers of other grindhouse movies such as Machete, Werewolf Women of the S.S. , Don't and Thanksgiving which are also pretty gruesome and funny.
Planet Terror gets 6, because it was too long and I looked at my watch at least twice. Deathproof gets 7.5 out of 10, for making me want more at the end, it loses points because this is needless self-indulgence by a very good director. It is time Tarantino moved on to greater things not worse.
The film is rated R, because thematically it has nothing of concern for teenagers I suppose, just severed heads and rotting scrotums, not too much. Certainly, this film (especially the first sequence) is not for the cultured, the well-preserved and the uninitiated.
Grindhouse is actually the pet project of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. They grew up watching and loving grindhouse movies and decided that it was time that they made their own exploitation film. And exploit they do. Grindhouse has everything as listed in wikipedia except forbidden sex.
Rodriguez writes and directs the segment called Planet Terror, it is gruesome, gross, despicable and filthy to say the least. But if you are as seasoned a movie-goer as I, it is also extremely funny. I will not say much more about this (perhaps revisit this entry sometime in the future) except to say that there are a few cameos by none other than Bruce Willis and Tarantino himself, and also that there is an extremely well-placed missing reel.
Tarantino writes and directs Deathproof. He is also in charge of Cinematography. Tarantino once again proves why he is so good, because he makes an exploitation film but elevates it to Tarantinoesque levels (some might argue that Tarantino has only made exploitation films but those are not the right people that one should hang out with). This is a movie (or segment) that I will watch again and again. It has a car chase, a car crash (shown from three different angles, one after another), some fantastic surprises, beautiful women, signature soundtrack (the film's musical theme which runs through both segments as a unifier is also very good and we are treated to several different treatments of the seen) and Tarantino dialogue, need I say more. The action sequences are so good that it is in effect exhilarating to watch. There is also the mandatory Reservoir Dogs style setup conversation at a diner and the missing reel of the first segment makes a return at a crucial juncture. For certain International audiences who are going to have the benefit of a separate release of each segment, I recommend Deathproof but not the first.
There are also short segments, fake trailers of other grindhouse movies such as Machete, Werewolf Women of the S.S. , Don't and Thanksgiving which are also pretty gruesome and funny.
Planet Terror gets 6, because it was too long and I looked at my watch at least twice. Deathproof gets 7.5 out of 10, for making me want more at the end, it loses points because this is needless self-indulgence by a very good director. It is time Tarantino moved on to greater things not worse.
The film is rated R, because thematically it has nothing of concern for teenagers I suppose, just severed heads and rotting scrotums, not too much. Certainly, this film (especially the first sequence) is not for the cultured, the well-preserved and the uninitiated.
Junebug (2005) - 9.5/10
Junebug is an extra-ordinary film by Independent Film Director Phil Morrison. It has scenes of such power that they make you cry not because the characters are delivering lengthy monologues about pain and suffering (as often happens in the movies, especially Bollywood movies, K3G anyone) but because they are scenes of such emotional weight and implication that unless you are the most insensitive of people you would react in that way. This is so different from the usual emotional manipulation that most viewers are subjected to in other movies, that it literally elevates this movie into the realms of greatness. The films of Ingmar Bergman and Satyajit Ray immediately come to mind.
Like many of Ray's and Bergman's films this movie is simply the story of a family. But that is what is exactly so complex about it isn't it? For as it stands, it does not look-away or simplify or excessively dramatize what goes on in a family and each of the central characters is given such a complete persona that you become aware that you are watching something real and true. The keyword of course is persona and not personality, because it takes you a while to figure some of these people out like in real-life and in some cases (like the character of elder son) you may never figure out, and this is what makes this all so very intriguing.
The movie begins with Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz) who is an Art dealer in Chicago. Madeleine grew up as the daughter of a frequently traveling diplomat so it is not clear what her conception of family is. She meets George (Alessandro Nivola) at a benefit, they fall in love and are married within a week. Six months later she needs to visit a small town in North Carolina to meet the artist David Wark (Frank Hoyt Taylor), and George goes along so that the couple can spend time with his family, who live not too far from Wark's.
George is the elder son in the family. His brother Johnny (Benjamin McKenzie) is a college-dropout and married to his high-school sweetheart Ashley (Amy Adams). There is obvious tension between George and Johnny, which seems to stem from jealousy, but is never very clear what it is. Johnny and Ashley are also having issues (and it might be that Johnny is the person who is in question in both cases), and Ashley that the child she is pregnant (in fact it is the would be child's name that is to be Junebug) with will lead to a change in Johnny ("God loves you just the way you are, but he loves you too much to let you stay that way." She says at one point). Peg (Celia Weston) and Eugene (Scott Wilson) are the parents who have found a way of living successfully with each other through the years: Peg is a critical and over-bearing woman, and Eugene has learnt to accept this and mostly to recede into silence and his carpentry (Peg herself spends time doing great arts and crafts). Are the parents a happy couple? I would hesitate to presume anything.
The city couple's arrival causes a small storm of sorts. Johnny grows angrier. Peg is critical. Eugene is much the same. George recedes into sleep and tardiness. Ashley takes an instant liking to Madeleine, it appears that she has been starved of attention for long and is extremely happy to find a willing listener (but I make it sound much worse than it is portrayed). In the short time that they are there, George and Johnny (and us) get an opportunity to not only look at this family's life but also small town life in general: there is a baby shower, there are communions (and George surprises his wife by singing a hymn; it seems like once George returns to the family setting, it is Madeleine who is the outsider, even to him); and there are scenes involving the artist Wark (who draws white faces on black people in his paintings because he has never met any African-American and cannot draw what he has not seen); all this are interspersed with occasional shots of the town, its people etc, and what effect that has is really worth watching.
Through all of this of course we have acute observation of the characters through the exceptional performance of the actors and the true writing of Angus MacLachlan. The dialogues aways ring true and never sound like they could have been said but by the person who said them. This is very much an actor's film because of its very nature and each of the central performances are wonderful. But Amy Adams is particularly good, and in a scene in a hospital room (a conversation between Ashley and George) delivers such raw emotion that it is hard not to become a part of her experience. There are other scenes of particular power as well: between Eugene and Madeleine as she deals with the events of the day, they don't say anything; between Johnny and Madeleine as she takes pains to help him write a paper about Huckleberry Finn, he has to that point only read Cliff's notes on the subject and not read the book, the conversation extends to beyond the book, meanwhile Ashley masturbates partly in an attempt to stay up but mostly otherwise and her yearning is palpable, Eugene is also part of this scene and how he is so is what makes this a great film; there are also episodes of George and Madeleine making love while trying to make as little noise as possible, but it is not a successful enterprise, and Johnny in the next room (who resents his wife's weight due to her pregnancy) cannot sleep. All of these and more just show how good the combination of MacLachlan, Morrison and the actors at work here is.
Eventually, Ashley is ready to deliver and is taken to the hospital and it comes as a little bit of a shock to George (and us) that Madeleine will go instead to try and make a last ditch attempt at signing the artist Wark (who has been wooed by a New York hot-shot). But as Ebert points out if George were in Chicago he really would not have come down for Ashley's delivery. Moreover, what do we really know about Madeleine? And what does he? Why should this be so shocking?
In the end, all of the people on view behave as people do and we can sit back and consider their motives for doing so with little knowledge about what makes them tick. We will learn some things: that despite what we are led to believe Johnny loves Ashley (and this becomes clear in two wonderful scenes one involving meerkats and one with a phone conversation); that George and Madeleine are very much in love at the end; that the older couple is also content in their way; and that life goes on. But we will also be left with many questions: what is the future of Ashley and Johnny; what is George's real reaction to all of this, to his family, his upbringing, to his wife and to his own life; will the couple ever visit again anytime soon; will Madeleine really write to Ashley; and so on.
We will end up accepting these people as they are. Just the fact that we can understand them at some level shows two things: that we have not completely lost sight of our humanity and that this is a masterwork.
Junebug gets 9.5 in my book. The 0.5 is taken off because Madeleine and George were not revealed to be more than they were and because the editing could have been a little bit tighter (if only slightly). In fact, George is more of a mystery than when the film started. But then again, that is the point of the movie so I may give the 0.5 back at some point.
Like many of Ray's and Bergman's films this movie is simply the story of a family. But that is what is exactly so complex about it isn't it? For as it stands, it does not look-away or simplify or excessively dramatize what goes on in a family and each of the central characters is given such a complete persona that you become aware that you are watching something real and true. The keyword of course is persona and not personality, because it takes you a while to figure some of these people out like in real-life and in some cases (like the character of elder son) you may never figure out, and this is what makes this all so very intriguing.
The movie begins with Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz) who is an Art dealer in Chicago. Madeleine grew up as the daughter of a frequently traveling diplomat so it is not clear what her conception of family is. She meets George (Alessandro Nivola) at a benefit, they fall in love and are married within a week. Six months later she needs to visit a small town in North Carolina to meet the artist David Wark (Frank Hoyt Taylor), and George goes along so that the couple can spend time with his family, who live not too far from Wark's.
George is the elder son in the family. His brother Johnny (Benjamin McKenzie) is a college-dropout and married to his high-school sweetheart Ashley (Amy Adams). There is obvious tension between George and Johnny, which seems to stem from jealousy, but is never very clear what it is. Johnny and Ashley are also having issues (and it might be that Johnny is the person who is in question in both cases), and Ashley that the child she is pregnant (in fact it is the would be child's name that is to be Junebug) with will lead to a change in Johnny ("God loves you just the way you are, but he loves you too much to let you stay that way." She says at one point). Peg (Celia Weston) and Eugene (Scott Wilson) are the parents who have found a way of living successfully with each other through the years: Peg is a critical and over-bearing woman, and Eugene has learnt to accept this and mostly to recede into silence and his carpentry (Peg herself spends time doing great arts and crafts). Are the parents a happy couple? I would hesitate to presume anything.
The city couple's arrival causes a small storm of sorts. Johnny grows angrier. Peg is critical. Eugene is much the same. George recedes into sleep and tardiness. Ashley takes an instant liking to Madeleine, it appears that she has been starved of attention for long and is extremely happy to find a willing listener (but I make it sound much worse than it is portrayed). In the short time that they are there, George and Johnny (and us) get an opportunity to not only look at this family's life but also small town life in general: there is a baby shower, there are communions (and George surprises his wife by singing a hymn; it seems like once George returns to the family setting, it is Madeleine who is the outsider, even to him); and there are scenes involving the artist Wark (who draws white faces on black people in his paintings because he has never met any African-American and cannot draw what he has not seen); all this are interspersed with occasional shots of the town, its people etc, and what effect that has is really worth watching.
Through all of this of course we have acute observation of the characters through the exceptional performance of the actors and the true writing of Angus MacLachlan. The dialogues aways ring true and never sound like they could have been said but by the person who said them. This is very much an actor's film because of its very nature and each of the central performances are wonderful. But Amy Adams is particularly good, and in a scene in a hospital room (a conversation between Ashley and George) delivers such raw emotion that it is hard not to become a part of her experience. There are other scenes of particular power as well: between Eugene and Madeleine as she deals with the events of the day, they don't say anything; between Johnny and Madeleine as she takes pains to help him write a paper about Huckleberry Finn, he has to that point only read Cliff's notes on the subject and not read the book, the conversation extends to beyond the book, meanwhile Ashley masturbates partly in an attempt to stay up but mostly otherwise and her yearning is palpable, Eugene is also part of this scene and how he is so is what makes this a great film; there are also episodes of George and Madeleine making love while trying to make as little noise as possible, but it is not a successful enterprise, and Johnny in the next room (who resents his wife's weight due to her pregnancy) cannot sleep. All of these and more just show how good the combination of MacLachlan, Morrison and the actors at work here is.
Eventually, Ashley is ready to deliver and is taken to the hospital and it comes as a little bit of a shock to George (and us) that Madeleine will go instead to try and make a last ditch attempt at signing the artist Wark (who has been wooed by a New York hot-shot). But as Ebert points out if George were in Chicago he really would not have come down for Ashley's delivery. Moreover, what do we really know about Madeleine? And what does he? Why should this be so shocking?
In the end, all of the people on view behave as people do and we can sit back and consider their motives for doing so with little knowledge about what makes them tick. We will learn some things: that despite what we are led to believe Johnny loves Ashley (and this becomes clear in two wonderful scenes one involving meerkats and one with a phone conversation); that George and Madeleine are very much in love at the end; that the older couple is also content in their way; and that life goes on. But we will also be left with many questions: what is the future of Ashley and Johnny; what is George's real reaction to all of this, to his family, his upbringing, to his wife and to his own life; will the couple ever visit again anytime soon; will Madeleine really write to Ashley; and so on.
We will end up accepting these people as they are. Just the fact that we can understand them at some level shows two things: that we have not completely lost sight of our humanity and that this is a masterwork.
Junebug gets 9.5 in my book. The 0.5 is taken off because Madeleine and George were not revealed to be more than they were and because the editing could have been a little bit tighter (if only slightly). In fact, George is more of a mystery than when the film started. But then again, that is the point of the movie so I may give the 0.5 back at some point.
Ma Mere [French] (2004) - 0/10
Ma Mere is a French film that one of my friends left with me and asked that I see because he thought it was exceptional. I saw it, and I am sorry to say that this is an exceptionally bad movie. It is one of those movies which I turned off before I reached half way into it (at 110 minutes the film is a pain to say the least).
I guess what happened was that my friend fell into that trap of thinking that since it is French it is profound (and I guess I fell for that a little as well). I like French films, and they usually have a better tab on sensitivity and are franker about sex and such. However, this movie may be frank about sex (in it's abundant nudity and explicit depiction) but is far from sensitive or profound.
The movie essentially follows the story of Pierre (Louis Garell, who I have seen before in a good performance in Bertolucci's The Dreamers ) who after his father's death, slowly descends into his mother's world of depravity and sexual excess (he lust after and eventually has sex with her - a scene which culminates in her death because of the "kink" involved - in 20X Fast-forward the second half of the film is eminently watchable). The Dreamers also had themes of incest and sexual excess, but if you compare the handling of the material in the two movies, you'll know why Bertolucci is considered one of the greats and Christopher Honore is one you (at least I) have never heard of. According to my French friend, George Bataille's novel is supposed to be pretty good, but is it any wonder that I am not really looking forward to reading it.
I give the film a big zero. I had originally given it 2 (for the nudity; beautiful French women) but I take away those points for the repeated close-ups of a male member with three piercings - oh! Painful! Painful!
Now, here's one movie that deserves the NC-17. Don't you know frank depictions can often end up being unappetizing. Should the non-pornographic depiction of Sex be such that it turns one away from it? I suppose Honore set-out to discourage the depravity, but I think he has succeeded in discouraging any sexual activity. Or perhaps the intent is to discourage anyone from seeing this movie.
I guess what happened was that my friend fell into that trap of thinking that since it is French it is profound (and I guess I fell for that a little as well). I like French films, and they usually have a better tab on sensitivity and are franker about sex and such. However, this movie may be frank about sex (in it's abundant nudity and explicit depiction) but is far from sensitive or profound.
The movie essentially follows the story of Pierre (Louis Garell, who I have seen before in a good performance in Bertolucci's The Dreamers ) who after his father's death, slowly descends into his mother's world of depravity and sexual excess (he lust after and eventually has sex with her - a scene which culminates in her death because of the "kink" involved - in 20X Fast-forward the second half of the film is eminently watchable). The Dreamers also had themes of incest and sexual excess, but if you compare the handling of the material in the two movies, you'll know why Bertolucci is considered one of the greats and Christopher Honore is one you (at least I) have never heard of. According to my French friend, George Bataille's novel is supposed to be pretty good, but is it any wonder that I am not really looking forward to reading it.
I give the film a big zero. I had originally given it 2 (for the nudity; beautiful French women) but I take away those points for the repeated close-ups of a male member with three piercings - oh! Painful! Painful!
Now, here's one movie that deserves the NC-17. Don't you know frank depictions can often end up being unappetizing. Should the non-pornographic depiction of Sex be such that it turns one away from it? I suppose Honore set-out to discourage the depravity, but I think he has succeeded in discouraging any sexual activity. Or perhaps the intent is to discourage anyone from seeing this movie.
Requiem for a Dream (2000) - 9/10
"When college came around I wasn't very prepared. I hit the library and tried to learn. But Selby fucked everything up. From sentence one I was done, and so were my finals." - Darren Aronofsky, director of Requiem for a Dream.
I must admit, for a few minutes after watching Requiem for a Dream I could not really understand why the film was called so. Thankfully, my mental blank didn't last long and I quickly realized that it meant a requiem for quite a few dreams, not just the obvious ones that are referred to in the movie (the section titled Summer epitomizes that for me) but the dreams of any life gone (or going) wrong; of America perhaps, but that is probably stretching it a bit.
When I sit back and try to think about why I drew that blank, I begin to realize that it was mostly the experience of watching the movie itself that had numbed me. That is not to say that the movie is bad. Quite the contrary in fact I think this is a very good movie. But any good piece of Art (music, books, a movie) always tends to elevate one from the immediate and into much larger consequences, those of life (mostly of one's own). Then one is too deep in that process to distract and respond to such minor considerations of what a movie's title signifies, although classes of students will perhaps write papers about exactly that.
Before I launch into a more detailed examination of the movie, it's interesting to think about all the reasons why I chose to see this movie: A former-junkie friend of mine told me this was a life-changing movie, and I believed him (he gave up drugs after seeing the movie); Critical reaction was generally positive (especially Ebert's, who by the way is my favourite film critic); Jennifer Connelly is in it, and She is one actress who has in recent times not only looked fantastic but has also taken projects that have been challenging (yes! yes! I suppose her doing an ass-to-ass dildo sequence must have factored into my decision somewhat); friends have recommended that I read Hubert Selby Jr's novel on which this movie is based, and from experience I know to see a movie before I read a book (that way the movie does not disappoint you); and finally I had heard it had innovative camera use and a great score. An interesting mix of reasons, no doubt. Now, having seen it, I am thankful that I did. It is much better than I expected.
The film follows four main characters from Brooklyn, NY: Sara (Ellen Burstyn) is an old woman who lives alone and the high point of her day is watching TV, she gets a prank call telling her that she has been selected to appear in a TV show, this brings some much-needed interest into her life - she begins dieting in order to lose weight and fit into her favourite red dress - until she starts taking diet pills (which gradually turn into an addiction); Sara's son Harry (Jared Leto) is a junkie who steals visits her mother occasionally in order to borrow her TV set and pawn it for drug-money (the movie opens with a sequence of Sara having chained the TV to a radiator in order to prevent him from doing so, Harry says it's only for a couple of hours because as usual once he is gone Sara'll go and get back her TV anyway, and takes it); Harry's girlfriend Marion is also a junkie and so much so that her (relatively wealthy) family has severed all ties with her, her only connection is through the shrink Arnold (who occasionally gives Marion money in exchange for Sex); and Tyrone (Marlon Wayans of Scary Movie fame in a surprisingly good performance) is Harry's best friend and they hang out (and take drugs) together.
Tyrone and Harry discover some good shit and along with Marion decide to start a little trafficking business of their own. The Summer sequence shows that the organization is doing well, and so is Sara (because of her TV call; she dies her hair and begins dieting in right earnest, eventually visiting a Doctor who prescribes diet pills). Harry decides to help Marion open her own clothes-store (we find out that she does some fashion designing). Gradually, as Summer passes, things start go bad. A gang war breaks out, Tyrone is arrested and the Drugs and money is lost. Meanwhile, Sara develops a full-blown addiction with the diet pills. As Fall and then Winter come in, things get progressively worse and each of the character's recedes deeper and deeper into their addiction. Even the wonderful relationship between Harry and Sara becomes soured because drugs are no longer close at hand.
The movie does a great job of capturing the descent into addiction as well as conveying what the people feel like when they are under the influence. Another movie that conveyed the effect well was Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, although I think this movie does a much better job of it. FLLV was also unclear about what the message of it was. Yes it was cool as a drug-trip movie but other than that it wasn't much. I don't know if that is also a reflection of Hubert Selby Jr's writing being superior to that of Hunter S. Thompson's (I have a feeling that it is, but cannot pass judgement until I have read Selby's work).
A number of things go into conveying that experience. The camera use is of course paramount, the use of fast-forwards, jump cuts, efficiently edited montages backed with wonderful sound effects/editing, fish-eye and following an individual character with a steady camera on the character's face. And through this all is the fantastic score, which moves up and down along with the mood and is more than effective in enhancing the entire movie beyond being just merely good. There is also an underlying sense of rhythm (which speeds up when characters are on a trip) primarily created by the score but also by the wonderful editing, which is exhilarating (which may not be the right word for this movie).
The movie is more than successful in what it sets out to depict. That the descent is not only personal, physical but also moral (as character's do things they would not do in a normal state of mind). The acting is wonderful, all four actors have wonderful performances. One is no stranger to Ellen Burstyn. But all the other three were revelations (including Connelly, although She has had many wonderful performances through her career). The direction is wonderful. What I found particularly good about Aronofsky's direction was his restraint. As evidenced in a movie like FLLV one can literally go off the top with material like this. But Aronofsky is in complete control. Even the much-hyped dildo sequence is done in such a way that there is nothing remotely erotic / pornographic about it (and that is a shame on all those souls out there in cyberspace who have written volumes about it - so what if it is JC?)
Overall, I give this movie 9 on my personal scale of 10. The only short-comings for me are that it could have been shorter by 10 minutes (although I would not hazard guessing where, maybe the drug trips are one too many, and the TV sequences involving Tappy), that it does not have any semblance of hope for its characters and that in effect it does not offer any of the characters a choice, addiction only seems the logical way-to-go and that is much too hopeless for me. But definitely recommended for anyone but the squeamish.
P.S. The special edition DVD that I saw had an NC-17 rating and that is completely unreasonable. For one thing, as Ebert points this is something teenagers considering the drug-route need to see. For another, I find it completely baffling that Grindhouse that I saw yesterday had an R rating. My rant about censorship in general is forthcoming.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Ebert's Great Movies List
Roger Ebert is my favourite movie critic. This is not because I agree with all he has to say, but because he always makes me listen (or read to be exact). For example he didn't like Die Hard, which is a movie I have seen n number of times, but that was not because he doesn't like the Action/Thriller genre (like some other high-strung critics I know; consider that he gives Speed 4 stars) but because he didn't like the movie (and he gives persuasive reasons why). This is consistent with his overall style of reviewing which considers each film in the context of its genre in addition to the bigger picture, which seems to me a very fair way of looking at things.
In summary, one is safe seeing movies he has given more than 3 stars (3.5 / 4 stars). They may not be exactly to one's liking but are almost always worth a watch. His great films list is of course something else, on evidence so far (I mark the movies I have seen in bold below) each of those movies is a must-watch.
But I will write more about Ebert and his reviewing later, for now here is Ebert's List of the Greatest movies ever made (I'll try to update the list with the names of directors soon):
follow this link to read his reviews of these movies
12 Angry Men (1957)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
3 Women (1977)
8 1/2 (1963)
A Christmas Story (1983)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
A Sunday in the Country (1984)
A Tale of Winter (1992)
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
A Woman's Tale (1992)
A Year of the Quiet Sun (1984)
Ace in the Hole (1951)
After Dark, My Sweet (1990)
Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)
Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1974)
Alien (1979)
All About Eve (1950)
Amadeus (1984)
Amarcord (1974)
Annie Hall (1977)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Army of Shadows (1969)
Atlantic City (1980)
Au Hasard Balthazar (1966)
Au Revoir, les Enfants (1987)
Babel (2006)
Beat the Devil (1954)
Beauty and the Beast (1946)
Being There (1979)
Belle de Jour (1967)
Blowup (1966)
Bob le Flambeur (1955)
Body Heat (1981)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Breathless (1960)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)
Broken Blossoms (1919)
Cabiria (1914)
Casablanca (1942)
Cat People (1942)
Children of Paradise (1945)
Chimes at Midnight (1965)
Chinatown (1974)
Chuck Jones: Three Cartoons (1953-1957)
Citizen Kane (1941)
City Lights (1931)
Cries and Whispers (1972)
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
Crumb (1994)
Dark City (2005)
Day for Night (1973)
Days of Heaven (1978)
Detour (1945)
Do the Right Thing (1989)
Don't Look Now (1974)
Double Indemnity (1944)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Dracula (1931)
Duck Soup (1933)
E.T. -- The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Easy Rider (1969)
El Norte (1983)
Fanny and Alexander (1983)
Fargo (1996)
Faust (1926)
Fitzcarraldo (1982)
Five Easy Pieces (1970)
Floating Weeds (1959)
Forbidden Games (1952)
Gates of Heaven (1978)
Goldfinger (1964)
Gone With the Wind (1939)
GoodFellas (1991)
Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)
Grand Illusion (1937)
Grave of the Fireflies (1988)
Great Expectations (1946)
Greed (1925)
Groundhog Day (1993)
Hoop Dreams (1994)
House of Games (1987)
Howards End (1992)
Ikiru (1952)
In Cold Blood (1967)
Inherit the Wind (1960)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Jaws (1975)
JFK (1991)
Jules and Jim (1961)
Juliet of the Spirits (1965)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
King Kong (1933)
La Dolce Vita (1960)
Last Tango in Paris (1972)
Last Year at Marienbad (1961)
L'Atalante (1934)
Late Spring (1972)
Laura (1944)
L'Avventura (1960)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Le Boucher / The Butcher (2003)
Le Samourai (1967)
Leaving Las Vegas (1995)
Leolo (1993)
M (1931)
Manhattan (1979)
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
Mean Streets (1973)
Metropolis (1926)
Mon Oncle (1958)
Moonstruck (1987)
Mr. Hulot's Holiday (1953)
My Darling Clementine (1946)
My Dinner With Andre (1981)
My Fair Lady (1964)
My Life to Live / Vivre sa Vie (1963)
My Neighbor Totoro (1993)
Nanook of the North (1922)
Nashville (1975)
Network (1976)
Night Moves (1975)
Nights of Cabiria (1957)
Nosferatu (1922)
Notorious (1946)
On the Waterfront (1954)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Orpheus (1949)
Out of the Past (1947)
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Pandora's Box (1928)
Paris, Texas (1984)
Paths of Glory (1957)
Patton (1970)
Peeping Tom (1960)
Persona (1966)
Pickpocket (1959)
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)
Pinocchio (1940)
Pixote (1981)
Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987)
Playtime (1967)
Psycho (1960)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Raging Bull (1980)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Raise the Red Lantern (1990)
Ran (1985)
Rashomon (1950)
Rear Window (1954)
Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
Red River (1948)
Rififi (1954)
Ripley's Game (2002)
Romeo and Juliet (1968)
Safety Last (1923)
Samurai Rebellion (1967)
Santa Sangre (1989)
Saturday Night Fever (1977)
Say Anything (1989)
Scarface (1983)
Schindler's List (1993)
Shane (1953)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Solaris (1972)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Star Wars (1977)
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Stroszek (1977)
Sunrise (1928)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Swing Time (1936)
Taxi Driver (1976)
The 400 Blows (1959)
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1939)
The Age of Innocence (1993)
The Apartment (1960)
The Apu Trilogy (1959)
The Band Wagon (1953)
The Bank Dick (1940)
The Battle of Algiers (1967)
The Battleship Potemkin (1925)
The Bicycle Thief (1949)
The Big Heat (1953)
The Big Red One (1980)
The Big Sleep (1946)
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
The Blue Kite (1993)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
The Color Purple (1985)
The Conversation (1974)
The Dead (1987)
The Decalogue (1988)
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)
The Earrings of Madame de... (1953)
The Exterminating Angel (1962)
The Fall of the House of Usher (1928)
The Films of Buster Keaton (1923)
The Firemen's Ball (1968)
The General (1927)
The Godfather (1972)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1968)
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
The Great Dictator (1940)
The Hustler (1961)
The Lady Eve (1941)
The Last Laugh (1924)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
The Leopard (1963)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
The Long Goodbye (1973)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Man Who Laughs (1928)
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
The Marriage of Maria Braun (1979)
The Music Room (1958)
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
The Producers (1968)
The Red Shoes (1948)
The Right Stuff (1983)
The River (Le Fleuve) (1951)
The Rules of the Game (1939)
The Scarlet Empress (1934)
The Searchers (1956)
The Seven Samurai (1954)
The Seventh Seal (1957)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
The Shining (1980)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
The Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
The Terrorist (2000)
The Thin Man (1934)
The Third Man (1949)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
The Up Documentaries (1985)
The Wild Bunch (1969)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
Three Colors Trilogy (1994)
Tokyo Story (1953)
Top Hat (1935)
Touch of Evil (1958)
Touchez Pas au Grisbi (1954)
Trouble in Paradise (1932)
Ugetsu (1953)
Umberto D (1952)
Un Chien Andalou (1928)
Unforgiven (1992)
Vertigo (1958)
Victim (1961)
Walkabout (1971)
Werckmeister Harmonies (2000)
West Side Story (1961)
Wings of Desire (1988)
Woman in the Dunes (1964)
Woodstock (1970)
Written on the Wind (1956)
Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
Yellow Submarine (1968)
Yojimbo (1961)
In summary, one is safe seeing movies he has given more than 3 stars (3.5 / 4 stars). They may not be exactly to one's liking but are almost always worth a watch. His great films list is of course something else, on evidence so far (I mark the movies I have seen in bold below) each of those movies is a must-watch.
But I will write more about Ebert and his reviewing later, for now here is Ebert's List of the Greatest movies ever made (I'll try to update the list with the names of directors soon):
follow this link to read his reviews of these movies
12 Angry Men (1957)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
3 Women (1977)
8 1/2 (1963)
A Christmas Story (1983)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
A Sunday in the Country (1984)
A Tale of Winter (1992)
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
A Woman's Tale (1992)
A Year of the Quiet Sun (1984)
Ace in the Hole (1951)
After Dark, My Sweet (1990)
Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)
Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1974)
Alien (1979)
All About Eve (1950)
Amadeus (1984)
Amarcord (1974)
Annie Hall (1977)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Army of Shadows (1969)
Atlantic City (1980)
Au Hasard Balthazar (1966)
Au Revoir, les Enfants (1987)
Babel (2006)
Beat the Devil (1954)
Beauty and the Beast (1946)
Being There (1979)
Belle de Jour (1967)
Blowup (1966)
Bob le Flambeur (1955)
Body Heat (1981)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Breathless (1960)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)
Broken Blossoms (1919)
Cabiria (1914)
Casablanca (1942)
Cat People (1942)
Children of Paradise (1945)
Chimes at Midnight (1965)
Chinatown (1974)
Chuck Jones: Three Cartoons (1953-1957)
Citizen Kane (1941)
City Lights (1931)
Cries and Whispers (1972)
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
Crumb (1994)
Dark City (2005)
Day for Night (1973)
Days of Heaven (1978)
Detour (1945)
Do the Right Thing (1989)
Don't Look Now (1974)
Double Indemnity (1944)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Dracula (1931)
Duck Soup (1933)
E.T. -- The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Easy Rider (1969)
El Norte (1983)
Fanny and Alexander (1983)
Fargo (1996)
Faust (1926)
Fitzcarraldo (1982)
Five Easy Pieces (1970)
Floating Weeds (1959)
Forbidden Games (1952)
Gates of Heaven (1978)
Goldfinger (1964)
Gone With the Wind (1939)
GoodFellas (1991)
Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)
Grand Illusion (1937)
Grave of the Fireflies (1988)
Great Expectations (1946)
Greed (1925)
Groundhog Day (1993)
Hoop Dreams (1994)
House of Games (1987)
Howards End (1992)
Ikiru (1952)
In Cold Blood (1967)
Inherit the Wind (1960)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Jaws (1975)
JFK (1991)
Jules and Jim (1961)
Juliet of the Spirits (1965)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
King Kong (1933)
La Dolce Vita (1960)
Last Tango in Paris (1972)
Last Year at Marienbad (1961)
L'Atalante (1934)
Late Spring (1972)
Laura (1944)
L'Avventura (1960)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Le Boucher / The Butcher (2003)
Le Samourai (1967)
Leaving Las Vegas (1995)
Leolo (1993)
M (1931)
Manhattan (1979)
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
Mean Streets (1973)
Metropolis (1926)
Mon Oncle (1958)
Moonstruck (1987)
Mr. Hulot's Holiday (1953)
My Darling Clementine (1946)
My Dinner With Andre (1981)
My Fair Lady (1964)
My Life to Live / Vivre sa Vie (1963)
My Neighbor Totoro (1993)
Nanook of the North (1922)
Nashville (1975)
Network (1976)
Night Moves (1975)
Nights of Cabiria (1957)
Nosferatu (1922)
Notorious (1946)
On the Waterfront (1954)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Orpheus (1949)
Out of the Past (1947)
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Pandora's Box (1928)
Paris, Texas (1984)
Paths of Glory (1957)
Patton (1970)
Peeping Tom (1960)
Persona (1966)
Pickpocket (1959)
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)
Pinocchio (1940)
Pixote (1981)
Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987)
Playtime (1967)
Psycho (1960)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Raging Bull (1980)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Raise the Red Lantern (1990)
Ran (1985)
Rashomon (1950)
Rear Window (1954)
Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
Red River (1948)
Rififi (1954)
Ripley's Game (2002)
Romeo and Juliet (1968)
Safety Last (1923)
Samurai Rebellion (1967)
Santa Sangre (1989)
Saturday Night Fever (1977)
Say Anything (1989)
Scarface (1983)
Schindler's List (1993)
Shane (1953)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Solaris (1972)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Star Wars (1977)
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Stroszek (1977)
Sunrise (1928)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Swing Time (1936)
Taxi Driver (1976)
The 400 Blows (1959)
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1939)
The Age of Innocence (1993)
The Apartment (1960)
The Apu Trilogy (1959)
The Band Wagon (1953)
The Bank Dick (1940)
The Battle of Algiers (1967)
The Battleship Potemkin (1925)
The Bicycle Thief (1949)
The Big Heat (1953)
The Big Red One (1980)
The Big Sleep (1946)
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
The Blue Kite (1993)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
The Color Purple (1985)
The Conversation (1974)
The Dead (1987)
The Decalogue (1988)
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)
The Earrings of Madame de... (1953)
The Exterminating Angel (1962)
The Fall of the House of Usher (1928)
The Films of Buster Keaton (1923)
The Firemen's Ball (1968)
The General (1927)
The Godfather (1972)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1968)
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
The Great Dictator (1940)
The Hustler (1961)
The Lady Eve (1941)
The Last Laugh (1924)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
The Leopard (1963)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
The Long Goodbye (1973)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Man Who Laughs (1928)
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
The Marriage of Maria Braun (1979)
The Music Room (1958)
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
The Producers (1968)
The Red Shoes (1948)
The Right Stuff (1983)
The River (Le Fleuve) (1951)
The Rules of the Game (1939)
The Scarlet Empress (1934)
The Searchers (1956)
The Seven Samurai (1954)
The Seventh Seal (1957)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
The Shining (1980)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
The Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
The Terrorist (2000)
The Thin Man (1934)
The Third Man (1949)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
The Up Documentaries (1985)
The Wild Bunch (1969)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
Three Colors Trilogy (1994)
Tokyo Story (1953)
Top Hat (1935)
Touch of Evil (1958)
Touchez Pas au Grisbi (1954)
Trouble in Paradise (1932)
Ugetsu (1953)
Umberto D (1952)
Un Chien Andalou (1928)
Unforgiven (1992)
Vertigo (1958)
Victim (1961)
Walkabout (1971)
Werckmeister Harmonies (2000)
West Side Story (1961)
Wings of Desire (1988)
Woman in the Dunes (1964)
Woodstock (1970)
Written on the Wind (1956)
Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
Yellow Submarine (1968)
Yojimbo (1961)
I have finally decided to start blogging: Surprise! Surprise!
I see a lot of movies. In the last year I have seen more than 300 movies (believe me I've been keeping track). So it is safe to say that I am a movie-lover (personally, I hate the term cinephile). I also love writing. This blog is therefore an attempt to bring those two loves together. To write about movies, what could be better than that.
I hope that this will serve as good writing exercise, while continuing my internal conversation about Art and what it means for something to be considered Art (in the context of movies in this case but hopefully this project will expand and extend into other domains in time).
I hope that this will serve as good writing exercise, while continuing my internal conversation about Art and what it means for something to be considered Art (in the context of movies in this case but hopefully this project will expand and extend into other domains in time).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)